Received: from localhost ([::1]:41604 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUUJF-0007Ol-G8; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 01:17:05 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo102.cox.net ([68.230.241.214]:35375) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUUIh-0007MS-SJ for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 01:16:34 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo209.cox.net ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20171228091625.ZMEF14605.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo209.cox.net> for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 04:16:25 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo209.cox.net with cox id rMGR1w00U2869s801MGRqU; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 04:16:25 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.5A44B669.00C1, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=a81AzQaF c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=PMayK-KgzlQA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=GqZI9gvVAAAA:8 a=NmiFEV5DAAAA:8 a=0GvZxf_I7W2I6NikFCkA:9 a=tFFmGFR3mouznLrv:21 a=85r7aOB7_H9jhBah:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=bO7LBcl_M8MA:10 a=Piz0I9YU4PQA:10 a=sG5zsfqpQUcA:10 a=iwh3BSu4myUNQlX_M7KP:22 a=FSHvBer-lrqP9m-nZQep:22 a=Bfy2Iq59Ytw7prFpLy6O:22 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: <7f34c1b7-c8b5-ae5b-009c-88b6fed561de@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 04:16:25 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On 12/27/2017 2:05 AM, guskant wrote: > 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. This may be worthy of a distinct motion, but is not to my knowledge yet on the floor. Please considering making such a motion (I move that ...". I don't know whether it is an appropriate standard or not, and how it should be worded. The original baseline was intended to be public domain, but I also intended that an official version would be kept on the site that was not changeable except after a formal procedure. >> 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. I have just reviewed the last meeting as I've archived it. Unfortunately we don't have official minutes to clarify things, but this is my interpretation, and I was chairing the meeting. 1. Your "motion" in the cited message was posed during the roll call for the meeting at a time when I called for advance discussion of possible motions that would later be handled under old or new business. 2. gleki did NOT second the motion. He replied to your message in discussion, as did Curtis. You recognized this at the time since in your next posting in reply to gleki you explicitly called for him to say "I second", which he hadn't and didn't. It hardly matters since this was a discussion period, and formal motions were not in order, and so could not then be seconded. 3. On April 13th I posted the following. > At this point, I will call for any other motions, for Old or New Business. If you make a motion, please state whether you are willing to either a) have the matter decided by the Board or b) allow the motion to be tabled until the 2017 meeting (which will hopefully start earlier in the year, and be based on mukti's and other's ideas to greatly expedite the meetings). > > I'll allow a full week for responses, until end of day 21 April. If there are motions that need to be decided, they need a second, and then you may proceed to debate without me explicitly calling for it. I will try to pay attention in order to keep things moving. If there are no motions by then, we should adjourn. On the 20th you replied, asserting that gleki had "implicitly seconded" the motion, quoting his response which was about his perception that using Github as an official repository could be dangerous, and your response to him per 2 above asking him for a second. He was merely discussing one aspect of one of your suggestions and did not in fact address your motion at all. I found no place where he said that he seconded. You then said that you would delay discussion until the current meeting. On April 22, I posted: > guskant has summarized a proposal which may be considered a motion, and argues that gleki seconded it. That discussion was in advance of the Old/New business period, so if people want to consider it during this meeting (as part of new business), I need a new explicit motion and second at this time. > > No other motions have been proposed during the past week. I will allow 3 days until end of the day 24 April for guskant's summary to be turned into a motion (and seconded and possibly discussed). > > Other motions can still be made, seconded, and discussed during that time. So your claim that your motion was "ignored" is incorrect. There was no new explicit motion, nor any second, nor any disagreement with my ruling, Karen requested clarification on how the agenda for the next (now current) meeting, and after some discussion made a motion that the new meeting would start last June 1, which was seconded and accepted. Alas, the secretary and new president did not follow the agreed upon plan, perhaps because we were still in the process of transferring power from me to Karen on that date. On Sept 18, Karen posted the following > Thank you, gleki, for the nudge. > > I, Karen Stein known in lojban as karis, as President of the Logical Language Group hereby announce the 2017 Members Meeting will begin at 12:00 (midday) GMT on the thirtieth of September in the year 2017. The meeting will take place via email to the llg-members@lojban.org list. > > I call for anyone with an item for the agenda to provide the llg-members@lojban.org or llg-board@lojban.org lists by email with a title and description by email no later than that date. > > Please share this announcement on all the various online chats and in all in-person lojban groups. The meeting is open