Received: from localhost ([::1]:57477 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1at3eY-0008IQ-5z; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:43:34 -0700 Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:33930) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1at3eR-0008HM-NP for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:43:31 -0700 Received: by mail-io0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 2so71568202ioy.1 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:43:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=h7VtC6PDHLzHQo5wI4b7UkZ8cEoBDpDHLL1GgXFkCE4=; b=iJILH0z5zTvS4GyZozbDt2jYyiTsipda9OOuWcBQLn6v2c6qE/PvYKlcc85TR0GVyn EMKUiCcd3ojdJzAiX9IFJMJd0M8tD1BHkCj0pyijEbbE/M13cd+4dZtL+cAQ+hIvLKai E8wP53NpHwuREDRrIYSDJ7gcHrh2vHxKTaFCXdQ4RmK9i1zxzgxpVOdYbaZVqzO1n8sk C1R3EALw8E85yGKqwoFG/X+O99WS+NJ+H2RTP+N6O31tbyQ3/qpwz80inatKwpZb3JyK xYyigFMyY1TDwsbX0ULDYk+ab8Of6ZrT2ppVEX0T/Zk3ykbdOiBU3G2Rwwhq8G6nd4Wn QG9g== 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=h7VtC6PDHLzHQo5wI4b7UkZ8cEoBDpDHLL1GgXFkCE4=; b=Hqf089tUMV1b2KXxGTVeSaL+gMMci2QxU/C7UOkLcBEY8kNVCFQouuCcUh7ZUEYKMu s/SEGEgATHunO/ucurEmpPXQDUQZN8vc3pNX0BaCGcT/K4WKKa3o+hTGcPEe3J4woBh4 mv1moMk6T5BGVPYzBqpKWBYKM5WTbR9eHYxaoQlPLoSG6JTUlycdddk0mxwVVl0UacTL EQA+AIxTBdXXvfD1zPUf0QBUPwq/Jslq4Pm58ED4jGo1FpjmNyXWYEjf/MPRr31wrnxl h7i6qlioZHRqurVoIlSlCjcQO3LKjmWZJkPOw7R3wy/MI5dkmZ8VMHF0NqlxweC9Oe96 f5CA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVcbJIPxl2c0eoSYq+oEvx/zJtJ5R+zCgphB40dZaN3G66qaXIzc0YRS5pWV8bCscvVneFrJf979KVDSA== X-Received: by 10.107.136.208 with SMTP id s77mr5896200ioi.0.1461202998933; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:43:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.26.131 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:42:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> <1533522.sVHHld6LrL@caracal> From: Alex Burka Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:42:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 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="===============4672782794068621370==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4672782794068621370== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ea6eeb23dc20530f4d5d3 --001a113ea6eeb23dc20530f4d5d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 OK, I understand why you made your motion. I'll second it if you make it more straightforward (probably take out the confusing clauses about hypothetical future motions). On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Curtis Franks wrote: > So, here is the rub: > > The LLG would have jurisdiction over the webpages, but no actual means to > make changes to them. Moreover, it is not even clear to me that the LLG, > under Karen's motion, would ever have the power to change the pages; I read > the power to be legislative and an executive team would be charged with > maintaining compliance of the webpage with the wishes of the LLG as > expressed by its decrees. So, if the motion passes, we would be > incapacitated on three levels until certain infrastructure is established. > We would be physically unable (we have no servers under our direct > control). We would be restricted by the fact that we might have only > legislative and not executive power. And, even if we could in theory have > executive power, we might not be internally structured in a way that would > enable it - we have no working committee, no general principles, etc. > Politics and organization would interfere. > > If we need to make a change or desire it, we could not do so quickly. Even > if we organize well and have physical access, the wrangling over the extent > of our executive ability (and how we would achieve that) would delay action. > > Having some safety valve seems wise to me. The term limit is a safety > measure and allows us to negotiate internally with breathing room but with > some nonzero deadline pressure. > > I think that the LLG can revoke access and authority at will, so that was > unnecessary in this movement. The assumption of all expired or relinquished > duty and power too was unnecessary for inclusion, now that I think about it. > > Robin seems like the most practicable option. He has access and control > (to my knowledge), so pretending otherwise is pointless. His current duties > would not change dramatically, I expect. If necessary, we can cut back on > his responsibilities or even relieve him entirely of them by suitable > action (preferably, establishment of suitable infrastructure). We can also > enable other bodies to take up some fractions of that power and > responsibility. > > But it is best that someone have the power (and disproportionately small, > relative to potential, responsibility) in the interim. Under Karen's > motion, no-one would. I think that Robin is the reasonable and immediate > choice. > > Even if my motion fails, it is important for us to recognize the problem > which it attempts to patch. > On Apr 20, 2016 18:11, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > >> According to my understanding, he currently has it and can affect it most >> easily. Of course, if he does not want it, we should find an alternative >> emergency valve, but that will be politically more difficult, I expect. >> On Apr 20, 2016 17:35, "Alex Burka" wrote: >> >>> Please write future motions in less confusing language. >>> >>> Does Robin even want this responsibility? >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Curtis Franks < >>> curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I fear that if Karen's motion passes (and I currently think that it >>>> should), we might not be able to decide on a legitimate mechanism for >>>> governing the webpages. >>>> >>>> I therefore move that Robin Lee Powell is vested with the authority to >>>> edit and maintain the Logical Language Group Web Page under the auspices of >>>> the Logical Language Group for a period of not more than one year starting >>>> from the passing of Karen's motion or any motion which similarly vests >>>> authority over the Logical Language Group Web Page in one or several, a >>>> priori unspecified bodies (other than the Logical Language Group or its >>>> Governing Board, in whole) or individuals during the course of this >>>> meeting. If such bodies or individuals are established during the duration >>>> of the effect of this motion, this motion is terminated and all authority >>>> vested in Robin Lee Powell reverts to the Logical Language Group or its >>>> Governing Board. The effect of this motion may be extended no more than >>>> thrice in units of six-month durations by the approval of a simple majority >>>> of the voting membership of the Logical Language Group or its Governing >>>> Board. This motion does not prohibit the investiture or exercise of similar >>>> authority in other bodies or individuals, including - in particular - the >>>> Logical Language Group and its Governing Board. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a113ea6eeb23dc20530f4d5d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK, I understand why you made your motion. I'll second= it if you make it more straightforward (probably take out the confusing cl= auses about hypothetical future motions).
<= br>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Curtis Frank= s <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:

