Received: from localhost ([::1]:40629 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajRCA-0000Ef-6P; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:50:30 -0700 Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]:36486) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajRC1-0000EX-Rt for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:50:27 -0700 Received: by mail-lf0-f47.google.com with SMTP id d82so54598231lfe.3 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:50:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=3Rfnevrh2ZPDnlkq7DGH2ZSPc1mfujbdcf7bjK5kj0g=; b=fjkd3dBSRXlJivVRCtPhcfoUZ85UlyTMTOH+7LT/xFG0Qzlw9DtU9JjQOcJp7LfJy3 rEamR5uB6z2OvPy/PG29buqaGGy5ve3aNOxJLsNiCxAJuIhcgb8aJ5qGaKpE9xf9zVmz AhDdkO/10gHxAFD8a33VNE1AtPRLJrdh7YNWtgga0kD5VTVf+VaJTNWVGRMkothzpH3/ fKDMikiqQcvtcuacH9Kax63imV9FqagPZpM6wTJquwn7JF775Kij1J4RhOkPcqPrFHlR pmSZnAcHd3b1ECBnOac/HTZyd4bww9Y7z1Fgs7jEUq9G49Ikw+Lh+y6FU72S4hF/6N4u M8xA== 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=3Rfnevrh2ZPDnlkq7DGH2ZSPc1mfujbdcf7bjK5kj0g=; b=GctpWvQck/ED2r3KFJQcxnZ4NCH1JtQ6FF7BSKNzZLylMCQN2iNLXASYzthUq21v48 N+vwapb6l+TSqeIy/d29fie1QnlVZ3jLbVFD5DxN5eH9sUwZqAmlhjDyZkkjjOgKZssK pHsDA1cBpb878mrOp1hu2vLCZ4xPm94qdhBZQI8AjPjdC9CX4HsYreGJyVFv4C2rCrCR tMSTcydmg7CIXYKcYavRMX9loOabXud/FIURghPzoOGNfIYZ2aZ1fDf2D46H/qjsqzo+ hFbVD8D5X+qn3Xsn09uyzlJGaqioGa1FpZ8rL/Z/mZqDnvFCWRv+RihI909t3PY3iGO0 QmiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJL56kVlkrEHAAOiEpKZXicU54oENSgHu4J6o3Mpd2HLajWg/IRdhCpE/DaxhInO/9b+RaRvIcfklsH3A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.154.65 with SMTP id c62mr5929688lfe.54.1458910214331; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.40.8 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.40.8 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:50:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org> <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com> <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org> <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org> <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:50:14 +0000 Message-ID: From: And Rosta 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 - Old Business 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="===============5577385154036091321==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5577385154036091321== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114012b415a435052edf0179 --001a114012b415a435052edf0179 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I would rather the motion was reworded into clearer language. Despite it being presented as being for clarity, it isn't clear. "Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any defining standards in whole or in part,"??? So I deffo oppose it in its current wording. I hesitate to comment on the intended import, because I'm not sure I've understood what the intended import is. And On 25 Mar 2016 09:42, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2016-03-25 5:13 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > >> > I think that it can be safely understood that the BYFY is charged with >> maintaining CLL as the defining standard for the language as a whole and >> its grammar. >> >> In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever a BPFK exists, >> whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any >> defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charged with >> maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language or any of >> its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to its >> grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achieving of >> these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (the LLG). >> This motion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or >> implementation of the existence or practice of any of these conditions; it >> merely defines one of possibly many roles (for) which any organization >> which is to act as a BPFK will be responsible in fulfilling and conducting >> - as well as the implicit establishment of minimal powers associated with >> its acting in that capacity. >> >> Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPFK is the >> unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority pursuant to >> these goals. >> > > I second that. > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a114012b415a435052edf0179 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would rather the motion was reworded into clearer language= . Despite it being presented as being for clarity, it isn't clear. &quo= t;Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojba= n language is to have any defining standards in whole or in part,"???<= /p>

So I deffo oppose it in its current wording. I hesitate to c= omment on the intended import, because I'm not sure I've understood= what the intended import is.

And

On 25 Mar 2016 09:42, "Gleki Arxokuna"= <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.c= om> wrote:


2016-03-25 5:13 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.c= om>:

&= gt; I think that it can be safely understood that the BYFY is charged with = maintaining CLL as the defining standard for the language as a whole and it= s grammar.

In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever = a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is= to have any defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charg= ed with maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language or= any of its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to it= s grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achieving of= these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (the LLG). T= his motion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or implement= ation of the existence or practice of any of these conditions; it merely de= fines one of possibly many roles (for) which any organization which is to a= ct as a BPFK will be responsible in fulfilling and conducting - as well as = the implicit establishment of minimal powers associated with its acting in = that capacity.

Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPF= K is the unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority purs= uant to these goals.


I second that.


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



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

--001a114012b415a435052edf0179-- --===============5577385154036091321== 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 --===============5577385154036091321==--