From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Sep 10 20:18:51 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.240.9]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OuGbe-0003NY-LB for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:18:51 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100911031811.YZWK25033.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:18:11 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 5FJA1f00F3Xcbvq02FJAPe; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:18:11 -0400 X-VR-Score: -140.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=yC2qc2vQlv8sGZde8H6j+ptPXNXumo3F9UlhLmG4EBA= c=1 sm=1 a=PZXXHCGhR2QA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=InGEeC_wk1EmQycS-X0A:9 a=cwHR2ZDUsWLBqB_FkG0A:7 a=yTNRe6LpWhit8VE95HodJO5tmkIA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=hjw2qcRdCHZwGfcu:21 a=gRgJIZ0TBzFyG2ah:21 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <4C8AF55C.3020603@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:19:56 -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: Robin told me to e-mail you. References: <234942.11937.qm@web50404.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4C681306.1070809@lojban.org> <20100910181945.GA20652@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20100910181945.GA20652@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 683 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: >>I don't think it would be wise to hire anyone on an hourly basis >>without paying at least minimum wage AND we would have to the >>other stuff associated with an employee, most notably paying the >>FICA (social security) tax. I rather strongly suspect that Robin >>wouldn't like the added paperwork. > > > Rather. > > >>We could hire him as a contractor, but I'm not sure whether we can >>evade laws in that way (or whether we should do so, even if we >>can). > > > I don't know either, and I desperately don't want to have to find > out. I'm totally fine with evading anything that saves me > paperwork. :D > > Another option is to pass the hat, as it were: have a bunch of > individuals chip in directly. Seems a waste with all our money > lying around, though. > > >>The real question is: how long would it take to do a satisfactory >>job on the BYFY project. If it could be done in 100 hours for >>$1000, I might be talked into it, but if it will take 500 hours >>and cost $5000, that is a lot tougher decision. > > > The work Lindar is capable of doing is limited; ey is not technical > in any sanse, including the sense required to seriously debate > Lojban language issues. Ey is fully capable of doing what I've > asked for on the BPFK community work page, however, and that's less > than 100 hours, IMO. Is this something significantly different from, or more than, the stuff being done in the recent flurry of activity (which seems like mostly that sort of non-technical stuff). It seems to me that there are two levels of technical stuff. One level involves extracting corpus examples for each word, and relevant text from CLL, and possibly using those examples to come up with one or more definitions (a different definition might apply to "pu" used as a tense, vs "pu" as a sumti tcita, of only because the definitions are being written in English, and the translation of the word is different because of English idiosyncrasies). Debating language issues is a wholly different matter, and possibly a never-ending task. I wish we could get everything else out of the way before we even start to debate language issues, and we might find that those worthy of significant debate are few enough to motivate us to eschew much debate. If reaching consensus means that I have to give in on a few minor points (or even a few dozen, if they are minor enough), I'll find it easy to do if I know that the job will then be done. (But let us save this for the annual meeting, if you disagree with me) >>The overall policy question of whether to pay people for Lojban >>work is a worthwhile topic for the annual meeting, whether or not >>we think Lindar's offer is useful. > > I very strongly agree, because I really *would* like for us to be > able to do that, I just don't want to do the required research > myself. At this point, I will be raising the matter under Old or New Business, as seems appropriate at the time. The Right Thing to Do (tm) is to consult with a lawyer or accountant, as to what would be legal. A secondary choice would be to ask the KLI if this has come up for them - they are more likely to have come up with such legal issues because of the nature of their relationship with Paramount, and they may even have someone they can consult on our behalf, in return for your having hosted their site these many months. It is possible that we can simply pay him as a non-employee consultant, more or less the way we pay Matt for doing fulfillment, with no special paperwork required, but the amount is sufficiently larger and it looks more like employment. But consulting with someone with expertise is worth doing, whether we need to do this with Lindar or not. lojbab