From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Mar 31 10:06:36 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx1NE-0006iv-91 for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:06:36 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:06:36 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: VOTE RIGHT NOW (was RE: [rdentato@gmail.com: Creation of CLL PDF and HTML version]) Message-ID: <20100331170636.GK6084@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BB2E3D1.5050102@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-archive-position: 633 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:55:29AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > 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. My apologies; I never read much of it, due to time constraints. I assumed, since people were clearly involved (it's a pretty long thread) eventually someone would say "OK, let's vote". > 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'm reasonably certain that Remod was not aware of, or involved in, either of those things. Why do you think he was? > 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, Whoops. If this really bothers people, I'll take him off. > 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). *nod* > 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. You're right. Myself, I never actually read this. > 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). OK. That all makes sense and stuff. I think door #1 is a fantastic idea. I apologize again for not staying abreast of the prior discussion. Since this mail is effing gigantic, I'll summarize and move to amend in a new mail. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/