Received: from localhost ([::1]:42286 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajURs-0007v1-3r; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:56 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:34235) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajURl-0007ut-3e for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:53 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e185so95605178vkb.1 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:48 -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=V7InjbKo85nbP/qBBuZSvglPxWDM02frlwYP3joqdco=; b=mCzauCwWJXOjBV0KxB0aucrOC1SjkG5C3PthiphptmdIRyRBdBJPsdCUS/PWCm3pnW k6OY4Mc8s+wCMs9YEHsbpLM+tcoVNb7tDN3sHPSV0mt4XplvRuPsL53E4kVtmU24Ohw/ GxxvytOG89zTig5yh5IXVg8ru3yPi6/gvSQB7LxPoL0efsucAqmhA5cZUkqAnnVGDmiH y2r1hDxTYIjnjx7X8Xk0uX+L1vRWuw04TRSWWNyxn+QUdhHezjSZ+e/dxSa6TSuDaHSK 8dpjTKYspadjs8sWehhAxdNjHWVkJ8Qo/dLe8QxWfQJ2KSgoob38UcVt066IqSrfv0SV amxw== 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=V7InjbKo85nbP/qBBuZSvglPxWDM02frlwYP3joqdco=; b=fSZPkpvLxT3UgP0T2MjXtHZa7hpDpLYxixj3ocXuRl3/GY0yLpkekqrsUVQrdzvWSD nCXW4LbbbDuVwBSMVcTcdjKoZowB7Vqa7Uav01LzDJ3vHxg+jH3Bs8vP4xJ8sC/G53jt Hgp7/Q/zgnRA62zl6LudrZBRY7HUB7wuqYTBLl6j45tLKWV636Fk7owafz5SF7a/U4nT HET4TcoDEYXUPHfHhL3AkfSTUqZf2n97B6Tz8yDKg6fBtTskPfIUlLRGJPNsrjMOhu64 tlaizmsLJf8F/dfnO44aAGh4M/JOCYNev7sqdTcO5ptsrBTc7dc00Gt4U8uahqYrycYk seJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJQCmal4wEQZh9rXf7ECgRkZDGh3rFKYeVQvKb41rlTDAtjBd43iJvzpQDa7t5ufgxktqe8wdsAXTC25w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.2.234 with SMTP id 97mr7834399uah.115.1458922722426; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:42 -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 12:18:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks 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="===============3870632575509098430==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3870632575509098430== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e29aaa0082a052ee1eab2 --001a113e29aaa0082a052ee1eab2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The wording is such that in the conditions, solely the intention, by the LLG, of the establishment (thus existence, where appropriate) of the various things (entities, rules, and truths resp.) matters - rather than, as far as explicitness goes, the realization of their respective existences. This is meant to pre-emptively disarm a rebellious BPFK and/or a rebellious populace. Implicitly, though, I also mean that if this condition is met, then each of the things so established under these auspices is exactly the thing which is being considered in the conclusions by the same name/descriptor. I say this because I definitely want the intention to matter more than the realization in the conditions, but I do not want the conclusions to be improper due to nonexistence. I should have been clearer in this regard, I agree. As an aside: I do think that solely the intention - of the LLG and/or the BPFK, where appropriate - for the establishment of one of these things directly implies and causes the said establishment thereof; I also think that the converse of this statement is untrue. Moreover, according to my (relatively uninformed, I admit) understanding: The BPFK cannot establish itself. Additionally, at least one of the LLG or the BPFK has the power to dissolve the BPFK; whereupon the power to establish another (sitting/session of the) BPFK devolves upon the LLG. Moreover, solely the LLG has the power to prematurely dissolve the LLG, although its authority and sessions also expire periodically in a predetermined manner. On Mar 25, 2016 08:50, "And Rosta" wrote: > 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a113e29aaa0082a052ee1eab2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The wording is such that in the conditions, solely the inten= tion, by the LLG, of the establishment (thus existence, where appropriate) = of the various things (entities, rules, and truths resp.) matters - rather = than, as far as explicitness goes, the realization of their respective exis= tences. This is meant to pre-emptively disarm a rebellious BPFK and/or a re= bellious populace. Implicitly, though, I also mean that if this condition i= s met, then each of the things so established under these auspices is exact= ly the thing which is being considered in the conclusions by the same name/= descriptor. I say this because I definitely want the intention to matter mo= re than the realization in the conditions, but I do not want the conclusion= s to be improper due to nonexistence. I should have been clearer in this re= gard, I agree.

As an aside: I do think that solely the intention - of the L= LG and/or the BPFK, where appropriate - for the establishment of one of the= se things directly implies and causes the said establishment thereof; I als= o think that the converse of this statement is untrue. Moreover, according = to my (relatively uninformed, I admit) understanding: The BPFK cannot estab= lish itself. Additionally, at least one of the LLG or the BPFK has the powe= r to dissolve the BPFK; whereupon the power to establish another (sitting/s= ession of the) BPFK devolves upon the LLG. Moreover, solely the LLG has the= power to prematurely dissolve the LLG, although its authority and sessions= also expire periodically in a predetermined manner.

On Mar 25, 2016 08:50, "And Rosta" <= ;and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution">

I wou= ld rather the motion was reworded into clearer language. Despite it being p= resented as being for clarity, it isn't clear. "Whensoever a BPFK = exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to hav= e any defining standards in whole or in part,"???

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.com> wrote:


2016-03-25 5:13 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curti= s.w.franks@gmail.com>:

> I think that it can be safely understood that the BYF= Y 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 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@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

--001a113e29aaa0082a052ee1eab2-- --===============3870632575509098430== 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 --===============3870632575509098430==--