Received: from localhost ([::1]:58808 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWF4x-00026k-Ig; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 21:25:35 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:33207) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWF4P-00024l-QG for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 21:25:03 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id g130so14955580wme.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 21:25:01 -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=JbiysGbBgKw3U5VUeqCVxcksS+414eCwZYZszFifB8c=; b=ru4FtsfPq+7rFRm9ameQQ+zRVqr11BfaK8DQ/DE4MsrRIyblMegUGg3hOj89AyNPCQ lf7e7sGUm+qwZy13WXgjsiTxa+8lRz5wQisKRjXmlAQQl7/On3vv7plI01NSll+nqel2 TM2IYadLKSbkeIupLqZDUJIswMGBOd+4w3apoZsNLn3qTgJcdjeHgmgTjkrvVoN4G7Ll MYZx6zE3U5ftKQi9LWNFtmMMVg5FBjKXHu8ADPgSNXUDkI+HZF2Wk0IE5cKwLg+FSQPu yGoq5jthqXqKVye9ZtOMexBIUPM0nj3VMLCkuJ2PJ2ZELXk0IFSRRA5BGbFBCZjZHuvp SO0w== 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=JbiysGbBgKw3U5VUeqCVxcksS+414eCwZYZszFifB8c=; b=ENOdsB+4pC5K/7pkaIfJ0HR9PY9x8cfocFIQkHPw9Y8Je+YHEBuhYSxUjxiZ4tc8MQ ggOiR7aAMxlYVFpurgv8woOedzdWsixmQa+e/68bL41mGPAE/vbYfiZvVwQFDMzlaxDR m3Yc23wU/lkVAUnnqW3b5yJc9NS85juETEBCUhMJOUETpz9Ktzk13nZkgKY5iRw1iJWM EJVFk/WESo/qd//X/U/VKhbbkgPH1iiIn6D+J+aHqhJyoWoJ71X84Fm4doEFJ3JO23OI h8l4XwEbhCB44aU8dB5IbCq8lEZVQd9b9f/KBscqJkG6yYW8ymDElet9oShG95qOXxXq eSJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mI/RBSF49EkRq6UwH4PX6nkn89sRX9VzWPUe0ElPJYrQ86v1DyR XWpJJVlgWupllj1AeHX91TKf+SEy9Sn3pEVx4TVY X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou8wKmisJwjOs4gE8wlamHoB9QY8eur3ojmdIwDDWWNip8RJcGxkx6T0acS+5m4Y1nYgScuPS5KmXvzcv4fN5Y= X-Received: by 10.80.147.93 with SMTP id n29mr58994144eda.237.1514870694556; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 21:24:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:24:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:24:14 +0300 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] Unfinished Business: Elephant 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="===============3365526667835277573==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3365526667835277573== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1a8c0ea136d50561c451ae" --94eb2c1a8c0ea136d50561c451ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I suggest https://wust.space/ although adding reply functionality and "likes/upvotes" might be necessary. 2018-01-02 4:42 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > I can see many uses of the Elephant system beyond BPFK decisions, one of > which is how to run these meetings in the future. That is why I ask that > further discussion on this topic transfer to this new thread. > > .karis. > > On Dec 31, 2017 13:51, "selpahi" wrote: > >> The BPFK was empowered to determine its own decision-making process by >> the BPFK reauthorization charter [1]. In 2015, when that motion passed, = the >> BPFK was coming out of a long "bureaucratic blockade" and the new BPFK >> membership was happy to work under less bureaucracy. This worked quite w= ell >> for the first year or so, but it started to show deficiencies as the >> honeymoon phase ended. >> >> The BPFK started to run into issues that weren't that easily decidable >> due to there being different conflicting interests and ideals, and, ther= e >> being no clear decision-making process in place, it became hard to make >> progress at that point. >> >> Even though the BPFK has the right to make up its own rules, it might be >> a good idea to ask the wider LLG membership for suggestions as to how a >> more effective decision-making process could be devised, and how the >> committee could be structured more effectively. >> >> guskant expressed the following (on the main list): >> >>> I think the problem is caused by the structure of the committee. >>> >> >> (and I would like to hear from her what she thinks could be improved >> about the structure of the committee) >> >> and gleki has expressed in this meeting a desire for clarification on th= e >> BPFK's workings. >> >> There's also the question of what the role of the chair should be, and >> more specifically, what powers the chair should have. >> >> A pertinent quote by Gregorio Guidi from the recent, very long, thread o= n >> the main list called "CLL and modern Lojban" [2]: >> >> What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why no= t >>> having him have the final word on what goes in and goes out, when conse= nsus >>> cannot be reached? >>> >> >> That thread actually touched on the questions I'm addressing in the >> present email. There were several interesting ideas presented in the >> thread, but it was all mixed in with other somewhat unrelated topics and >> there was no clear result. >> >> Some important points to me are: >> >> * How should the BPFK make decisions? This is a broader question than >> which type of voting should be used. A fundamental set of rules that bot= h >> facilitates good decision-making and prevents premature decisions should= be >> put in place. >> * How can it be guaranteed that the wider community will accept their >> decisions? I ask this because the BPFK members were not voted into the >> committee by a community-wide election. How can the BPFK achieve a high >> level of acceptance such that its decisions will be accepted by the >> community and not be perceived as violence of a group whose power does n= ot >> seem justified. >> * What are the powers of the chair? >> >> ... and probably more that I'm forgetting right now. >> >> Most of us probably know about the old "dream" of the Elephant, proposed >> by John Cowan long ago: an issue-based information system that keeps tra= ck >> of all the open (and closed) questions of the language. See this link [3= ]. >> We still do not have such a system despite it obviously being a Good >> Thing and despite the fact that it's probably not that hard to create (t= he >> community probably has more programmers than non-programmers). >> >> Anyway, I recently re-visited the Elephant and looked into different >> programs that would let me visualize the structure of an Elephant-like >> program to see if it would make BPFK discussions more structured. I crea= ted >> the following diagram and page as an example of what such a structure co= uld >> look like when applied to the kinds of problems the BPFK actually faces,= in >> this case the ongoing issue relating to {lo nu broda ba brode}: >> >> http://selpahi.de/BPFK_lonubrOdababrOde.html >> >> (Disclaimer: This is not an official page of the BPFK and is solely for >> demonstration purposes.) >> >> Such diagrams can easily be created by hand for each open issue that is >> presented to the BPFK. This could either be done by the chair or by a >> selected BPFK member. >> >> However, while this is nice, it does not by itself solve the problem of >> coming to a satisfying conclusion. No matter how good the arguments for = or >> against a thing, there can and will be people who will not change their >> minds. Those are the situations when we need clever rules to guide us to >> the best possible solution (see the bullet points above). >> >> Please discuss. >> >> -- >> [1]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization >> >> [2]: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/discussion >> >> [3]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Elephant >> >> --- >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c1a8c0ea136d50561c451ae Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I suggest=C2=A0https://wus= t.space/ although adding reply functionality and "likes/upvotes&qu= ot; might be necessary.

