Received: from localhost ([::1]:53397 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aYHR0-0007aC-G2; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:11:42 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:36816) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aYHQu-0007YX-9p for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:11:40 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id g62so235692840wme.1 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:11:36 -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=n86xhc5wobvDa1EKvxmN3lia0JpajASWDpyxz9C50Yk=; b=WSM5IQcnNn2oDbfPLiubDschlYonPB9MuZYK2vpDwtLPwpqvhSt1EIcAwexjIKD9kg ZEYflRnXMyLlCP88Tg9dTXY13hfLueO7uGQ7yTnlHjwaRK5EIPqgzkNtYAj7BOgjgRJs be/oTAdc8XyQUZLZ1RMfqz80T5Q+d68QvFYEkoTAzJc9voQS7PeYraVwRzcTaPOQexwK cCuXaVhdb0PLgzvPq/GJez0WItOwj5D9X0XbxNasDQex/t6NyFOK6iUAJLqZPWUSZ4Lf zxO/I0pb9NgjnPd35FGxpM8XvxZa/bXhg5mPZyn/DxXbfk47j8VmdgDkR2DJlySun850 d3VA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=n86xhc5wobvDa1EKvxmN3lia0JpajASWDpyxz9C50Yk=; b=YK0Ue+CcVruQ/6yGCk0w0HzSHS2Al5EQMBdQ47BEv2SC6t6R/z9ThXTsfhmrwy0kRp xLN8H8AHwAsFj9Cm/j4yEG7IIUhVvLbKykcw9YR9Geyd6CBW/N5zPFi7CSaW1tOzX6bz krWtU8tGQQc8eI+4Cm6u54Ynqj6W+pPRxl+40oUwtQeSI3yq59Fg/b90bLDVrvC+f7zv MOpQXWgUoBQKjTZtQSPVqZI5VM06L5AqzwYu2hccMUCK3bZ4SPVpFQbu881tdixaYcDh C0DqK5BYD6KYu1TGYsAj7SI60hkAsQG0mkEtlJabCFhxRrXXxmzGABBaCSgckST+Go/z YlQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS/BChSoceXjyWrtuZb/fAi5X6o8Y+ZutaX9c319pie733kyaIfbH+tNkZh+QDKWhwsbR1eQvZ6xhd0fQ== X-Received: by 10.28.194.68 with SMTP id s65mr18623130wmf.65.1456251089662; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:11:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.91.210 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:10:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56CC9C72.4040908@lojban.org> References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> <9AC7ACDB-A395-4564-8340-20876DAB07CA@gmail.com> <56CC9C72.4040908@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:10:50 +0300 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 - response to discussion 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8451234058863065865==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8451234058863065865== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b095ce73af4052c73e080 --001a114b095ce73af4052c73e080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2016-02-23 20:52 GMT+03:00 Bob LeChevalier : > As to the discussion of what LLG should be doing (which I stayed out of), > I will try to be brief. > > IMO, no one should be working on CLL 2.0 at this time (unless the bpfk > jatna has chosen to do so as a means of moving byfy work along). > I would add that everyone is free and even advised to fork https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince-cll-2.0 branch on github and continue working on these branches. Of course, they are all unofficial but since it's a lot of work when LLG or BPFK or other entities decide to apply something officially they might need your work. So feel free to work now! > Ultimately CLL is the official document specifying Lojban, until unless > byfy creates some alternative. We need to be sure that anyone interested > in Lojban can get the latest approved specification, and that insofar as > possible, they are shielded from unofficial or not-yet-official changes > which can only cause confusion as to what the language "is". > > When work is to start on CLL 2.0, the starting place should be the > published version of CLL 1.1 or whatever number Robin is applying to his > version. We don't want to lose typo corrections, formatting stuff that may > have been tricky to work out, indexing, etc. Look at how long it has taken > Robin to get this far, and he probably more than anyone knew what needed to > be done. > > When work is to start on a next version of CLL, by necessity it will have > to be managed by the byfy chair, because only byfy is allowed to specify > changes to the language, the official design of which will be the revised > baseline represented in Robin's version. Any official "working version" > should be locked against changes except by the jatna and perhaps a couple > of others at his discretion. > > If people feel