Received: from localhost ([::1]:33460 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YAL8c-0002uF-1P; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:13:14 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net ([68.230.241.217]:53279) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YAL8X-0002tH-Ef for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:13:10 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20150111161303.LDKW26047.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo209> for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:13:03 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.248.61]) by eastrmimpo209 with cox id egD21p00Y1LDWBL01gD35G; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:13:03 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.54B2A10F.008B,ss=1,re=0.001,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=H/cFNZki c=1 sm=1 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:17 a=vKzndnNFKpQA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=tA3sc3ptiwSELb4kCLoA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=Y9zURTiJ0bxfvk00:21 a=82bPXAtWIwlu8gLz:21 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <54B2A10F.3080009@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:13:03 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <54B146BE.3030503@lojban.org> <54B1D51C.4070908@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: On 1/11/2015 9:25 AM, Matt Arnold wrote: > Arg. Why can't you? 1) I'm not a dictator 2) it seems to be the sort of thing that members might want to exercise some discretion on. and 3) indeed, per your objection below, I'm not supposed to make motions since I am the chair. [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in lojban.org.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [68.230.241.217 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Subject: Re: [Llg-members] CLL republication - continuation of the meeting X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On 1/11/2015 9:25 AM, Matt Arnold wrote: > Arg. Why can't you? 1) I'm not a dictator 2) it seems to be the sort of thing that members might want to exercise some discretion on. and 3) indeed, per your objection below, I'm not supposed to make motions since I am the chair. Fine. $2000. OK. Let the record show, for the umpteenth > time, that I regard parlaimentary procedure as a dumb waste of our time. It tends to be, until the times when it suddenly isn't. But in this case, it wasn't primarily a parliamentary procedure issue. This is supposed to be a member-run organization. Having the members step up and helping to run things makes it more likely that the organization will continue when I am no longer making *any* decisions. And this year has made it clear that time all that far off. And I can't pretend to any great wisdom on money matters. > Stack all the time Lojbanists spend splitting hairs like this in formal > organizations, The total time most of the members have spent participating in this meeting or the formal organization over the last two months probably does not amount to one hour, and was probably zero over the preceding 6 months (Riley and Robin being noteworthy exceptions). > and stack it next to all the time being spent on > advancing the Lojban project. I wish more were spending time on that too, but we seem to be losing Robin's involvement in part because not all that many are doing that, either. > It's so out of proportion, as to be > unnecessary. Individuals should hang out in the IRC channel asking > people what they want. Rarely has anyone been there when I visited, other than a raft of bots. But we have some 25 of the supposedly most active people interested in organizational activities participating in this meeting. If I can't get even one of you to seriously think about how much money we want to spend on which activities, why would I expect to get useful input from IRC? And we already have reason to believe that the people who are active on IRC have considerably different opinions on what should be happening than the (primarily older) people that I've primarily communicated with. > Then each individual should just do what have > learned to be the obvious will of the community. The will of the community is not obvious, especially when it comes to decisions about spending money. > But if you're going to > make us play this game, then I'll go along with it. It is the absolute > worst game I know. You stepped up and made a motion. I couldn't ask for more from you. Maybe someone will second the motion, and we can vote (or more likely people will consent without comment, in which case you will have made a decision for everyone in the Lojban community all by yourself, thereby sparing Robin and me from having *all* of the responsibility.) --------------------- I am going to note here, for the benefit of the many new members, that there was a mini-revolution in LLG back around 2002-2003. Before then, I pretty much made all the decisions myself, checking with the Board being trivial, since my wife and I and other local Lojbanists constituted a majority of the Board. The members, led by Robin among others, said that they didn't want things to be that way, and I happily went along, and Nora and I stepped down from being officers. Alas, Robin is the only one of the "revolutionaries" from a dozen years ago who is still active, and now he is bowing out. But I am refusing to resume dictatorship. So the rest of you are going to have to start helping to make decisions. With the recent large donation, LLG may have around $15000 in the bank. We generally have been adding to that at maybe $1000 per year, mostly from sales of CLL, since the printing costs have long since been paid for. CLL cost around $16K to produce the first time, so $15K isn't a lot of money. Robin is making it seem like the $2000 Matt just proposed will be enough for republishing, but we likely won't be making nearly as much per book on the Lightning Source product. So the community needs to decide how to spend the additional money, including publishing a printed dictionary, perhaps a revision of the Nicholas/Turner textbook, and the next edition of CLL, which will likely incorporate some changes to the language, as well possibly supporting additional LogFests, and perhaps paying someone to manage things as Ali proposed a few weeks ago. If Robin completely drops out, we may also need to start paying for web-hosting and we may need to hire people to make a new web site work. I'll shut up now. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members