Received: from localhost ([::1]:51300 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDBiG-00072V-4D; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:45:48 -0800 Received: from static.217.217.251.148.clients.your-server.de ([148.251.217.217]:56671 helo=cracksucht.de) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDBiC-00072O-Sw for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:45:46 -0800 Message-ID: <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:45:36 +0100 From: selpahi To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> 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: la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e > At this point, byfy does not have the approval of changes in the > baseline word lists within its scope, though it was expected that it > would gain such authority within its scope eventually. Even if it is > within scope, I don't recall Robin as jatna/dictator issuing any > procedures or standards relating to the matter, and I have never seen > him call any formal vote on the matter (and I never voted), so I am not > sure why it is believed that BPFK has "approved" whatever is being > proposed. [...] 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 selpahi.de.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Subject: Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e > At this point, byfy does not have the approval of changes in the > baseline word lists within its scope, though it was expected that it > would gain such authority within its scope eventually. Even if it is > within scope, I don't recall Robin as jatna/dictator issuing any > procedures or standards relating to the matter, and I have never seen > him call any formal vote on the matter (and I never voted), so I am not > sure why it is believed that BPFK has "approved" whatever is being > proposed. For the record, what Robin tried was this: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/rqMLDfmGBWk/YGHLpV60zLQJ In that BPFK thread, Robin tries to declare the new definitions of {zabna} and {mabla} official; your response at the time was: > I see no problem with the change (the other could be expressed as a > lujvo, I believe), but the relevant baseline document is the gismu list, > and not jbovlaste, so I would want to see a definition that fits that > context. > > Also, absent a formal change to the baseline, I would like a note added > to the top of the gismu list indicating that the definition has changed, > the date of change, and that Robin is doing do by byfy jatna fiat. I'm not sure if this means that changing the gismu list is within Robin's power as jatna or not. In any case, it is unreasonable and damaging (regardless of whether or that practice adheres to LLG standards) to keep these (and other outdated) definitions in jbovlaste under the user marked "officialdata" with 10000 votes. Practically nobody uses the old definitions of {zabna} and {mabla}, and new people are mislead time and again when they search for their definitions, because it still displays the old one. This must be changed, and not in ten years after everything else has been done, but right now (years ago, really). It is time to update our agenda and be able to do the urgent things immediately, especially when they are so easy to do. But we will get to that when we get to discussing the baseline. mi'e la selpa'i mu'o _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members