Received: from localhost ([::1]:54956 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1d28zR-0006MM-Uh; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:19:14 -0700 Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179]:33889) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1d28zO-0006LV-Jl for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:19:12 -0700 Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c45so93548586qtb.1 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:19:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:disposition-notification-to:return-receipt-to:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from :message-id; bh=rBS3jnKFBx+8qejpRumgr1lfh0EehMJkMXOAdYWWiRc=; b=XH7vll6ZLhvue7PduiEFYWQfEd8H0FDtCOK/cR9UfqIhpmN6dQ+j24MWy/hwoXS8Ty v43xXy18yVQu0zqDcpSNXgr46MM9iIwyjYaIE50S8yGWvmoJvgymicwhcd70Euwa9GPC XT816Cxg9BIudFyWHu3iC23kiN/tHAWrULsgzLoiTxv1zo7uCf0Y2S0Mmv8n4lVrYdBC 9M90NZf+pqjwE0HnfnvqYQRQz6wl3+7jv+7RQq/lBb9w89UBoFIaUMUhOKH1Ss2ldLWd 3zWAssFzH4d4z9AlVX18G9h8Cqy/xNpiJVgxtNeyXlEBYTdKoeOOUvXaJmwqe16AQsoN vTsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:disposition-notification-to :return-receipt-to:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=rBS3jnKFBx+8qejpRumgr1lfh0EehMJkMXOAdYWWiRc=; b=MNdoz21p9fTUQ8AgcX+bEDAZcfQ+e1AAJcP34dFaoFa4/NHPTnS3/p6sOxWpNDPUjR FFW9et8T8DagT2YkAiPXeEBM0z3zyuubSyCf/u+mSBLOqRHprQgeHMm05Xo8dE6tCqHs ZfRqpg2GsQt/0X3nPQ41b5/QlRQvTCW3pwiAGa1mMTuoJE4oWAaLFaz2Ia6JMOXWpMYW n181s1I8FFn8kJvxGZ07Z9dC1LGRRir6sF16zAIlXqZb4QPm2Bcqr9hfTQRZt+0DMlja 4AfpNMOq/9csd5AEzSC6wVRADNX18ISrbyYnOqRJaSNg1yIdo//sXHqMbEWM8alRI3yf zZdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4ovJAHpNCErccPplnZiNothPmoQrUKJALre+K0aMQMOMKTk/B+ FkN+Rywhzls5Ew== X-Received: by 10.200.45.9 with SMTP id n9mr21901190qta.78.1492921144039; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:5c0:c000:5293:b173:28bd:3807:d86? ([2601:5c0:c000:5293:b173:28bd:3807:d86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b29sm10000927qkj.38.2017.04.22.21.18.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:18:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <0457f7fe-dfd2-2ef6-9402-00d1dd15b239@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org From: Karen Stein Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Request for clarification X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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="===============8973477416309952216==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8973477416309952216== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----A5ZW1FRDMTMEOCJQGXFVH4T6PBA7BP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------A5ZW1FRDMTMEOCJQGXFVH4T6PBA7BP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I dug around in old emails, and here is the highlights of the idea as discu= ssed in February: Riley originally proposed,=20 "I would strongly prefer that we adopt a format like the Language Creation= Society: We fix the agenda for the meeting beforehand, and conduct the ent= ire meeting in IRC in a period of hours=2E There have been objections to th= is plan before on the basis that it=E2=80=99s hard to find a time which wor= ks for people all over the world=2E While I agree that it=E2=80=99s importa= nt for the way that we conduct business to reflect the value that we place = on Lojban=E2=80=99s international character, as far as I can tell the curre= nt format works well for no one=2E We can do better=2E" Gleki originally suggested having the entire meeting at one several hour p= eriod of IRC conversation, then later changed this to, "conduct meetings in IRC PARTIALLY=C2=A0since we have to wait for other me= mbers to appear=2E The logs of IRC meetings would be posted to this mailing= list so that others can add their replies=2E This way nothing would=C2=A0r= eally change and meetings would become more streamlined=2E" My response throughout the discussion of this has been that if the initial= discussion occurs on IRC or other real-time settings then, (1) there will = be a number of people (I believe a higher number than the