that the existing CLL is harmfully inadequate, working on > CLL 2.0 isn't the best solution. Rather I think people should take a > section of CLL, make changes to that section, attach something that clearly > summarizes what has changed (i.e "updated to reflect xorlo") and then put > it in an evaluation queue labeled as "proposed change to section x.y of > CLL". The byfy jatna will have such sections evaluated for correctness and > consistency, and then can either replace the 1.x chapter, or more likely > create another queue of sections that are approved as to the changes that > are included - then, at some later time those sections might be further > modified to reflect other changes. > > This would work very well for people who are trying to standardize the use > of linguistic terminology, for example, which is independent from any > actual change in the language design, or that want to tackle the > documentation of xorlo without worrying about reflecting other possible > changes. It would allow the creation of a temporary CLL that has no > differences other than incorporating xorlo, for example, without affecting > other byfy work. > > Ultimately, needs to be addressed by the byfy jatna before anything > official is decided. > > ----- > > IMO, going to a non-English baseline CLL is a nice future concept, but it > shouldn't be a priority until byfy thinks that the current CLL is close to > a "final" state reflecting the backlog of proposals that people want > considered. > > ----- > > If the community wants to migrate LLG's web pages off of Robin's network, > then this should be proposed under new business. Actual implementation > would be the responsibility of the Board or whoever it delegates. An > alternative proposal might ask the Board to consider migrating the web site > under conditions X, Y, Z, (or to achieve goals X, Y, Z) at which point we > would probably negotiate with Robin to find the best resolution. > > ----- > > I like the idea of prizes/awards for getting stuff done, and indeed > intended to propose something like this myself. Again, new business. > > ----- > > I agree that face to face LogFests are an expensive luxury. They still > can be useful in building an inclusive community, but probably should not > be financially supported unless the planning is for a gathering > significantly larger than those already held. (An exception is that > someone can donate sufficient money specifically to hold a particular > LogFest, and the Board can make it official, allowing that donation money > to offer a tax benefit in the US, and possibly in other countries.) > > The concept of an online LogFest is intriguing. I'd like to see more > discussion of this, and how it would differ from current IRC/Skype sessions. > > Again, new business. > > ----- > > I have some ideas on organizing geographical or native-language based > "interest groups" along the lines of what I think guskant and gleki were > saying. Having such groups with dedicated webspace or mailing list or some > other means to get together which also includes identifying who exactly > fits into each group and their level of interest/activity would be really > useful. > > ----- > > I downloaded gismu and cmavo lists only to find that the official lists > seem to have been replaced. Link? > Various unofficial proposals (and experimental cmavo) have been added to > the lists, and the file has been HTMLized so that it no longer can be > easily sorted on any of several fields as it could when it was a flat file. > > This should not have been done, and I'd like to find out where I can get > the baseline lists (which theoretically can be changed by byfy, but I don't > know that such changes have been proposed or approved). > As always from www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/gismu.txt and www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo.txt but they dont include latest approved changes. > lojbab > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a114b095ce73af4052c73e080 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2016-02-23 20:52 GMT+03:00 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org><= /span>:
As to the discussion of what LLG should be doin= g (which I stayed out of), I will try to be brief.