2018-01-02 4:42 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcares= vcs@gmail.com>:
I can see many uses of the Elephant system beyond BPFK decisions, on= e of which is how to run these meetings in the future. That is why I ask th= at further discussion on this topic transfer to this new thread.=C2=A0

.karis.=C2=A0

On= Dec 31, 2017 13:51, "selpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
The BPFK was empowered to determine= its own decision-making process by the BPFK reauthorization charter [1]. I= n 2015, when that motion passed, the BPFK was coming out of a long "bu= reaucratic blockade" and the new BPFK membership was happy to work und= er less bureaucracy. This worked quite well for the first year or so, but i= t started to show deficiencies as the honeymoon phase ended.

The BPFK started to run into issues that weren't that easily decidable = due to there being different conflicting interests and ideals, and, there b= eing no clear decision-making process in place, it became hard to make prog= ress at that point.

Even though the BPFK has the right to make up its own rules, it might be a = good idea to ask the wider LLG membership for suggestions as to how a more = effective decision-making process could be devised, and how the committee c= ould be structured more effectively.

guskant expressed the following (on the main list):
=C2=A0I think the problem is caused by the structure of the committee.

(and I would like to hear from her what she thinks could be improved about = the structure of the committee)

and gleki has expressed in this meeting a desire for clarification on the B= PFK's workings.

There's also the question of what the role of the chair should be, and = more specifically, what powers the chair should have.

A pertinent quote by Gregorio Guidi from the recent, very long, thread on t= he main list called "CLL and modern Lojban" [2]:

What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why not h= aving him have the final word on what goes in and goes out, when consensus = cannot be reached?

That thread actually touched on the questions I'm addressing in the pre= sent email. There were several interesting ideas presented in the thread, b= ut it was all mixed in with other somewhat unrelated topics and there was n= o clear result.

Some important points to me are:

* How should the BPFK make decisions? This is a broader question than which= type of voting should be used. A fundamental set of rules that both facili= tates good decision-making and prevents premature decisions should be put i= n place.
* How can it be guaranteed that the wider community will accept their decis= ions? I ask this because the BPFK members were not voted into the committee= by a community-wide election. How can the BPFK achieve a high level of acc= eptance such that its decisions will be accepted by the community and not b= e perceived as violence of a group whose power does not seem justified.
* What are the powers of the chair?

... and probably more that I'm forgetting right now.

Most of us probably know about the old "dream" of the Elephant, p= roposed by John Cowan long ago: an issue-based information system that keep= s track of all the open (and closed) questions of the language. See this li= nk [3].
We still do not have such a system despite it obviously being a Good Thing = and despite the fact that it's probably not that hard to create (the co= mmunity probably has more programmers than non-programmers).

Anyway, I recently re-visited the Elephant and looked into different progra= ms that would let me visualize the structure of an Elephant-like program to= see if it would make BPFK discussions more structured. I created the follo= wing diagram and page as an example of what such a structure could look lik= e when applied to the kinds of problems the BPFK actually faces, in this ca= se the ongoing issue relating to {lo nu broda ba brode}:

http://selpahi.de/BPFK_lonubrOdababrOde.html
(Disclaimer: This is not an official page of the BPFK and is solely for dem= onstration purposes.)

Such diagrams can easily be created by hand for each open issue that is pre= sented to the BPFK. This could either be done by the chair or by a selected= BPFK member.

However, while this is nice, it does not by itself solve the problem of com= ing to a satisfying conclusion. No matter how good the arguments for or aga= inst a thing, there can and will be people who will not change their minds.= Those are the situations when we need clever rules to guide us to the best= possible solution (see the bullet points above).

Please discuss.

--
[1]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthori= zation

[2]: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/discussion

[3]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Elephant

---
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-= members

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


--94eb2c1a8c0ea136d50561c451ae-- --===============3365526667835277573== 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 --===============3365526667835277573==--