few others have s= aid) unable to participate due to (a) the international nature of the lojba= n community, (b) the variable comfort level of people with technology and t= hings like IRC, and (c) the time commitments of some of us, and (2) present= ing the transcript afterwards for those who couldn't attend for their comme= nts does nothing to change the fact the original participants have already = made up their minds and new input will not have nearly the same chance of i= nfluencing these decisions=2E There was also discussion, if we follow Gleki's original suggestion, of th= ose who could not attend the IRC meeting putting in proxies in advance=2E I= think this even less inclusive=2E I did agree to try this method for one meeting since no one else expressed= the same concerns=2E At that time it is to be revisited=2E Now I want to c= larify exactly what we are actually doing since these proposals are differe= nt=2E =2Ekaris=2E On April 22, 2017 10:21:48 PM EDT, Bob LeChevalier w= rote: >On 4/22/2017 5:19 PM, Karen Stein wrote: >> Lojbab's belief that discussion between meetings occur here is not >what >> I understood the proposal to be=2E My understanding was that discussion >> was going to happen at random times using any and all the discussion >> methods available to at least some members of the broad lojban >community=2E >> >> Since there is such a difference between these two I did have one >item >> of business to address at this time=2E I would like to have this >> clarified=2E We all need to know before we adjourn what the procedures >we >> are using for our trial such as the means with which everyone is to >be >> notified of topics, and when and where such discussions will be >> happening=2E If it is to be totally freeform, please make this clear=2E > >I expect that the Board will figure it how to plan the next meeting's=20 >agenda, depending on who is the next year's president, and probably=20 >seeking input (informally) from the members before a final decision=2E > >But I am hoping that the membership will, of its own volition, pose=20 >topics of policy discussion that might or might not lead to formal=20 >motions=2E They can easily do so on this list, or use IRC or other fora, > >and these discussions will be by nature "freeform"=2E I would suspect=20 >that if a formal motion arises from this informal discussion, that some > >participant from such discussion will notify the Secretary (i=2Ee=2E almo= st > >certainly mukti), who will collect such motions for the next meeting=2E= =20 >If it is something that should not wait until the next meeting, then he > >can bring it to the Board=2E > >So the only real "procedure" is that any member who desires a motion to > >be discussed at the next annual meeting should send a message to mukti=2E > >If the motion has been discussed on this list, mukti might find out=20 >simply by reading the list, but it would be best not to assume this=2E > >I suspect that the rest is something like this: >At some point before the next annual meeting (as decided by the >Board?),=20 >the President or Secretary will make an announcement of the start of=20 >meeting date, of all known agenda items, and call for any additional=20 >discussion or agenda items=2E If the Board decides to include a formal= =20 >meeting session using IRC, this would also be announced=2E Meeting=20 >announcements will as appropriate go to this list and/or to all lists,=20 >and possibly to the lojban=2Eorg home page=2E > >The Board will presumably decide the specific of the above as part of=20 >planning the meeting, and will probably try to include member input as=20 >part of that planning=2E > >(Others feel free to chime in if this sounds incorrect or flawed)=2E > >lojbab > >lojbab > > >_______________________________________________ >Llg-members mailing list >Llg-members@lojban=2Eorg >http://mail=2Elojban=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/llg-members ------A5ZW1FRDMTMEOCJQGXFVH4T6PBA7BP Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I dug around in old emails, and here is the highli= ghts of the idea as discussed in February:

Riley originally proposed,
"I would strongly prefer that we adopt a format like the Language Cre= ation Society: We fix the agenda for the meeting beforehand, and conduct th= e entire meeting in IRC in a period of hours=2E There have been objections = to this plan before on the basis that it=E2=80=99s hard to find a time whic= h works for people all over the world=2E While I agree that it=E2=80=99s im= portant for the way that we conduct business to reflect the value that we p= lace on Lojban=E2=80=99s international character, as far as I can tell the = current format works well for no one=2E We can do better=2E"

Gleki originally suggested having the entire meeting at one several hour p= eriod of IRC conversation, then later changed this to,
"conduct meetings in IRC PARTIALLY=C2=A0since we have to wait for oth= er members to appear=2E The logs of IRC meetings would be posted to this ma= iling list so that others can add their replies=2E This way nothing would= =C2=A0really change and meetings would become more streamlined=2E"

My response throughout the discussion of this has been that if the initial= discussion occurs on IRC or other real-time settings then, (1) there will = be a number of people (I believe a higher number than the few others have s= aid) unable to participate due to (a) the international nature of the lojba= n community, (b) the variable comfort level of people with technology and t= hings like IRC, and (c) the time commitments of some of us, and (2) present= ing the transcript afterwards for those who couldn't attend for their c= omments does nothing to change the fact the original participants have alre= ady made up their minds and new input will not have nearly the same chance = of influencing these decisions=2E

There was also discussion, if we follow Gleki's original suggestion, o= f those who could not attend the IRC meeting putting in proxies in advance= =2E I think this even less inclusive=2E

I did agree to try this method for one meeting since no one else expressed= the same concerns=2E At that time it is to be revisited=2E Now I want to c= larify exactly what we are actually doing since these proposals are differe= nt=2E

=2Ekaris=2E

On April 22, 2017 10:21:48 P= M EDT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban=2Eorg> wrote:
On 4/22/2017 5:19 PM, Karen Stein wrote:
 Lojbab's belief that discussion=
 between meetings occur here is not what
 I understood the proposal to=
 be=2E My understanding was that discussion
 was going to happen at ra=
ndom times using any and all the discussion
 methods available to at l=
east some members of the broad lojban community=2E

 Since there =
is such a difference between these two I did have one item
 of busines=
s to address at this time=2E I would like to have this
 clarified=2E W=
e all need to know before we adjourn what the procedures we
 are using=
 for our trial such as the means with which everyone is to be
 notifie=
d of topics, and when and where such discussions will be
 happening=2E=
 If it is to be totally freeform, please make this clear=2E

I expect that the Board will figure it how to plan the next meetin=
g's 
agenda, depending on who is the next year's president, and probab=
ly 
seeking input (informally) from the members before a final decisio=
n=2E

But I am hoping that the membership will, of its own voliti=
on, pose 
topics of policy discussion that might or might not lead to =
formal 
motions=2E  They can easily do so on this list, or use IRC or =
other fora, 
and these discussions will be by nature "freeform&qu=
ot;=2E  I would suspect 
that if a formal motion arises from this info=
rmal discussion, that some 
participant from such discussion will noti=
fy the Secretary (i=2Ee=2E almost 
certainly mukti), who will collect =
such motions for the next meeting=2E 
If it is something that should n=
ot wait until the next meeting, then he 
can bring it to the Board=2E<=
br />
So the only real "procedure" is that any member who de=
sires a motion to 
be discussed at the next annual meeting should send=
 a message to mukti=2E 
If the motion has been discussed on this list,=
 mukti might find out 
simply by reading the list, but it would be bes=
t not to assume this=2E

I suspect that the rest is something lik=
e this:
At some point before the next annual meeting (as decided by th=
e Board?), 
the President or Secretary will make an announcement of th=
e start of 
meeting date, of all known agenda items, and call for any =
additional 
discussion or agenda items=2E  If the Board decides to inc=
lude a formal 
meeting session using IRC, this would also be announced=
=2E  Meeting 
announcements will as appropriate go to this list and/or=
 to all lists, 
and possibly to the lo=
jban=2Eorg home page=2E

The Board will presumably decide the=
 specific of the above as part of 
planning the meeting, and will prob=
ably try to include member input as 
part of that planning=2E
(Others feel free to chime in if this sounds incorrect or flawed)=2E

lojbab

lojbab



Llg-members m=
ailing list
Llg-members@lojban=2Eorg
http://mail=2Elojban=2Eorg/mailman/=
listinfo/llg-members
------A5ZW1FRDMTMEOCJQGXFVH4T6PBA7BP-- --===============8973477416309952216== 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 --===============8973477416309952216==--