Received: from localhost ([::1]:40694 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arTp3-0005Rj-5G; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:15:53 -0700 Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:33871) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arTov-0005Qg-L4 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:15:50 -0700 Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j11so176694018lfb.1 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QXJcV2ItwOjO0mddpB0TcgkXibomlUl342AsoauMerk=; b=0ShP82mnd7srVq2f2xlHgnb9LDX25WD8Ja2pBaz0uRyO9jbbGvPDajQUxwxllWSmOo H90ppds0luk/vKgxUmmxXj4qKZUb/DySosVRTzWszYjsFeF8g8qAI8FCCYBd4CoIcFBm 4K1+xiy6TaEzK6zyfivnRAW10X2tp/XCUh6YLM2wBKZQuzW63wo53GA4j8VrXPmGDK+t HGlL7j2NsSLWawGiZg+NPtYD23JH+QMknfOfNdPGlXj+xWGRNVqPM7gnTk387A0iIqcQ Xi2YQBWpmbmLAt7rrVuuU8wvhf69xbBLbWVMW1+1YwX0ojCn40WatayDYS2zWlz+1SrC Qxkg== 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:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=QXJcV2ItwOjO0mddpB0TcgkXibomlUl342AsoauMerk=; b=cNJvtha3CRhbtpEYn7i0Eh8G9wiPWJstefwBjvKUACUitVOCbP7FjKR60VEn4bNvOI nvfWaUge9X4etRyBR9JPN1AQ2esI/zB79Qf/zRHz2bRuiqQcfNFTWX317RHqgot3TM+L Mt+XToyRY/m97f2HPU8uJxxaYy5f3BgZdeGWGqgBeUbC3PjpcOXVNmtFG/u/3gs9Sa6o 53sZuRUelsyHekep+xnR7JBJVxpqm9G115RHZba64bn8nS2noPdSz7NDGAvdmEglMFZf X/Iz5aP1g4A5vIZHC7pfyZG1ypAYxx/rJW2TaUBjDV5D9Nec3Q7joplujEaSW0p2FeDp bMbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUBvvOvcBZ6Wk3Mm4+q6nB4oaCkLlFjQQ2pyzMbO9MgfViEtN4u1vzZrzXo5tkpr2r6/ByYbdJbIPvtNQ== X-Received: by 10.25.42.13 with SMTP id q13mr10145253lfq.2.1460826938450; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.144.229 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:14:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:14:58 +0300 Message-ID: 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] Annual meeting: New Business, anyone? 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="===============4984595441208745236==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4984595441208745236== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11410bc2beac0a05309d4623 --001a11410bc2beac0a05309d4623 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2016-04-16 20:09 GMT+03:00 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG < lojbab@lojban.org>: > None of the issues raised so far under New Business seems to be eliciting > any discussion. The only motion asserted (by guskant) has not been > seconded (but I have to admit that I am not exactly sure what the motion > is, since it is embedded in guskant's complaint) > > I did a survey of all discussions during this meeting and found a few > things that people wanted discussed during New Business. I won't repeat > the entire context, but will hope that the extracted quotes will remind > people what they wanted to discuss. > > > Craig Daniels wrote: > >> I consider creating web policy where there has been none to be a >> matter the entire membership ought to have a say in, given that the >> point at which it's seen as an issue is during the meeting of the >> members. I fully intend to bring it up when we get to new business. >> > > > > mukti wrote: > >> According to the BPFK reauthorization passed by the membership at the >> last meeting (https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization), a >> supermajority vote is necessary for LLG to adopt a document presented >> by BPFK as an official standard of LLG. >> >> In recognition of BPFK=E2=80=99s work and to reaffirm the relationship >> between LLG and BPFK, it seems to me that this should be brought to a >> vote when we reach =E2=80=9Cnew business=E2=80=9D. Unless BPFK objects, = I intend to >> raise such a motion at that time, or would gladly second a motion >> that someone else raises. >> > > > Curtis Frank wrote: > >> Of course, we >> need to find something worth spending the money on - nothing has been hi= gh >> enough priority so far. (There will be some new proposals under New >> Business that could cost more money than we currently take in. >> > > But of course no motions costing any money have yet been raised under New > Business, so I am hoping that Curtis will enlighten us as to his intent. > > > In addition, prior to the meeting, in announcing the meeting, mukti > highlighted some issues that he expected would be discussed at the meetin= g. > >> Tentative agenda items include: >> >> Clarifying LLG's policy regarding hosting, embedding or linking to >> copyrighted materials on the web site >> Doing more to promote and highlight creative works in lojban >> Maintaining an up-to-date list of lojban projects and updating LLG's >> official project policy >> The relationship of LLG to the lojban.org web site >> > This is important for several people especially for the front page of mw.lojban.org website. I suggest that la mukti clarifies on which pages he wants to be made official and thus banned politically from editing by anyone but the treasurer. I only suggested locking the front page but la mukti might have more. Until a more precise proposal of a draft of changes is presented I myself propose nothing. > It is possible that the last line is referring to the same topic as > Craig's statement above. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > This is potentially 6 or 7 significant discussions that aren't yet > happening. Does the membership wish to defer them, to the Board, postpon= e > them until the next meeting (or discuss them outside the meeting prior to > bringing forth a proper motion?) > > Or does the membership indeed not care about any of these topics? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > As I noted to gleki, a motion to adjourn can be made at any time, if > people want to cut the meeting short(er) without considering these topics= . > I will allow one full week from today for anyone to start a discussion or > make a motion (which must be seconded) so as to keep the business of the > meeting progressing. If there is nothing then I will be explicitly askin= g > for someone to move adjournment, if it hasn't already been moved. > > ---------- > > By the way, also in regards to gleki's comments, I intend to ask the Boar= d > to appoint the time for starting the 2016 annual meeting immediately afte= r > convening the Board meeting when this meeting ends and to announce that > time to the membership. > that would be great. > > lojbab > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a11410bc2beac0a05309d4623 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2016-04-16 20:09 GMT+03:00 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG= <lojbab@lojban.org>:
None= of the issues raised so far under New Business seems to be eliciting any d= iscussion.=C2=A0 The only motion asserted (by guskant) has not been seconde= d (but I have to admit that I am not exactly sure what the motion is, since= it is embedded in guskant's complaint)

