From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Mar 30 22:55:47 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nwqtx-00007Z-HT for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:55:47 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100331055534.BTJY16574.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:55:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.225.124]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id zhvW1d00D2hfrC602hvWBM; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:55:34 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=cs6kSf+HHnKg3LeUHIN5b3vawL7XSC7SgZ9jeip75oA= c=1 sm=1 a=x02eCAk4m3EA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=fjXZEXWleqWP2xuus50A:9 a=bf-kT9Co5fzv5djbSH4A:7 a=N_jyuHFIMy8iWMrsfKIooR_h99cA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Xy1d2M_JUfAA:10 a=dGidjG53QXAEKhDJ:21 a=GlC7xNimVAFOWpkh:21 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4BB2E3D1.5050102@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:55:29 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: VOTE RIGHT NOW (was RE: [rdentato@gmail.com: Creation of CLL PDF and HTML version]) References: <20100330073349.GN6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100330074134.GF3000@nvg.org> <20100330170011.GS6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BB238B0.4000208@lojban.org> <20100330175115.GU6084@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20100330175115.GU6084@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 630 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:45:20PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > >>I think 24 hours is a bit short, in a non-emergency situation. I >>try to check my mail every day, but it sometimes doesn't happen >>(and I expect to be offline for two whole days, maybe even three, >>later this week, helping my son out. > > I would probably have called you if you hadn't responded. > >>However, I thought it had been approved last time round (which is >>why I never put any effort into my version - I had asked for more >>time, and not seen any support granting me that time). So I won't >>object. This was erroneous recall on my part. Last time round, I made three suggestions I could live with, one of which was to give me a short time to incorporate the errata as an alternative to what Remo had done. In any case, if a new version goes up on the LLG site (Remo's version, or the official master updated either by Remo or me), it should be voted on by byfy as a baseline change based on established precedent (see below). So I change my abstention to a "no" vote. > You've had six months. I'm aware that's unfair because you didn't > know it was still up in the air, but your track record on "I will do > X" since I've joined the project is on the order of 1/50, not > counting book fulfilment. No offense, just observing. I see no > mail to llg-board of you asking for time, so I'm out of the loop. > > How much time do you want? To do what, exactly? I was referring to my incorporating the changes into the official master (baseline document), one of the three alternatives I suggested. Here is a review of what has gone on, as I understand it after rereading my mail archive: The topic was originally raised (to the Board) in September and October. Arnt suggested a policy in an email on 6 October. Matt agreed with it, and Arnt then asked you and me to comment. I did so in a post on 7 Oct. You did not comment (nor did anyone else respond to Arnt). I won't repost all this, unless others lack an archive. Summarizing, however, there was a debate over whether Remo needed permission to publish his own version of CLL. The conclusion seemed to be that he needed no permission. There was a debate over whether we should host that version on the LLG site, thereby apparently granting it quasi-official status. I objected without at least a pro forma byfy vote, because we explicitly set a policy that byfy has to approve changes to the baseline, and a new CLL on the LLG website WILL be taken as a revised baseline version (unless heavily disclaimed, or put up alongside a true baseline version; i.e., the existing master for which policy has been NOT to release). My specific words at the end, which I think are critical: > Public scrutiny is fine, but attaching any sort of official approval > to it before there is *official* scrutiny is dangerous. Some 10-15 years > ago, I was chewed out publicly for making similar kinds of corrections > in the baselined gismu list. I was convinced by others that even typo > changes should all be formally approved and that my personal judgment as > author wasn't good enough in a formal baseline situation. I also was angry at the timing, because we had responded to multiple requests for a copy of the master with a statement that we hadn't decided to do so yet, and putting up a version of CLL *at that point*, seemed like a slap in the face at our policy. I was also unhappy because the issue was not raised in the annual meeting that had just concluded, even though it was apparent that this was in the works for a while. I suggested, as an alternative, that I update the master with the same set of changes. I did not ask for any specific amount of time. No one responded, and the topic died. A week later Cowan posted that we ought to give permission, provided it has a suitable copyright notice, but Cowan has been off the Board for more that a year, so his opinion was not a vote (we've seem to have gotten sloppy about who participates in the Board meeting, but that is a separate issue). The topic was reraised at the beginning of January. You favored giving permission. Arnt and I had reservations. Matt never commented. I tried to make my response constructive, rather than merely being negative. Here was what I actually posted (Matt please read if you hadn't earlier). You will see that I suggested three possibilities. The third possibility was to put it up, but only alongside the official version (making clear that Remo's version is not an official baseline change, thereby making the baseline question a non-issue). > Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:30:01AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:08:55PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:37:02PM +0200, Remo Dentato wrote: >>>>> The present email is for asking permission of uploading on >>>>> lojban.org (and hence make availble to all) a PDF and HTML >>>>> version of "The Complete Lojban Language". >>>> I think we should do this ASAP. >>> Fine by me. >> >> How about the rest of you? >> >> I would rather not overrule Bob on this. > Since I haven't done my own version with typo corrections (much as I have been meaning to), my best suggestion would be to ask the guy who did it if he would be willing to do the same thing he has already done, applying the typo corrections to the real master copy (which I already have updated to what I believe is the current Microsoft .docx format). If s/he were to do that, then verifying what was corrected should be trivial; the BPFK could approve it using the procedures it already has used for checkpoints - holding a vote open for a week or so (it shouldn't take long to verify typo corrections, and someone could do a diff to make sure that nothing else was changed). And thus we maintain the precedent of prior approval. > > Alternatively, you can give me a couple of weeks to "put up or shut up" and get my own version done by then or drop my objection. > > We can also put up the current PDF master, which of course doesn't have typo corrections, but does have the index and of course matches the printed version exactly by page. That takes no work other than whatever Robin has to do to link it into the page (after I email it to him - it's about a 2 meg document which is no longer as hard to send through email as it used to be.) > > lojbab Again, there was no response, and in particular from my point of view, no hint of a request that I undertake my own version. My assumption at that point was that none of my suggestions were accepted, and that therefore I was being overruled. But especially without Matt's opinion, it seems nothing was decided. (Matt has *now* voted yes on your motion, but I'm not sure he was paying attention when the issue was being discussed.) In answer to >> How much time do you want? To do what, exactly? I was referring to my second suggestion in the past tense, which seems to be what everyone is recalling, but which no one ever asked me to do. As you can see, being realistic about my track record on such things, I made it an alternative. With my son in a health crisis, I need some serious urging from you guys to invest time and focus into this. I did not get it. I am not sure how much time I "want"; it would take a serious wrenching of priorities for me to crunch on this - my suggestion that you give me a "put up or shut up" was serious - you decide what is acceptable, and I can either do it or not. (though I still want a byfy vote if Remo's version goes on the LLG site unless my third suggestion is taken - it should NOT be a Board decision to change the baseline, because we removed such questions from the Board's jurisdiction to the byfy at the time the byfy was created). lojbab