Received: from localhost ([::1]:38898 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aCS1I-0005rD-26; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:02:56 -0800 Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:34230) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aCS1B-0005r0-DN for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:02:53 -0800 Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e126so260967329ioa.1 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:02:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=gSd1GEN1irURFnx5MvGnBhFy8PMjFfkRfuEUdi+yw+c=; b=sHEvwxvhT7Y5m/68kFKS+QDnWAeFcqX+uNEI1GeS/b5L59Iee8EgqgSzJLuCeZFby7 V+THrSG9S/OXEMQS/XwDamxL3+c/f0C22kML1ETBM963IPN1tteeIxp/3ABaVxcH7C/j bWZglK5q6d98s9VTqqcQ9ooCbzhWrWVqPeb90s8nFwl5VN8NviUaaBVjLVe7jbAP4u6u qeDofeBpmNltoq+prWy0MoV1EztEaOs96kKvURve//NfB2IPlWdeMqOYcT2JD1kgIkKD 4rUcqt+Y7vjY4O2G+y01aG395iMeidvKDFdQfPAvwj/NZ25QzTQiflHIQtfQV8Mf25d3 RJug== X-Received: by 10.107.159.7 with SMTP id i7mr21594314ioe.29.1451048563075; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:02:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.112.14 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:02:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> <4E514785-A922-4D75-B34A-EFB3880C5712@gmail.com> <566701E3.4060408@lojban.org> <566CD949.7010504@lojban.org> <5671E710.2020407@lojban.org> From: guskant Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:02:23 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > Yes, I edit that branch. CLL 2.0 is a purely unofficial unstable draft so > that we can get at least some feedback. > What is the official BPFK repository for CLL? > What is even the next version of CLL? > Isn't it CLL 1.5 ? > > Why do you think the next edition is CLL 2.0 and that I'm editing what is > supposed to become the next edition? In the mailing list I proposed it to be > downgraded in future to CLL 1.5. > I recognize that CLL2.0 branch https://github.com/lojban/cll/commits/docbook-prince-cll-2.0 was and will be modified for the next official CLL. As I wrote in my first post to this thread: 2015-12-17 3:26 GMT+00:00 guskant : > I think the modifications should be periodically or finally discussed and admitted by byfy Answers to your questions are to be concluded in this thread if you don't disturb. 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > I ask questions, you don't reply. So what am I supposed to think of that? > I cannot identify the questions you refer to. Could you list them up if you need any reply of me to them? 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > In fact it was me who proposed using that branch for upgrading CLL but no > one replied. > This means that branch is not official so I don't even have any excuses. > As I wrote above, it is one of the subject I discussed in my first post to this thread. 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > 1. If you want that CLL 2.0 branch to be official (which I also want) PLEASE > PLEASE PLEASE reply to the corresponding BPFK message. Or make your own > proposal. My proposal was written in my first post to this thread so that we will be able to discuss. 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > 2. After that we can discuss how to apply commits to it and make that policy > official too. > I agree. 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > I wanted to make commits so that BPFK can vote for all of them at once. > If there is some disagreement then using cross division they can be split > into smaller parts. > If another proposal wins, namely, vote over each pull request that's fine to > me too. > OK, I see what you wanted, and it is different from my preference I wrote: 2015-12-25 2:33 GMT+00:00 guskant : > It relieves my anxious that you don't plan to destroy CLL. How ever, > you have already removed from CLL2.0 "voi" and "observative" that are > not yet agreed by BPFK. We will be able to remove your push and save > only the other's fruitful pushes in the future, but I rather prefer > that you make only comments on lines, and don't touch the contents > before agreement by BPFK. I really hate your dictatorship (sorry, I > have no other word to qualify your various activities). > Probably the majority agree to you, then I should obey the decision. 2015-12-25 6:56 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > 2015-12-25 5:33 GMT+03:00 guskant : >> >> It relieves my anxious that you don't plan to destroy CLL. How ever, >> you have already removed from CLL2.0 "voi" and "observative" that are >> not yet agreed by BPFK. > > > Well, actually you are wrong, which might be explained that git is not a > tool easy for everyone. > > For observatives I just made push requests as you can see here: > https://github.com/lojban/cll/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed > > Since there is no official policy on how to assess such push requests > another person merged them into the CLL 2.0 branch. > OK, maybe I should have explained the process of push and pull. Anyway, your pushes were pulled, and "voi" and "observative" were removed as a result. It is true that you only commented them out, but that means those words will not appear in the book. My preference is that you only make comments to each line without doing that if the parts are not yet discussed by BPFK. Your preference is that you change all as you like and push (and those are currently mostly pulled), and after that, BPFK will discuss the validity. We can discuss the procedure here. I will obey the majority. Now, I would like to explain why I prefer the procedure that BPFK first discuss a modification of the language design, and after that CLL2.0 should be modified. A modification need many technical discussions from points of view of linguistics, logic, grammar and so on. The discussion might result in a slightly or mostly different design than you or we expected. If CLL is first modified, pushed and then discussed, the push will be only a waste of time. mu'o mi'e la guskant _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members