MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160326173250.GA12921@mercury.ccil.org>
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> <1A147E0D-5689-4E95-A566-2F46BF2E060C@gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+jGYVz0mkEnsOYo1n8q_0G1rT_aWHQCyMq3kZ-CJec8Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160326173250.GA12921@mercury.ccil.org>
From: Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:47:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMOGbhv-Z_f0+NSNCkbbdLJ++moqcOVpVSR3hbafjGsog-BpRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
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: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5409719005684987850=="
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

--===============5409719005684987850==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134b422a6be37052ef8f3c3

--001a1134b422a6be37052ef8f3c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I agree with la mukti. The BPFK is currently debating which parser(s)
should be considered to parse official version(s) of Lojban, and while I
admit not being fully up to date on that discussion, I don't think they are
saying we should have no parser at all. I don't understand why LLG would
take a position on this, an issue which they have already delegated to the
BPFK, when the BPFK hasn't even come to a conclusion. Curtis' motion seems
to be similar to the BPFK reauthorization (which already passed) but with
more confusing wording.

- la durkavore

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:32 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Gleki Arxokuna scripsit:
>
> > Indeed. What is the fastest method to adjourn it? Do we have to wait for
> X
> > days so that no message is sent to this list or?
>
> The fastest way is for the chair to declare the meeting "adjourned if there
> is no objection".  If there is an objection, a vote must be taken at once.
> A motion to adjourn supersedes all other motions.
>
> --John Cowan, parliamentarian
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
> I now introduce Professor Smullyan, who will prove to you that either
> he doesn't exist or you don't exist, but you won't know which.
>                                --Melvin Fitting
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-members@lojban.org
> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members
>

--001a1134b422a6be37052ef8f3c3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I agree with la mukti. The BPFK is currently debating whic=
h parser(s) should be considered to parse official version(s) of Lojban, an=
d while I admit not being fully up to date on that discussion, I don&#39;t =
think they are saying we should have no parser at all. I don&#39;t understa=
nd why LLG would take a position on this, an issue which they have already =
delegated to the BPFK, when the BPFK hasn&#39;t even come to a conclusion. =
Curtis&#39; motion seems to be similar to the BPFK reauthorization (which a=
lready passed) but with more confusing wording.<div><div><br></div><div>- l=
a durkavore</div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote">On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:32 PM, John Cowan <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org" target=3D"_blank">cowan@mercur=
y.ccil.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Gleki Ar=
xokuna scripsit:<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&gt; Indeed. What is the fastest method to adjourn it? Do we have to wait f=
or X<br>
&gt; days so that no message is sent to this list or?<br>
<br>
</span>The fastest way is for the chair to declare the meeting &quot;adjour=
ned if there<br>
is no objection&quot;.=C2=A0 If there is an objection, a vote must be taken=
 at once.<br>
A motion to adjourn supersedes all other motions.<br>
<br>
--John Cowan, parliamentarian<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
--<br>
John Cowan=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.ccil.org=
/~cowan" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ccil.org/~cowan</a=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.o=
rg</a><br>
</span>I now introduce Professor Smullyan, who will prove to you that eithe=
r<br>
he doesn&#39;t exist or you don&#39;t exist, but you won&#39;t know which.<=
br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--Melvin Fitting<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Llg-members mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Llg-members@lojban.org">Llg-members@lojban.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members" rel=3D"nore=
ferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe=
rs</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1134b422a6be37052ef8f3c3--


--===============5409719005684987850==
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

--===============5409719005684987850==--