From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Tue Mar 30 23:23:52 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f228.google.com ([209.85.217.228]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NwrL2-0002BC-R9 for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:23:52 -0700 Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so3164820gxk.12 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:23:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sSBF7lc2F+NC9dSjSkeV2Std8zQoFCcw8dyjI1XgcDI=; b=ldKEOq4mTAMf2OscrByhM7Bnf2+crZGuMHDWMjJUuU9NQwcR2mRJT7YgJLCIVVY9ns vRiO2zCYjYAlcPKzogPSBUmkv/SnNmaRYTUZi/Hl6uH/QoNJQNUbsUhZqDEDKo5fYJto pGnqGE1W9/IVZuc1AnieiI4qoNMxB4jtneh2M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=uYrdByj8Bj7HqljP0rk+H9NC4D5G4pixaJX4iEfZvRUH8LxincG92z/uBA+0Ts13h8 f6WHgS40zFK35C1/gMsEb3iQ9mxHi0noAVkDb1XEckwaX0eqlNGACAlajIqkAl+X9EMx x1GeF216OytJ0a3CQkghZeN1+U+OnfV3LM5GY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.196.12 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:23:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BB2E3D1.5050102@lojban.org> References: <20100330073349.GN6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100330074134.GF3000@nvg.org> <20100330170011.GS6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BB238B0.4000208@lojban.org> <20100330175115.GU6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BB2E3D1.5050102@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:23:33 -0400 Received: by 10.150.253.18 with SMTP id a18mr4298265ybi.228.1270016613564; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: [llg-board] Re: VOTE RIGHT NOW (was RE: [rdentato@gmail.com: Creation of CLL PDF and HTML version]) From: Matt Arnold To: llg-board@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 631 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board OK, I read it. Is there an action item for me? -Matt On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > 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 > > >