Received: from [::1] (port=43972 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWyFi-0003r6-Fk; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:39:42 -0800 Received: from nov-007-i579.relay.mailchannels.net ([46.232.183.133]:62219) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTtdX-00070M-Vy for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:07:38 -0800 X-Sender-Id: mxroute|x-authuser|dersaidin@dersaidin.net Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6E31215FB for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ocean.mxroute.com (unknown [100.96.23.18]) (Authenticated sender: mxroute) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BC6D012160E for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:07:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: mxroute|x-authuser|dersaidin@dersaidin.net Received: from ocean.mxroute.com (ocean-ptr.mxroute.com [172.18.55.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.11.3); Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:07:30 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: mxroute|x-authuser|dersaidin@dersaidin.net X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: mxroute X-Harmony-Sponge: 669b06d658c5bcff_1514311650088_2703609427 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1514311650088:695889991 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1514311650087 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dersaidin.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From: In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=VwNwX8795Fy6exim66EfkxmdsqqDMVpE4nUu3j15y5g=; b=piblDk0z/+hoRhnyIFLoEzM+O qNv8eXvijfNp+Q7XARbxFQrGEP4P/J1Np5CCywkP8EJ3ujS7PiOUsSfJ0yNEdi0zakIfLRGiS5lb0 PhWs++vjP8O+LgStT/P+4KQL+fjDN/AmDsrfXpAKKZH7nYMxWcLHPkwHq+2GCNKy5GhQZXwUg72uD 35lUu19OV+Ky9h002QeM1B/TgtM4lwbR212eTe8mR3wDgVCN/MPBuxKQnDZyv/azJbErEAexJxSqS eaqBXQ6/K+67iK6Syenc8psBS4coWYhBoCisv0kLtq1rw+L2MIOS4vyBqgnUgnwB7gdamAVu8NjLj HsHv0g//g==; X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ4ikuZt+jCrNUqItMwADjjdagnq82xJeI1p4tIai+4m6tcEIj7 eokUFQbHEK9NC38qbfVmETSKH8rju3/8K8k+qqo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov2AnNhSAQ9tHCNeebVM8pkziED4TONcVtjLow0Z3wkxRsduZM+qmUqzMZipr+oMjcL+IQ1ZSoxXVUTrUnKud4= X-Received: by 10.46.55.20 with SMTP id e20mr15736450lja.118.1514311647436; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:07:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> <2f305760-8dd9-79f4-2951-f7bf7d357616@selpahi.de> <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> In-Reply-To: <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> From: DerSaidin Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:07:16 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-AuthUser: dersaidin@dersaidin.net X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:39:41 -0800 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5613743413224057812==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5613743413224057812== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e803e520d327b90561422756" --f4f5e803e520d327b90561422756 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a few years ago. > I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already published in the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the identical free documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents, I have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and placed on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account to edit the pages. > Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It was all a waste of time. Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvements to explanations). Some people want Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes, make the language more logical, fix issues, etc). > Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to promote the scientific study of the relationships between language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and experiment with such a language... Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the LLG's purpose. Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose. Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose. But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both. My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take. This is causing frustration: people wanting development, trying to implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel like they're wasting their time. This is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their work using the language will be invalidated by changes to the language in the future. This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their preferred direction. I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict. This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated. This conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged. This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community. Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten the LLG too. I think the path forward is: 1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG. - Do all LLG members have the same understanding? - Do all LLG members agree with them? 2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits into the LLG goals. 3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or continuously developed. - This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone who remains. 4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do. - Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development? - Can the LLG learn from other logical languages? - Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical language? - Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future logical language? - Can the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in logical language? On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi wrote: > On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote: > > IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how much > > Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years: > > > > https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png > > > > 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it. > > Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they > are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken > (written) Lojban. > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --f4f5e803e520d327b90561422756 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
I'm not an LLG member, I asked t= o join this list as an observer a few years ago.

<= br>
> I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works.= Actually, there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already p= ublished in the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the ide= ntical free documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK = documents, I have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents= and placed on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have= account to edit the pages.

> Throughout all th= ese years the community has known about Lojban's problems and shortcomi= ngs, yet the same community chose time and again to let some crazy rules ab= out a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Respecting those pe= ople's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not much further than w= e were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same people didn't = even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It was all a= waste of time.


Some people want Lo= jban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvements t= o explanations).
Some people want Lojban to be further developed = (substantial changes, make the language more logical, fix issues, etc).



> Article 2 Section = 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to promote the = scientific study of the relationships between language, thought and human c= ulture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requirem= ents for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and expe= riment with such a language...

Both positions are = valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and= experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose.
<= div>Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial impro= vements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose.
= But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both.=


My impression is there is disagree= ment and confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will = take.
This is causing frustration: people wanting development, tr= ying to implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and fe= el like they're wasting their time.
This is causing doubt: pe= ople wanting stability are unsure if their work using the language will be = invalidated by changes to the language in the future.
This is cau= sing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their preferred directio= n.

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also i= dentifies this conflict.
This conflict makes everyone (on bot= h sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also ma= ke beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict also cul= tivate personal conflicts within the community.
Since Lojban is t= he major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten the LLG too.
=



I think the path fo= rward is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the = purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members have the same unde= rstanding?
- Do all LLG members agree with them?

2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojba= n fits into the LLG goals.

3) Decide if Lojban sho= uld be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or continuously deve= loped.
- This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers= everyone who remains.

4) Maybe consider what othe= r work the LLG would like to do.
- Should the LLG make a fork Loj= ban for ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn from other = logical languages?
- Can the LLG do work more meta than developin= g a particular logical language?
- Can the LLG do any work that w= ould benefit all current/future logical language?
- Can the LLG e= xplore/document options and design decisions in logical language?



On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote:
> IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how much=
> Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years:
>
> https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png
>
> 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it.

Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they
are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken
(written) Lojban.

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs
--f4f5e803e520d327b90561422756-- --===============5613743413224057812== 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 --===============5613743413224057812==--