to any and all individuals with an interest in lojban. You then on Sep 30, posted the following, a new motion: > This motion has already implicitly agreed by Gleki and not opposed by Curtis Franks, and requires further discussion. I herewith retake the subject with simplification. > > Motion: > Remove the official contents from *.lojban.org and maintain them on another place like Github, where all the members of LLG have equal authority for the contents. The rest pages on *.lojban.org must contain disclaimer that the website is owned and managed by voluntary > people, and that the contents are not necessarily harmonized with the official design of Lojban. I don't recognize this motion as being the same as your motion of 20 February, but in fact somewhat resembles the auxiliary suggestion that you mentioned in that post which was what gleki specifically opined *against* as dangerous. So you were again incorrect in claiming agreement by others. And I doubt that anyone other than you remembers the two possible motions you proposed for discussion so many months after they were proposed; I certainly did not. Karen convened the new meeting on October 4, and said that she had a list of topics and motions. I don't know if this included yours. It would have been helpful if Karen had at some point posted her list, but she's new at this, and it probably was the Secretary's job anyway. I that Karen check her list and post it to the meeting to see if there are other topics or motions that people want to discuss. It is not clear whether your motion, although stated in advance of the meeting start, fits John Cowan's opinion as parliamentarian of what can be allowed for discussion. I would have no objection, since you followed Karen's posted instructions. I opine that it should NOW be explicitly stated as a new motion with a distinct subject line, rather than "unfinished business" (and not merely by a reference to the mail archives - where your reference to your February posting was NOT to the motion that you posted in September. People need to know *exactly* what the motion is.) It would then need an explicit second, followed by a discussion and vote. I'll note that a second is NOT a vote for the motion, but merely an agreement that it should be formally discussed and voted upon. > The official body has right to sue Gleki for his official pretending > activities. What official body? BYFY, or LLG? What official pretending activities? (I've never seen gleki claim to be anyone other than himself). Your open letter refers to some twitter postings, but since there is no "official" twitter account (I don't even know how to use Twitter). But I do know that people create bogus and misleading accounts all the time, from discussions I've seen of the postings of our President, and it isn't entirely clear whether a posting on his acknowledged "official" account was written by him or someone else. The company that owns Twitter, and not the laws of any country, determines what may be posted. I know that there is at least one unofficial Lojban Facebook site, but I've never read it, much less posted to it officially or otherwise. gleki presumably has as much right as anyone to post there. Facebook again is owned by a private company that dictates the terms of posters. Robin Powell runs the Lojban website, which is an official site, and he determines who can post there, and to which pages. Since he was Secretary for many years, this was appropriate. I am quite sure that he would defer to mukti as the current Secretary/Treasurer on such matters. I reiterate that there are no official Lojban accounts on any social media site that I know of, and we never have made a policy against someone posting about Lojban on any site. Maybe we should, but that isn't what your motion seems to refer to. > 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. Since all discussion of the topic has been informal, I wouldn't say that anything at all has been concluded. I don't think that I have seen anyone at all agree with your open letter (most of which I don't understand, since I make little use of social media), so I am not surprised if no official action has been taken. It has not been brought up at any Lojban meeting (citing a web page that is not part of official proceedings is not in itself a motion to be discussed). It would probably be mukti who would take such official action, though the membership and the Board both can require him to take specific actions. But again, that would take a formal motion. > I don't know the US law, but Gleki's activities described in the open > letter can be penalized in some countries. I doubt it with regard to the US. "Free speech" trounces most such issues in this country, absent a violation of intellectual property laws which are very specific as to what is protected (and difficult to enforce against non-commercial activity). We as the organization "running" Lojban have avoided making unnecessary intellectual property claims as a matter of principle because of the circumstances of our split from JCB's Loglan Institute version of Loglan. (I will note that I myself made statements about Loglan that JCB objected to, but he was unable to enforce his claims after the US government rescinded his trademark claim on the name. LLG many years ago adopted an official policy that "Lojban is Loglan". So we would have considerable difficulty making a big deal about gleki's postings, even if we agreed that they were misleading, especially absent an official policy.) gleki is posting from Russia, so his actions would probably be primarily governed by Russia's laws. I don't know much about those laws. Again with reference to the current political situation in the US, Russian law apparently permits all sorts of Internet activity that others would consider improper, if not illegal. .uucai lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members