Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 00:43:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+hmgCL81g=EHOXRNS8koAoa2Jj-1EBTbmu4=8q_yy_bWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e9194ba6-9c74-6436-25ad-eee17afcdf48@lojban.org>
 <043FA78B-0C3C-4A53-A408-51C436A808C0@gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+iv3z7wTKp6Dt1BWdaPsg8+vbu0WbKndqM1sittJqCtbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <921C62E1-F312-4C18-9D6D-5F8955981DDB@gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+hmgCL81g=EHOXRNS8koAoa2Jj-1EBTbmu4=8q_yy_bWg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: llg-members@lojban.org
From: Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3AEAC315-7D5E-41BE-87B8-D3C498978069@gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -1.5
X-Spam_score_int: -14
X-Spam_bar: -
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2016 Annual Meeting of the Logical Language Group,
 Inc. - call to order and roll call
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org


On February 19, 2017 12:27:53 AM EST, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>2017-02-19 8:17 GMT+03:00 Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
>
>> Gleki,
>>
>> I don't see how having the discussion posted means the thoughts of
>someone
>> not part of it will receive full consideration.
>>
>
>Okay, then I amena my proposal by adding a rule: respect opinion of
>everyone.

This isn't possible to legislate.

>In fact such discussions happen all the time on IRC. If you wish they
>can
>still be considered informal.
>In other words, noone can stop people from thinking or sharing their
>thoughts.
>
>One cannot limit discussions to llg-members mailing list, especially
>since
>this mailing list is not run in Lojban language.

1) Having informal discussions occur on IRC (or anywhere else) all the time is not the same as having discussions of specific proposals before the membership meeting occur in the same way. The latter are discussions of official policy and therefore, i believe, should exclude as few member as possible. IRC discussions do this in all the waits I've already posted.

2) How does the discussions on the members list not occurring in lojban mean that they are less valuable than those in lojban? This is which is the only interpretation of the comment about discussions in lojban I was able to get out of your comment.

>> I hadn't expected votes to happen on IRC, but I believe all
>interested
>> people should be able to contribute to the discussion equally.
>>
>
>And this is what will happen.

How can discussions mainly completed on IRC before they are posted for everyone else to comment on allow both groups to contribute equally? The people who participated in the IRC discussion are likely to have already made up their minds before the other people get a chance to comment. As a result of the way human mind work it will be significantly for those who have already formed firm decisions to change their minds.