So, here is the rub:

The LLG would have jurisdiction over the webpages, but no ac= tual means to make changes to them. Moreover, it is not even clear to me th= at the LLG, under Karen's motion, would ever have the power to change t= he pages; I read the power to be legislative and an executive team would be= charged with maintaining compliance of the webpage with the wishes of the = LLG as expressed by its decrees. So, if the motion passes, we would be inca= pacitated on three levels until certain infrastructure is established. We w= ould be physically unable (we have no servers under our direct control). We= would be restricted by the fact that we might have only legislative and no= t executive power. And, even if we could in theory have executive power, we= might not be internally structured in a way that would enable it - we have= no working committee, no general principles, etc. Politics and organizatio= n would interfere.

If we need to make a change or desire it, we could not do so= quickly. Even if we organize well and have physical access, the wrangling = over the extent of our executive ability (and how we would achieve that) wo= uld delay action.

Having some safety valve seems wise to me. The term limit is= a safety measure and allows us to negotiate internally with breathing room= but with some nonzero deadline pressure.

I think that the LLG can revoke access and authority at will= , so that was unnecessary in this movement. The assumption of all expired o= r relinquished duty and power too was unnecessary for inclusion, now that I= think about it.

Robin seems like the most practicable option. He has access = and control (to my knowledge), so pretending otherwise is pointless. His cu= rrent duties would not change dramatically, I expect. If necessary, we can = cut back on his responsibilities or even relieve him entirely of them by su= itable action (preferably, establishment of suitable infrastructure). We ca= n also enable other bodies to take up some fractions of that power and resp= onsibility.

But it is best that someone have the power (and disproportio= nately small, relative to potential, responsibility) in the interim. Under = Karen's motion, no-one would. I think that Robin is the reasonable and = immediate choice.

Even if my motion fails, it is important for us to recognize= the problem which it attempts to patch.

On Apr 20, 2016 18:11, "Curtis Franks"= <curtis.= w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:

According to my understanding, he currently ha= s it and can affect it most easily. Of course, if he does not want it, we s= hould find an alternative emergency valve, but that will be politically mor= e difficult, I expect.

On Apr 20, 2016 17:35, "Alex Burka" &l= t;durka42@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
Please write future motions in less confusing language.
Does Robin even want this responsibility?

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:0= 1 PM, Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrot= e:

I fear that if Karen= 9;s motion passes (and I currently think that it should), we might not be a= ble to decide on a legitimate mechanism for governing the webpages.

I therefore move that Robin Lee Powell is vested with the au= thority to edit and maintain the Logical Language Group Web Page under the = auspices of the Logical Language Group for a period of not more than one ye= ar starting from the passing of Karen's motion or any motion which simi= larly vests authority over the Logical Language Group Web Page in one or se= veral, a priori unspecified bodies (other than the Logical Language Group o= r its Governing Board, in whole) or individuals during the course of this m= eeting. If such bodies or individuals are established during the duration o= f the effect of this motion, this motion is terminated and all authority ve= sted in Robin Lee Powell reverts to the Logical Language Group or its Gover= ning Board. The effect of this motion may be extended no more than thrice i= n units of six-month durations by the approval of a simple majority of the = voting membership of the Logical Language Group or its Governing Board. Thi= s motion does not prohibit the investiture or exercise of similar authority= in other bodies or individuals, including - in particular - the Logical La= nguage Group and its Governing Board.


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



_______________________________________________
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


--001a113ea6eeb23dc20530f4d5d3-- --===============4672782794068621370== 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 --===============4672782794068621370==--