Received: from [::1] (port=51352 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eU5mr-0006JC-AS; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:06:01 -0800 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:36070) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eU5mL-0006H7-1X for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:05:30 -0800 Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i143so14373703ioa.3 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:05:28 -0800 (PST) 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=7oVYuBEO+msqjR7bCSv+4+VX1Lpil01f0Bt8eJZRqyw=; b=rPaH3qIS0oHkgnZVSdMqGbIP/zfTus4PUj2c8sAllrMuHxCL4wIypmokfb8nzKbfrU anl4UaxE9eIQfg6SYfiQzU4+ttTM3nYG14CU3dYyfZaJRhfG5PbyVc/R3NSPMA4nXBVS P/ErqvUwsi0UwA15EUpXbdMF6NOdHDAImeBmK5S9Oduzw7pcjPq/+Cb5J8zzLYmMkToa 6xiHtV0nrcwguWgBygnOD0bKLzvTkokDKaE90UfH+Mt4WxDEDM5swVMeOq+z3HTEyomS 5YUVXb6nEpqI2w/877Y8Ylke30N7WZ1C+JKDtbIolHKd24VBakoMdtzqwqLPqMnJ0Jhi FAuw== 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=7oVYuBEO+msqjR7bCSv+4+VX1Lpil01f0Bt8eJZRqyw=; b=aA4cnChAJggzsj7//TPM2J6y0HBLHRyRUVo6kVuE9reN9Y7iZnvIvLA4fYLObcYVzq EVhXEAnBXoPjvtYB9WbjRbRWn5uUDmthEWq8obz8FItViJJbQt1r2YJQwJbfJVhfvjgM kgCal0idUiLm/VqDt9lAky7kByXh3esIskTSs3lI7w2cZvc2uJ/dpBd7ucviFcyRZnaQ PTiygMgtAlrrvW6tfrKi57aI1V6A+p1SM3Tg1swx1CIYNk/U5qX/PHxTFApq0AAPGjWU C+vQHmQSjvseNZV524cnDJSFGyg/PMjqSlSmHLIX1QH+eScCuxmnw2imx+BJwUZLZorb eQ1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLiER3IM3HHFeIhDkaaypWRvhM79O+yWWJmB2cYYpRhaBtUr8VN 0dHv8hRaLLK+XBNXcneuROM8SFDjKSfbwomM+Kq09Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouRN5EXz8SiBDnSa8RNlkICgHP5v6JP8J58T8QFPFuDiVGuKx/BQXf+42kwBY1Eol1/fEIzTZkyWAtqHf4QffU= X-Received: by 10.107.63.3 with SMTP id m3mr25292627ioa.137.1514358322278; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:05:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.41.19 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:05:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> From: guskant Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 07:05:01 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_bar: ---- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org Sender: "Llg-members" This message is only a reply to Lojbab. I think further discussion about the death of the LLG should be restrained in this thread. If you continue discussing that, please post as a new thread. 2017-12-26 20:07 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier : > > All of the other official documents are in the public domain, as far as I > know. Anyone can copy them or change them. But only a version of the > document(s) explicitly adopted by BPFK (or LLG) will be considered official > by most people. > >> I wish all the official contents were attributed >> to CC BY-SA 4.0, > > > No idea what this means. > Copying and changing the official documents without notice brings chaos because anyone can deceive people in believing that one's version is the real official documents. In order to prevent the chaos, I recommend CC BY-SA 4.0 described here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ It is neither "no rights reserved (public domain)" nor "all rights reserved", but some rights reserved for keeping the source documents easy to be used by others. It is practical for future Lojbanists because they will easily refer to the source documents without worrying about the difference of versions between copies. > >> I don't want to continue discussion of websites or servers in this >> thread. I want to go back to my first post addressed to Karis in this >> thread [3]. My points are the following three: >> >> 1. Any official supports are not required for advertisements, events >> or meetings. >> 2. I agree to dissolving the LLG, wishing that the balance would be >> contributed for education of poor children. >> 3. Future Lojbanists need concrete fossil (reliable archives) of the >> CLL and the BPFK documents. >> >> I'm waiting for a reply from Karis. > > > Those points are largely independent of each other. > > On point 1, it is correct that such are not "required". I think Karen was > merely noting that LLG has some funds, and that this would be a valid and > possible use of those funds. If LLG were to decide to undertake some > promotion of the language, there would likely be costs that someone would > have to bear. Whether sponsoring such is the best use of LLG funds is > something to be debated. > I know, and I have already replied to Karis about my misunderstanding here: http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-December/001670.html > On point 2, LLG is unlikely to be dissolved, and most likely if it were, any > assets that we have would likely be applied to some other qualified > organization that works with language in some way at least tangential to the > LLG purposes. People who gave money to LLG presumably did so in support of > either Lojban or language research. However virtuous the education of > children is, it would be a misappropriation of funds to use them for that > purpose. > The suggestion of using the balance for the education of poor children is valid only after dissolving the LLG. According to Karis, whether we should dissolve the LLG will be discussed in another new thread, and we should wait for the time. > I agree with point 3. > > The Secretary (mukti) is responsible for any official management of archival > materials (though in my titled role as "Archivist" (which has no formalized > responsibility), I have unofficially kept my own archive). But I don't pay > attention to anything not on the LLG web pages. > > BPFK is of course responsible for promulgating any documents which they > approve, though they can do so by reporting them to this meeting or directly > to the Secretary (mukti). > > I'm not sure what if any changes need to be made to this status quo, other > than to have BPFK decide to do its job and then actually follow through. > My last motion was exactly to solve problems with the point 3: http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html Gleki implicitly agreed and Curtis did not oppose to the motion, but the meeting was closed without discussing it. No opposition. It was not discussed. Everyone other than Gleki and Curtis just ignored the motion. That is the death of the LLG. 2017-12-26 20:21 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier : > On 12/25/2017 11:47 PM, guskant wrote: >> >> Do you talk about the pieces of evidence for the LLG is dead? If so, I >> would like to confirm that those facts cannot be negated no matter >> whether I am happy with the results. > > > There are no such facts. > >> It is a fact that we have not yet >> published any official reply to the open letter to the LLG that was >> posted two years ago. > > > No one apparently wanted to make any official reply, so none was made. It > isn't required that LLG respond to such things. > > If you have an issue you want to ne considered, make a motion. > All the motions I posted were just ignored, not discussed. That is the death of the LLG. >> ? It is also a fact that we achieved nothing for >> resolving the problems that I posted for these two years. > > > It isn't necessarily the case that others agree that those problems exist or > are of particular concern. > Someone agreed to some parts of the motions, no one disagreed the motions I posted. The problems are simply ignored, not discussed. That is the death of the LLG. > I recall that you had some kind of enmity toward gleki and/or his actions, > and selpa'i has recently expressed some unhappiness with him in this > discussion. > > But unless LLG or the Secretary (or the BPFK if applicable) adopts some > rules or procedures, no one can or will stop gleki from doing what he sees > fit. But I'm not sure anyone (but you) cares that much; there certainly > should be room in the Lojbanic world for both of you. gleki is doing > something, (as are you) and that alone is evidence that Lojban is not > "dead". If neither of you need or want any official LLG support to do what > you wish, then of course it is not necessary that we do so (though I for one > would welcome your regularly reporting on what you are doing. I admire much > of it insofar as I understand.) > > lojbab > The official body has right to sue Gleki for his official pretending activities. The open letter http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/open_letter.html is therefore worth discussing the contents and making decision what to do with the open letter. However, the discussion at that time achieved nothing. Even whether the official body should reply or not was not discussed. That is the death of the LLG. I don't know the US law, but Gleki's activities described in the open letter can be penalized in some countries. Here is a simple explanation by a lawyers' group in the UK about the crime for impersonation on social media: http://himsworthslegal.com/when-is-it-unlawful-to-impersonate-someone-else I consider Gleki's activities can be considered as "defamation". Here is one of the pieces of evidence: http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/tsv.html Some of his official-pretending comments on Twitter actually bothered people who casually commented on Lojban. Gleki's official-pretending responses might have made them feel hostility toward Lojban. Not only I but also some people on the Lojban IRC expressed the similar fear at that time. Those activities of Gleki can be considered as defamation of the LLG. Not only the UK, but also Japan can penalize Gleki's activities. The penalty of "3 years or less imprisonment with work, or the fine up to five hundred thousand JPY (around 4415 USD)" for credit damage or business nuisance is described in Article 233 of the Criminal Code of Japan. The Code was sometimes applied for impersonating someone on social media. Gleki's activities mentioned in the open letter may be considered as a kind of business nuisance of the LLG. The problems described in the open letter are not solved. Gleki continues pretending to be the official body. Here is the recent piece of evidence dated November 19, 2017: (an extract from the record of IRC Lojban Group) --- Day changed Sun Nov 19 2017 16:55 < ^^^^> > " ": @lojban are you a programmer?" lojban is a language, not a programmer" 16:55 < ^^^^> : In case you hadn't understood, I was tagging Arcady. 16:55 < PoroCYon> shows up as "lojban" for me 16:55 < ^^^^> > " shows up as "lojban" for me" 16:55 < ^^^^> : Its Arcady's username on Telegram. 16:56 < PoroCYon> ah 17:00 < ^^^^> : yeah 17:01 < ^^^^> : a'a 17:01 < thrig> "xa! xa! xa!" laughed the demon 17:05 < kahai> : It seems inappropriate to call yourself "lojban" as if you were some kind of representative. mi'e la guskant _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members