MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <351cd560-c8a4-7430-197a-f16e422502c5@lojban.org>
References: <CADbAA4Uv420mBUBjeihFdqxWfzbC4s5S5JTRVRpQgiy9Y6FH9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+h=qtWw6CaGutQAQg9kgwtyy45WqOhko8kkdyVeA+bKxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFoHDTf1a6GZu0eo3qaXmK7i8wsg_jrwZA8VXWmiPwX8gKjY6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal>
 <CADbAA4U=t-y1ef=zoQjjTP7Wm6U-B_LBV0rsEQTOx5RscQq+WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+hZ=tb9+ZKKWPeaMOUGKvKLX6OR68NoMR7t7Y_r=SerpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADbAA4VtZPXqYpvDVyu0k-9eDy53aJ9oss17Gsfg+p0JSL21Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+jEJH-gcZieaf7cGfhDxOKweNG3sUdB5_HNTDoGTm780Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADbAA4W-5-VMexAeQvMjNiMCK+X1ypd3_ObZSnTJOxQkg1zx1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO1AUJO36S_7JBoKfou3LGdhMzUmLQC1GNBESf8QHePvUULY5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+gf6kefkNtTT=D42TnG9VwFDYQqaGQwVPZmWSTu4Z0+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO1AUJPC+PUScj6yjhBvWhbg9NHQ4fHo2pcdXoYCimcMSMT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+g0ON1dVPH=9oQoShbdHBZ8_zi2zvoHO=_Xa+g-82kbJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae30d492-acf4-6c64-b6ad-a7f8c26325eb@lojban.org>
 <7f34c1b7-c8b5-ae5b-009c-88b6fed561de@lojban.org>
 <351cd560-c8a4-7430-197a-f16e422502c5@lojban.org>
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:18:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJM_VMED4Kok7SvzfD1iFGas9qAiY8+zypymez_QiJyFqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
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: <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

2017-12-28 23:33 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>:
> On 12/28/2017 10:34 AM, guskant wrote:
>> We are still at the stage of "unfinished business". It's not the time
>> for "new business". I will make a motion for the copyright after Karis
>> calls for motions of new business.
>
>
> To the extent that this motion would be applicable to solving the problem(s)
> you are referring to in your other motion(s), the chair might have no
> problem considering it germane to unfinished business.
>

Because all my motions have been ignored by the members, there is no
unfinished business related to them.
doi karis, do you permit me to making a motion for the copyright of
the official documents now?


>> It has become clearer by the last post by Gleki:
>>
>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-December/001687.html
>> A denotational definition of "the official contents" was mentioned in
>> my last motion, and Gleki requires creating actually the collection of
>> the official documents. In other words, his intention consists of my
>> motion and one more requirement, and therefore his intention implies
>> my motion.
>
>
> It was a discussion.  There are no procedural implications in talking about
> something.
>

It is interesting that logical implication is not applied for
seconding to a motion in the meeting, but I accept your interpretation
because I see now a slight light of hope for solving the problems I
raised in the past meetings. I will make clear that in the next
motion.


>> The other members kept silence about the motion,
>
>
> Rather strongly implying that they were not interested at the time.
>
>> That silence of people is indeed the fact that most members ignored my
>> motions.
>
>
> That is their choice.
>
>> It is not your fault, Lojbab, but the fact. Whether the
>> motions were seconded or not, people could make some comments, but did
>> not.
>
>
> Since you interpreted gleki's comment as an "implicit second", I myself
> would be wary of commenting if I were not particularly interested in
> deciding the issue at that time.
>
>> That is the death of the LLG.
>
>
> It is no such thing.  It is people politely ignoring your motion, for
> whatever reason (and there are a variety of possible reasons that could have
> been applicable).
>
> If in fact the motion had been properly restated and then seconded after I
> called for same in April, then there would have had to be an explicit
> decision to table or vote on the motion.
>

Whatever the reason, the silence of the meeting where problems are
raised is the death of the meeting, as a definition. It's only a
tautology.


>
>  I don't know why it is
>>
>> regarded as informal:
>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2016-April/001091.html
>>
>> That motion was also ignored by all the members. No comment, no
>> second, no opposition, no discussion. That is the death of the LLG.
>
>
> No.  That is the disinterest of the members in getting involved in what
> seems to be your personal issues with gleki.
>

The motion was not about my personal issues with Gleki, but "publicly
responding to the open letter, or making the official website under
control of LLG" as shown in the title.
The content is a problem of the official website invaded by Gleki.
Robin resigned the post of Treasurer/Secretary in 2014, but he gave
some part of privilege to Gleki without approval of the official body.
Gleki's privilege on the website is not under control of the official
body. Such a problem cannot be regarded as my personal issues but a
problem of the official body itself. However, you repeatedly
emphasized that the problem is only my personal issues with Gleki, and
not worth discussing in the meeting. It's you who prevented members
from discussing the problem.

mi'e la guskant

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