IMO, no one should be working on CLL 2.0 at this time (unless the bpfk jatn= a has chosen to do so as a means of moving byfy work along).

I would add that everyone is free and even advised to= fork https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince-cll-2.0 branch on gi= thub and continue working on these branches.

Of co= urse, they are all unofficial but since it's a lot of work when LLG or = BPFK or other entities decide to apply something officially they might need= your work.

So feel free to work now!

Ultimately CLL is the official document specifying Lojban, until unless byf= y creates some alternative.=C2=A0 We need to be sure that anyone interested= in Lojban can get the latest approved specification, and that insofar as p= ossible, they are shielded from unofficial or not-yet-official changes whic= h can only cause confusion as to what the language "is".

When work is to start on CLL 2.0, the starting place should be the publishe= d version of CLL 1.1 or whatever number Robin is applying to his version.= =C2=A0 We don't want to lose typo corrections, formatting stuff that ma= y have been tricky to work out, indexing, etc.=C2=A0 Look at how long it ha= s taken Robin to get this far, and he probably more than anyone knew what n= eeded to be done.

When work is to start on a next version of CLL, by necessity it will have t= o be managed by the byfy chair, because only byfy is allowed to specify cha= nges to the language, the official design of which will be the revised base= line represented in Robin's version.=C2=A0 Any official "working v= ersion" should be locked against changes except by the jatna and perha= ps a couple of others at his discretion.

If people feel that the existing CLL is harmfully inadequate, working on CL= L 2.0 isn't the best solution.=C2=A0 Rather I think people should take = a section of CLL, make changes to that section, attach something that clear= ly summarizes what has changed (i.e "updated to reflect xorlo") a= nd then put it in an evaluation queue labeled as "proposed change to s= ection x.y of CLL".=C2=A0 The byfy jatna will have such sections evalu= ated for correctness and consistency, and then can either replace the 1.x c= hapter, or more likely create another queue of sections that are approved a= s to the changes that are included - then, at some later time those section= s might be further modified to reflect other changes.

This would work very well for people who are trying to standardize the use = of linguistic terminology, for example, which is independent from any actua= l change in the language design, or that want to tackle the documentation o= f xorlo without worrying about reflecting other possible changes.=C2=A0 It = would allow the creation of a temporary CLL that has no differences other t= han incorporating xorlo, for example, without affecting other byfy work.
Ultimately, needs to be addressed by the byfy jatna before anything officia= l is decided.

-----

IMO, going to a non-English baseline CLL is a nice future concept, but it s= houldn't be a priority until byfy thinks that the current CLL is close = to a "final" state reflecting the backlog of proposals that peopl= e want considered.

-----

If the community wants to migrate LLG's web pages off of Robin's ne= twork, then this should be proposed under new business.=C2=A0 Actual implem= entation would be the responsibility of the Board or whoever it delegates.= =C2=A0 An alternative proposal might ask the Board to consider migrating th= e web site under conditions X, Y, Z, (or to achieve goals X, Y, Z) at which= point we would probably negotiate with Robin to find the best resolution.<= br>
-----

I like the idea of prizes/awards for getting stuff done, and indeed intende= d to propose something like this myself.=C2=A0 Again, new business.

-----

I agree that face to face LogFests are an expensive luxury.=C2=A0 They stil= l can be useful in building an inclusive community, but probably should not= be financially supported unless the planning is for a gathering significan= tly larger than those already held.=C2=A0 (An exception is that someone can= donate sufficient money specifically to hold a particular LogFest, and the= Board can make it official, allowing that donation money to offer a tax be= nefit in the US, and possibly in other countries.)

The concept of an online LogFest is intriguing.=C2=A0 I'd like to see m= ore discussion of this, and how it would differ from current IRC/Skype sess= ions.

Again, new business.

-----

I have some ideas on organizing geographical or native-language based "= ;interest groups" along the lines of what I think guskant and gleki we= re saying.=C2=A0 Having such groups with dedicated webspace or mailing list= or some other means to get together which also includes identifying who ex= actly fits into each group and their level of interest/activity would be re= ally useful.

-----

I downloaded gismu and cmavo lists only to find that the official lists see= m to have been replaced.

Link?
= =C2=A0
=C2=A0 Various unofficial proposals (and exper= imental cmavo) have been added to the lists, and the file has been HTMLized= so that it no longer can be easily sorted on any of several fields as it c= ould when it was a flat file.

This should not have been done, and I'd like to find out where I can ge= t the baseline lists (which theoretically can be changed by byfy, but I don= 't know that such changes have been proposed or approved).

As always from=C2=A0
and

but they dont include lates= t approved changes.


lojbab

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

--001a114b095ce73af4052c73e080-- --===============8451234058863065865== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============8451234058863065865==--