Received: from localhost ([::1]:40803 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arUIE-0006RU-RS; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:46:02 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.213.53]:35394) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arUI6-0006RN-Cf for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:46:00 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id t129so180812474vkg.2 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:45:54 -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=EXp4ic8niKJV6uIQGHPs1yYVdWe6OjxK+2hZ2aCONQY=; b=pUoIaRgHgErlVqO+sUbP5BAK/M44CoLgTrII2IsEjfRwj/tFBkE05OqeY8zMl166sK 1uitS1D62WhDDyrH0pJJ7uJM/cH8c4o4UnidPE+THRr16Wil6aRkFgJZtjZDj2430ogr ZHy+LcqbjAt5v8kKmRKVOvk/AjK3cUPgqM7N4UmXrROkXoQr0bh/iVTzRLQ37T5iPw88 qq6NPhedlB9T8nCWxvqza5PmpdPOXMn+4pWePuLqkj1+hnc2v4RgSevJtcZ6u5LUqUCK NtCMLvcCnzj5fqdOK8kZEpAXLq4P3VzMglgW2k8r6EeMei5J7XPDICTvQNwlovQc5IkK 05Jg== 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=EXp4ic8niKJV6uIQGHPs1yYVdWe6OjxK+2hZ2aCONQY=; b=YeJtX/vDn6t75TqLLYsdIbqXFt/6ivX4bKaQuS2jOCdu/jikFfOHN6ShPTNwYLD8hl 0FFNshRRMzHNwhOPfzB2F/E0w1X5lHZethJD31sR21HW0uI8Q+bYs5hnz4ufLMv3ud2P 6GV34bbeC0vCo9e5BGDyB5R6LQiA8qp7RDlea0DrW6Lyem6TV5w5TRuUq+KdhHP6YTD4 BCWtNM7gbFI9u0C3/ll6e0hOAYZJigom1O2SQhCVi5sHqTJWu+XQg3TpUTbUw58lGJSJ k7p/ru+WyG8q3qtCu/6xxOqkdd9WtHb5NqxNxD/WUt+O3vrC57VvmcZ2+gbwLEzQQ7ca nlQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FU5N784yNp221rmbQpN5Mrg7pUkcSmY8qo0aW3fB/EzfuVll0TFNSzPjIcmHznKJxa1I5LP3aFbknD4cg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.7.35 with SMTP id h32mr4038844uah.17.1460828748447; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 13:45:48 -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] 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="===============7299912110109375880==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7299912110109375880== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c123e4aa10c6d05309db29f --94eb2c123e4aa10c6d05309db29f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I do believe that monetary issues should be postponed to the next meeting if there is even a mild desire to adjourn this meeting. On Apr 16, 2016 1:09 PM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" < lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: > 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 >> > > 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. > > lojbab > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --94eb2c123e4aa10c6d05309db29f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I do believe that monetary issues should be postponed to the= next meeting if there is even a mild desire to adjourn this meeting.

On Apr 16, 2016 1:09 PM, "Bob LeChevalier, = President and Founder - LLG" <= lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
None of the issues raised so far under New Business seems to = be eliciting any discussion.=C2=A0 The only motion asserted (by guskant) ha= s not been seconded (but I have to admit that I am not exactly sure what th= e 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

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.

lojbab



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs
--94eb2c123e4aa10c6d05309db29f-- --===============7299912110109375880== 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 --===============7299912110109375880==--