>> .karis.
>>
>>
>> On February 12, 2017 9:47:41 AM EST, Gleki Arxokuna
><gleki.is.my.name@
>> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-02-12 16:26 GMT+03:00 Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> While I can see they could speed up the meetings proper, I still
>have
>>>> the same problems with holding our discussions in this way.
>>>>
>>>> The first, and to me most significant, is that not everyone (and I
>>>> believe more than mukti believes) are not available for regular IRC
>>>> conversations. Speaking as one person for whom this is true I do
>not see
>>>> making comments during the meeting in response to the prior
>discussion will
>>>> receive any where near the consideration of that given to those
>during the
>>>> IRC conversation. Once people develop an opinion on a topic it is
>>>> significantly more difficult to change their views than if the new
>insights
>>>> are presented during the initial conversation. This leaves input of
>anyone
>>>> who has familial or other restrictions on IRC use (including any
>caused by
>>>> disabilities, for instance) at a distinct disadvantage and could
>leave
>>>> people feeling unimportant when really everyone has valuable ideas.
>Lojban
>>>> is not only important to younger people who are more likely to be
>without
>>>> family and other obligations, or whom are the most technologically
>savvy.
>>>> Such people should not feel or be left behind.
>>>>
>>>> Second, the issue of timing is also important particularly in light
>of
>>>> the above. If people are having difficulty joining in conversations
>due to
>>>> issues other than time zone, rotating the start times may boot
>help.
>>>> Further, such rotation just makes many not able to join in on a
>particular
>>>> topic, then a somewhat different selection of people not able to
>join in
>>>> the next time. It means even more fragmented participation.
>>>>
>>>> Email discussion is more lengthy, but much more inclusive. That is
>why i
>>>> am not comfortable with this proposed change.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One again I have to repeat my proposal if Riley's conflicts with
>mine:
>>>
>>> conduct meetings in IRC PARTIALLY since we have to wait for other
>members
>>> to appear.
>>> The logs of IRC meetings would be posted to this mailing list so
>that
>>> others can add their replies.
>>>
>>> This way nothing would really change and meetings would become more
>>> fruitful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> karis
>>>>
>>>> On February 5, 2017 7:13:40 AM EST, Bob LeChevalier
><lojbab@lojban.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/23/2017 3:06 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Next on the agenda are the minutes from last meeting.  Our
>Secretary
>>>>>>  (mukti) is traveling out of this country for the next week or
>so, so I
>>>>>>  will defer that item until he returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Next we have reports of Officers and committees.  Again, we will
>have to
>>>>>>  wait for mukti to post the Treasurers report after his return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I had hoped mukti would be back by now, and would have posted the
>above,
>>>>> but it seems not to be the case.  In order to move the meetinbg
>along, I
>>>>> will suggest that someone move that we defer these items until the
>2017
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I call upon the byfy chairman to report. Pierre's committee (of
>one?)
>>>>>>  regarding the development of proficiency tests is the only other
>>>>>>  committee, I think.  So he can also report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to the two of you for the reports.  Reappointment of the
>byfy
>>>>> chair will be under old business.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of mukti's suggestions for expediting future meetings, so that
>they
>>>>> don't last for months, is that whereever possible, motions are
>presented
>>>>> in advance of the (next) meeting and discussed on various forums
>>>>> (including the members list, but also IRC and whatever else people
>want
>>>>> to try), before they are formally raised at the meeting.  I
>suspect that
>>>>> some of the things suggested by the byfy chair in his report would
>best
>>>>> be discussed in the context of such motions as would support their
>>>>> implementation.  selpa'i, could you prepare such motions, and post
>them
>>>>> when appropriate.  (in the current suggestion, I suspect that we
>can
>>>>> have such motions posted as new business, and at the same time
>tabled
>>>>> until the next meeting.  Or just post them for discussion now
>while we
>>>>> are still on reports.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I am trying to transition myself out of active
>leadership/management of
>>>>>>  the organization.  As such, I asked Karen Stein, the VP, and
>Curtis
>>>>>>  Franks, also on the Board, to seek via the mailing lists and
>other forms
>>>>>>  of communication, inputs from the community as to what LLG
>should be
>>>>>>  doing now and in the future to support and promote Lojban, and
>to make
>>>>>>  recommendations for action.  I would like them to report on what
>they
>>>>>>  found out, and what they think should be done (either by the
>membership,
>>>>>>  by the Board, or by volunteers).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen a report from Karen or Curtis.  We really need to
>figure
>>>>> out what LLG will be doing as an organization in a post-lojbab
>>>>> environment, and the inputs from the community are essential. 
>Please
>>>>> report.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I've asked mukti in his role as managing communications to work
>with
>>>>>>  gleki and report on various issues that have been raised
>regarding the
>>>>>>  management of the Lojban web site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again this will have to wait for mukti to have time to make such a
>report.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Any other members, Board or otherwise, are welcome to report on
>any
>>>>>>  other projects/activities that they feel the membership should
>be aware
>>>>>>  of, and any actions that they would like LLG to take as an
>organization
>>>>>>  in support of those activities/projects.  At this point, I am
>just
>>>>>>  looking for reports and recommendations, not motions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My thanks to guskant and to gleki for their reports.  It is not
>clear
>>>>> that either of these points to a motion to be considered by the
>>>>> membership.  If I am incorrect, please proceed as mentioned above
>for
>>>>> byfy reports.
>>>>>
>>>>>  After we get done with all reports, we will call for new members,
>and
>>>>>>  elect a new Board of Directors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear that all reports that will be made are completed,
>but in
>>>>> the interests of moving the meeting along, I call for people
>wishing to
>>>>> become members to speak up now, (along with any proposals by
>others for
>>>>> people not currently present to become members - we will need to
>get
>>>>> them to state that they wish to be members, and get them added to
>this
>>>>> mailing list).
>>>>>
>>>>>  I will allow at least a full week for all of the above reports to
>be
>>>>>>  posted.  Feel free to discuss any reports, ask questions, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will allow another week for any additional reports, as well as
>motions
>>>>> regarding deferring of minutes and reports (which motions can be
>>>>> seconded without waiting for me).  Then we will act on any motions
>as
>>>>> appropriate and approve those new members.  Then Board elections,
>short
>>>>> consideration of motions, and we adjourn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  If for whatever reason I have not posted again for more than 2
>weeks
>>>>>>  from today, I ask the VP to assume the chair and attempt to move
>the
>>>>>>  meeting onward, in line with the above and the Bylaw-directed
>agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lojbab
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members