I did a survey of all discussions during this meeting and found a few thing= s that people wanted discussed during New Business.=C2=A0 I won't repea= t the entire context, but will hope that the extracted quotes will remind p= eople what they wanted to discuss.


Craig Daniels wrote:
I consider creating web policy where there has been none to be a
matter the entire membership ought to have a say in, given that the
point at which it's seen as an issue is during the meeting of the
members. I fully intend to bring it up when we get to new business.



mukti wrote:
According to the BPFK reauthorization passed by the membership at the
last meeting (https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reaut= horization), a
supermajority vote is necessary for LLG to adopt a document presented
by BPFK as an official standard of LLG.

In recognition of BPFK=E2=80=99s work and to reaffirm the relationship
between LLG and BPFK, it seems to me that this should be brought to a
vote when we reach =E2=80=9Cnew business=E2=80=9D. Unless BPFK objects, I i= ntend to
raise such a motion at that time, or would gladly second a motion
that someone else raises.


Curtis Frank wrote:
Of course, we
need to find something worth spending the money on - nothing has been high<= br> enough priority so far.=C2=A0 (There will be some new proposals under New Business that could cost more money than we currently take in.

But of course no motions costing any money have yet been raised under New B= usiness, so I am hoping that Curtis will enlighten us as to his intent.


In addition, prior to the meeting, in announcing the meeting, mukti highlig= hted some issues that he expected would be discussed at the meeting.
Tentative agenda items include:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Clarifying LLG's policy regarding hosting, embedding or l= inking to copyrighted materials on the web site
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Doing more to promote and highlight creative works in lojban<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Maintaining an up-to-date list of lojban projects and updatin= g LLG's official project policy
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The relationship of LLG to the lojban.org web site

This is important for several people esp= ecially for the front page of mw.lojban.or= g website.
I suggest that la mukti clarifies on which pages h= e wants to be made official and thus banned politically from editing by any= one but the treasurer.
I only suggested locking the front page bu= t la mukti might have more.

Until a more precise p= roposal of a draft of changes is presented I myself propose nothing.
<= div>


=

It is possible that the last line is referring to the same topic as Craig&#= 39;s statement above.


----------------------------------------------------------

This is potentially 6 or 7 significant discussions that aren't yet happ= ening.=C2=A0 Does the membership wish to defer them, to the Board, postpone= them until the next meeting (or discuss them outside the meeting prior to = bringing forth a proper motion?)

Or does the membership indeed not care about any of these topics?

------------------------------------------------------------

As I noted to gleki, a motion to adjourn can be made at any time, if people= want to cut the meeting short(er) without considering these topics.=C2=A0 = I will allow one full week from today for anyone to start a discussion or m= ake a motion (which must be seconded) so as to keep the business of the mee= ting progressing.=C2=A0 If there is nothing then I will be explicitly askin= g for someone to move adjournment, if it hasn't already been moved.

----------

By the way, also in regards to gleki's comments, I intend to ask the Bo= ard to appoint the time for starting the 2016 annual meeting immediately af= ter convening the Board meeting when this meeting ends and to announce that= time to the membership.

that would be = great.
=C2=A0

lojbab



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

--001a11410bc2beac0a05309d4623-- --===============4984595441208745236== 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 --===============4984595441208745236==--