Received: from localhost ([::1]:49862 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajuaZ-0006Xw-JF; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:39 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:36630) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajuaR-0006Xp-Ie for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:36 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id z68so120195254vkg.3 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:31 -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=iZqcOa0qNhem/lHJDSR8IUpkAnOf8mwTu08/INmJYgA=; b=Irwzrk4+ZlFcRwlSY6ApRXVufq528X2ytRbyfVolopWreOuT4b70qEX05zdMJEr4YL A1ZgtkrncqEWYp2NxP218ktHhrc5thPTgc7HJkBqCou95qHUiYslitrl3MURauwlUVHi APabwG1WU6YhpGJZ5e4s3nrd3HqFp1dnZKv8gzGUGuAqz9Dzhi7W+Qfl0JQllxctEu40 Ppv4IxOtfdWdt9B7NHu+jjLUZyhrJqWYlt9quXf57Kqx7aiGK48/Eft5vC/MLOIoeKIj vKYn6tfJqFkrq4+dxHHzUPNPwgBchVl++btTZi8CmLinRhUu1zk2MsHUm1j6rUms/zyU ++uA== 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=iZqcOa0qNhem/lHJDSR8IUpkAnOf8mwTu08/INmJYgA=; b=XEKsVa3KWqtyWtMriwDeGufTyfuhRJS3kRncje11oIxq1Pwny4QcIz9JVwHlMgDGbs JnBoRowSyzqkNp5s6zY56mvHA591LouXL5TZbKa79HVj4rWvMna3HT+FS2Rg5joGolUy 14zifWDSjBIDCVztTqLecfA/UU2Kz3ItVBX0/TWlnAhlrX/LKSkPYoOHTDCyQ+lV7TTr IV/gg2+PWopoSu9cT01ZH4bhjSEIHbyzw0Pof9rJoshg5jdboo9n7PHPzUW83+MjZRgq d2oWzMB4Utg4cH4UQ149sdmvVjRVMnsTMBlKQ7uQOb8P4RyxrV2HkHeqtjqIH2VkMjPP lb+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJINP3snrtZgqw0xZXq5wR7ca2F7aMJqMr/XXqyLnR39aXjtpQ3FE2jqiIHJsE44YGIjEa1gqB2bRGXF0Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.0.20 with SMTP id 20mr10263300uai.17.1459023205129; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:24 -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> <1A147E0D-5689-4E95-A566-2F46BF2E060C@gmail.com> <20160326173250.GA12921@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:13:24 -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="===============1466971758776231252==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1466971758776231252== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d0f32dc663c052ef94f88 --001a113d0f32dc663c052ef94f88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It is indeed similar and probably can be derived directly from this "[the BPFK is] charge[d with] improving and maintaining formal descriptions of Lojban". There are minor differences, but those can be established via other derivations or by convention. So, passing the motion is not extremely necessary, but it also does not pose any problems or even any changes. Aside from the abbreviations, the wording is not particularly confusing to me (probably because I wrote it). I just was just being careful. :P On Mar 26, 2016 15:47, "Alex Burka" wrote: > 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 > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a113d0f32dc663c052ef94f88 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It is indeed similar and probably can be derived directly fr= om this "[the BPFK is] charge[d with] improving and maintaining formal= descriptions of Lojban". There are minor differences, but those can b= e established via other derivations or by convention.

So, passing the motion is not extremely necessary, but it al= so does not pose any problems or even any changes.

Aside from the abbreviations, the wording is not particularl= y confusing to me (probably because I wrote it). I just was just being care= ful. :P

On Mar 26, 2016 15:47, "Alex Burka" &l= t;durka42@gmail.com> wrote:
I agre= e with la mukti. The BPFK is currently debating which parser(s) should be c= onsidered to parse official version(s) of Lojban, and while I admit not bei= ng fully up to date on that discussion, I don't think they are saying w= e 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 seem= s 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 f= or X
> days so that no message is sent to this list or?

The fastest way is for the chair to declare the meeting "adjour= ned if there
is no objection".=C2=A0 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=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cowan@ccil.org
I now introduce Professor Smullyan, who will prove to you that eithe= r
he doesn't exist or you don't exist, but you won'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

_______________________________________________
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

--001a113d0f32dc663c052ef94f88-- --===============1466971758776231252== 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 --===============1466971758776231252==--