Received: from localhost ([::1]:57579 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1at4VH-00028S-S3; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:38:04 -0700 Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.220.180]:36386) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1at4V9-00028B-3l for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:37:59 -0700 Received: by mail-qk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x7so20879228qkd.3 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:37:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=disposition-notification-to:return-receipt-to:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date :to:message-id; bh=cEIlF0piZ7wkrwsuC0eBOGH0hMQkM7GQfVgvmORLJPA=; b=xrxRug2AqRYqUQw4xSDCYrpGfyVyWsF5nsiuAcyWa7j0IGAfnjtNmOT3R5GiokiPYk 8pIb5nIKCmXB/btSzm90zmwLxO6LdWkyqbjXWIWPJ/WgU/psdlKLHkaFV58E3jaqE915 y4mbwRQZJYbQzUMebgY1mHyfR/pZQrCN/wWv1sJBIwi9tZ/WeNChaVwkTnMuDXGeK1V2 WwoAgi7T4RDlge4s0lQecNJgtcUA063WWxIoMIEHpWEOpB337je25pkfAH2U3TAR7kzs 6ZPl7WXIw3sanapI62rgMHNr24pGS73U26UwZ92PinaHzl7jxKHrcXYL/UK635aVo42K Gd9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:disposition-notification-to:return-receipt-to :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :subject:from:date:to:message-id; bh=cEIlF0piZ7wkrwsuC0eBOGH0hMQkM7GQfVgvmORLJPA=; b=Do/Nuo6Ulmtrb+V3AmQbf1alI8Mlf1u27aLogwJu+YcKa7dOaZPMIt3D9OZMWZTShz 2Ch7cPg4XGZ8HGAkLKYt1G2yGJ4hHCAQK0DAPpXqg+EUbukh3A+A7F8NSIHG2eJc396l TLvME3D8VjNM/LRRxSe67tJNIeDq8o9ydVjfF6Z0/XsQxgDBjSAboSnrVd2MEDr51YW2 PkdMiWhJPCTkig72vxbeSHJSy8o71akruZ3SpqtcI21wWamD/M8sl0eXGIjf8bDNANi2 7BqsurTmUMikj4Uks8ofH0y7wzUYNaAHg0OELMpSEjYrSHarjfp9KaZ49ua47QXyAzSy JzNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWDswhb3k7sywJWKgJZTAP8WthcMidH41bz+rVTtbPLsg4ZA3g/pyU/zZ/XHNAu/w== X-Received: by 10.55.178.198 with SMTP id b189mr16050203qkf.98.1461206268798; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.233.19.218] ([50.153.176.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k184sm180331qke.45.2016.04.20.19.37.47 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:37:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> <1533522.sVHHld6LrL@caracal> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Karen Stein Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:37:45 -0400 To: llg-members@lojban.org Message-ID: <0748C06D-7DE6-4F31-BB71-58215BF60729@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.0 X-Spam_score_int: -9 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Annual meeting: NB-Website_Jurisdiction 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="===============1935405733918399776==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1935405733918399776== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----6EXXIJ34R3ZG4XNWLG3OON329VI83T" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ------6EXXIJ34R3ZG4XNWLG3OON329VI83T Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I changed the discussion name to break up the flow is messages a bit. I was having to mark messages in outset to see the separate topics. I would like to put my motion aside because in trying to make it clear and concise I went too far. . karis. On April 20, 2016 6:45:42 PM EDT, 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 >>> > 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 -- Karen Stein -- ------6EXXIJ34R3ZG4XNWLG3OON329VI83T Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I changed the discussion name to break up the flow is messages a bit. I was having to mark messages in outset to see the separate topics.

I would like to put my motion aside because in trying to make it clear and concise I went too far.

. karis.

On April 20, 2016 6:45:42 PM EDT, Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> 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" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> 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" <durka42@gmail.com> 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

-- Karen Stein -- ------6EXXIJ34R3ZG4XNWLG3OON329VI83T-- --===============1935405733918399776== 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 --===============1935405733918399776==--