Received: from localhost ([::1]:37436 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1d2LeT-0005Yh-Bi; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:50:25 -0700 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:34522) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1d2LeN-0005Xn-UV for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:50:22 -0700 Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id a103so161686304ioj.1 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:50:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Abj9z6yqu57JmuNoJfMg7cKbpdVzfMs6GOZiVk72cbs=; b=f3+B9q3YU9CAgdZvk1BGRJKxivyFe8biNQsGZ8h04cabpRpu9EcNvx+8Qw9MxS49Xg kjMrcHf5enfiRBtt3xKRHQ2/lTJ3g4gvtUlHa4qiIv61ZiPV2ljDdyH0kEeVIjXXVS0N YxUgfSlYYSynd/sg0JU9fOcAbYxu5OfZLKc7DUxlBIikrHWXbZ9jOwIWUaHfrJT6uwKi U7LjupiNRAnU2Km8/gdGHVn5mTJyFYOzJ7zK1uySJoowp9ClTe9O/zOeSQVWPY9iYCO7 F4/9N5N9xOFb31YfO+r166MpV5VEUAcEPQyLjDTbA5rrVOLnbswJloJlKxkB79B/x1vB E68A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Abj9z6yqu57JmuNoJfMg7cKbpdVzfMs6GOZiVk72cbs=; b=b8xGU7IJxrWgLmBhtbtAaz6b9kNyt2PyDMMXFqQrOibdlERuksJx5KBb0YOBUGMcL5 5lnGSD3742J1gPzLiUMvkvSBm/19yI/sPhZ3aYhR7MSM4iQF9BTXmsr2vUx0b9IjKmOw yrOLLsXoE00tRSb9SJIwDifDYZ05Ji2R+TTNv6CH0GZZ+n6IZsKWayKVPTW8sJrGr5K1 n1PzEomy2Gi6U+jJplABgSZqx9RyjrDoeUbsgqrkQaZ2DXQavfx/9rY0FU4VQ8NuKAWp deFjJjxto7HpUgmHP2ZEZImAaJuG8tZvh4qJek8LIV9CLmsi0DcJ3jo7MdKhPh2WpGpR +Bdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4KJvpH09uQ2qOJ9i63XjgOO4s6bdMJwY0HX3j4eSGwndhvphQ3 CxNYmW0Q1nruQzMgQUz5ITjscvc6oQ== X-Received: by 10.98.71.202 with SMTP id p71mr20872238pfi.39.1492969813397; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:50:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.145.87 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0457f7fe-dfd2-2ef6-9402-00d1dd15b239@lojban.org> From: And Rosta Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:50:12 +0100 Message-ID: To: "llg-members@lojban.org" X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 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="===============3794507252191576486==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3794507252191576486== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b6366635877054dd91f93 --94eb2c0b6366635877054dd91f93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23 April 2017 at 05:18, Karen Stein wrote: > I dug around in old emails, and here is the highlights of the idea as > discussed in February: > > Riley originally proposed, > "I would strongly prefer that we adopt a format like the Language Creatio= n > Society: We fix the agenda for the meeting beforehand, and conduct the > entire meeting in IRC in a period of hours. There have been objections to > this plan before on the basis that it=E2=80=99s hard to find a time which= works for > people all over the world. While I agree that it=E2=80=99s important 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 current format works we= ll > for no one. We can do better." > > Gleki originally suggested having the entire meeting at one several hour > period of IRC conversation, then later changed this to, > "conduct meetings in IRC PARTIALLY since we have to wait for other member= s > 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 a= nd > meetings would become more streamlined." > > My response throughout the discussion of this has been that if the initia= l > 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 > said) unable to participate due to (a) the international nature of the > lojban community, (b) the variable comfort level of people with technolog= y > and things like IRC, and (c) the time commitments of some of us, and (2) > presenting the transcript afterwards for those who couldn't attend for > their comments 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 influencing these decisions. > > There was also discussion, if we follow Gleki's original suggestion, of > those who could not attend the IRC meeting putting in proxies in advance.= I > think this even less inclusive. > > I did agree to try this method for one meeting since no one else expresse= d > the same concerns. At that time it is to be revisited. Now I want to > clarify exactly what we are actually doing since these proposals are > different. > I can't remember if I replied when you originally made this point, which I sort of agree with. For my part, the demands on me of participation by IRC would exceed what I'm willing to give. But my current and foreseeable levels of involvement with Lojban are so slight that if the LLG wanted to move to IRC meetings it would make more sense for me to resign membership than petition for meetings to continue by email for my sake (and presumably for the sake of others of what has become the older generation). Possibly repeating myself here too, but I'd suggest that if moving to IRC meetings, the LLG, in order to avoid quoracy problems, should institute a policy of removing from membership members who don't show up for meetings. --And. --94eb2c0b6366635877054dd91f93 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2= 3 April 2017 at 05:18, Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com> wrote:
I dug around in old emails= , and here is the highlights of the idea as discussed in February:

Riley originally proposed,
"I would strongly prefer that we adopt a format like the Language Crea= tion Society: We fix the agenda for the meeting beforehand, and conduct the= entire meeting in IRC in a period of hours. There have been objections to = this plan before on the basis that it=E2=80=99s hard to find a time which w= orks for people all over the world. 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. We can do better."

Gleki originally suggested having the entire meeting at one several hour pe= riod of IRC conversation, then later changed this to,
"conduct meetings in IRC PARTIALLY=C2=A0since we have to wait for othe= r members to appear. The logs of IRC meetings would be posted to this maili= ng list so that others can add their replies. This way nothing would=C2=A0r= eally change and meetings would become more streamlined."

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 b= e a number of people (I believe a higher number than the few others have sa= id) unable to participate due to (a) the international nature of the lojban= community, (b) the variable comfort level of people with technology and th= ings like IRC, and (c) the time commitments of some of us, and (2) presenti= ng the transcript afterwards for those who couldn't attend for their co= mments does nothing to change the fact the original participants have alrea= dy made up their minds and new input will not have nearly the same chance o= f influencing these decisions.

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

I did agree to try this method for one meeting since no one else expressed = the same concerns. At that time it is to be revisited. Now I want to clarif= y exactly what we are actually doing since these proposals are different.

I can't remember if I replied = when you originally made this point, which I sort of agree with. For my par= t, the demands on me of participation by IRC would exceed what I'm will= ing to give. But my current and foreseeable levels of involvement with Lojb= an are so slight that if the LLG wanted to move to IRC meetings it would ma= ke more sense for me to resign membership than petition for meetings to con= tinue by email for my sake (and presumably for the sake of others of what h= as become the older generation).=C2=A0

Possibly re= peating myself here too, but I'd suggest that if moving to IRC meetings= , the LLG, in order to avoid quoracy problems, should institute a policy of= removing from membership members who don't show up for meetings.
=

--And.
--94eb2c0b6366635877054dd91f93-- --===============3794507252191576486== 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 --===============3794507252191576486==--