Received: from localhost ([::1]:51822 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ak4uA-0000zl-5r; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:14:34 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]:35842) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ak4u3-0000ze-A0 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:14:31 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id z68so127153503vkg.3 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:14:27 -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=1HSmQv9tnqFT6MATDjhZ6QLaaE20sAQYqOqWKwQhPpo=; b=Z5WISHTm74hE3Y8wlpOjeE/jMz9vCq5438DBi+3rVdJ2/WdLwDIhTSY2rQdqOOmheK DQKYnvbF5KqR9q94iySzmQyPbyc93NqUUFhuUlp3jLk8cua3Gx80Uq3SmZX860csnJSu XuDm8fLbcNasXN2zVmbdU1M1sLKXSefIKC3vqvZsNNqCvkp3zgOOJ2w4DityEBJXMX4i AGMSVkW10gKRb0UU/jAIbD/1MjNHPP5TinmE6S49/q0FiQSbD+X0/Zxk+WrdwfQGxF+p /n6TyfPoumP2iocO/BIhL+XR+uTZRuipg+dPWV31wqxzWmhcZVAQgBkG379wcS3N4eCM f2ag== 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=1HSmQv9tnqFT6MATDjhZ6QLaaE20sAQYqOqWKwQhPpo=; b=MPb/HgcZepzTn2qIGIHrTvi8v0E8ClUgsEJHyCigOis1VpwiPUp4JblE7paJqLp03p EkrKf/1upNPHraIOvk2mzk4JJeiPm9icHaR2T8QEoYc1mXT0y5PVtpSaop7EvrIasUI7 YjtWGvpaYazLYDmFIThOcr8tszWLFjzDbzf7xTS7U7O7OP8AAa/xCiNRQPD4VQALiWOr 5xUYD4+wtGW/WyIo18uGzVDpHHXplMftTBfSMIOUmjOfI9ptQjQ/akuQ35BNHTCFI3To rcle6/v8C355+72uJtA6U32C3erbIPTA3XZ2jx0OrXpgQ34J3f/JlO9aTWpuiYtmK3Di 2/qw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJitqT7QBd/O7FcSMr/7sKJhfTpWVpfwMPmcHC4BBXxXmd5Ps4edhDt9wGUZW8DvwKsj/u/sxjuLnGsEQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.16.38 with SMTP id g38mr11123185vki.105.1459062860915; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:14:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56F70A92.3090007@lojban.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> <56F70A92.3090007@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 03:14:20 -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="===============0069907681616341804==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0069907681616341804== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11431e7687e6b8052f028b01 --001a11431e7687e6b8052f028b01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well, the same thing could be said of any organization. Even military force cannot guarantee compliance. That is what revolts, revolutions, and even (often) terrorism is all about. However, legitimacy counts for something and this would, purposefully, give certain groups advantage over others depending on the circumstances. That was the primary intention (although that cannot be said because doing so undermines the purpose - but here we are now! :P ). In any case, though, I would currently say that it is no big deal. On Mar 26, 2016 18:18, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: > On 3/25/2016 12:18 PM, Curtis Franks wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Actually, the latter is not quite true. LLG can dissolve itself, > according to its bylaws, or it can be dissolved by the state, if we fail to > file the annual forms and fees (and probably under some other conditions, > like a judges order or a relevant change in corporation law). > > However, any motion is a motion that would be passed by the LLG > membership, which has no binding power except on the organization which we > collectively are members of, and on the BPFK which was created and > maintained by prior such motions. > > As to the "rebellious BPFK" argument, if LLG were to dissolve the BPFK > (which it could do), it could not stop the same people in said BPFK from > reforming itself as an organization independently from LLG, and claiming > authority over the language. In which case it would be up to the > individuals of the Lojban community to each decide whatever they choose to > decide regarding authority in general. The only real control LLG has is > that limited control applicable to our various "copyleft" notices, which is > not much at all. (If LLG dissolves, of its own volition, we have to > specify who gets our "property" which would include intellectual property; > only qualified non-profit organizations are eligible). > > So, in my opinion, there is no point making or passing any motions > intended to apply to any other LLG or to any other BPFK or any other > language (version), as such would have no legal or other relevance. > > lojbab > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a11431e7687e6b8052f028b01 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, the same thing could be said of any organization. Even= military force cannot guarantee compliance. That is what revolts, revoluti= ons, and even (often) terrorism is all about. However, legitimacy counts fo= r something and this would, purposefully, give certain groups advantage ove= r others depending on the circumstances. That was the primary intention (al= though that cannot be said because doing so undermines the purpose - but he= re we are now! :P ).

In any case, though, I would currently say that it is no big= deal.

On Mar 26, 2016 18:18, "Bob LeChevalier&quo= t; <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote= :
On 3/25/2016 12:18= PM, Curtis Franks wrote:
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.

Actually, the latter is not quite true.=C2=A0 LLG can dissolve itself, acco= rding to its bylaws, or it can be dissolved by the state, if we fail to fil= e the annual forms and fees (and probably under some other conditions, like= a judges order or a relevant change in corporation law).

However, any motion is a motion that would be passed by the LLG membership,= which has no binding power except on the organization which we collectivel= y are members of, and on the BPFK which was created and maintained by prior= such motions.

As to the "rebellious BPFK" argument, if LLG were to dissolve the= BPFK (which it could do), it could not stop the same people in said BPFK f= rom reforming itself as an organization independently from LLG, and claimin= g authority over the language.=C2=A0 In which case it would be up to the in= dividuals of the Lojban community to each decide whatever they choose to de= cide regarding authority in general.=C2=A0 The only real control LLG has is= that limited control applicable to our various "copyleft" notice= s, which is not much at all.=C2=A0 (If LLG dissolves, of its own volition, = we have to specify who gets our "property" which would include in= tellectual property; only qualified non-profit organizations are eligible).=

So, in my opinion, there is no point making or passing any motions intended= to apply to any other LLG or to any other BPFK or any other language (vers= ion), as such would have no legal or other relevance.

lojbab


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs
--001a11431e7687e6b8052f028b01-- --===============0069907681616341804== 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 --===============0069907681616341804==--