Received: from localhost ([::1]:37894 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWpJt-0000ia-2v; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:07:25 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]:37101) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWpJM-0000hV-7v for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:06:53 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n2so1548241vkf.4 for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:06:51 -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=e+4nkT6yEQ66sGFePvCzsNo52OoMXaNQbTk3qM1AnvM=; b=tIeNqh2FeJmqB6AnU9Rv02wRYZES+6lXmzsoSF7rlJriaTuWMkwnvqmlsC2GrdN9Av uw8rzFQ+byZfn38dNhqmgtU+hmqwb+V9+1ZBW+KS9LsKCgyHe9zCb7rGcSXFax41HSkU +NLcj8POTsjIK+Iy1Y14jw14VC02XD01ba8Ps6r0od6LFtSjBnZH7LtUIKa7TZrBZ2X0 eLJK96BhlBoHSqaSEhzl6fU0+CrP8AG4S12im7QjiRE99c+VKAJW7kxqGwOWEpErVSWd 9i+2iLdLh3FkypNLuNkiq212S2Lpt6IepjlTUSIeIuPOtWkMNwgXUMERwvrZmFE4vyrG f9FA== 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=e+4nkT6yEQ66sGFePvCzsNo52OoMXaNQbTk3qM1AnvM=; b=PMKQuhWBX6g4UtOeGF59g/+TDMkBB1GFRunQ4FVJzt8d7/KbspBrVf6uo0DtddnjI0 DqvS77RRSVQ66RyTsbOS07vflx6Ug1Oy4jXKW35oH/DB9juhwXL2UZye3FX9KBqJChT+ 0XkK8DpgeprsQ3IBkNWg8rR2fIxat/zikcnuuSg2/4xY1bZb0082qejFUo8ppeoT2BnE x8fiIROr7HCwjdJpImVd5TO1tyClHR2n8hbLThPVZiYXL0UEDJOmfh/5HkfL2nz/IpMc Ov7zZg7aQV842GyVXBo/ZEqB9JaeLO4MZ1CNeqPzysr0Q5IgpPMiXJeUNkIhNPyTFC3O VK2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJJydUCgZv9ubzxlUdNUGcTZqqKSULCIjJpQ7xxQRaQw2FJ01/I JWwY04FmzV7IYdVFJsvnknOaSv6IGrRwvHmEtn8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotHBNR97zCRu5CuUH3xl21ZGzzOfEZdT5RoSNcF3FbDr2h4KHBpgJvU9dGmDWRcEVPDa/jNIxO1tff1XJ/jm1g= X-Received: by 10.31.107.23 with SMTP id g23mr2255883vkc.179.1515010004969; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:06:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:06:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Creative Care Services Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:06:44 -0500 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="===============6252667385649503852==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6252667385649503852== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11478e3c2d6ce40561e4c10d" --001a11478e3c2d6ce40561e4c10d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I took a look and it seemed to mostly be a mind map, which is the basic idea as I understand what Cowen wrote. Is there a limit on text length and can you view the document in linear form? .karis. On Jan 2, 2018 00:25, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > 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 = well >>> 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, the= re >>> 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 b= e >>> 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 >>> the 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 >>> on the main list called "CLL and modern Lojban" [2]: >>> >>> What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why >>>> not having 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 >>> present email. There were several interesting ideas presented in the >>> thread, but it was all mixed in with other somewhat unrelated topics an= d >>> 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 bo= th >>> facilitates good decision-making and prevents premature decisions shoul= d 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 = 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, propose= d >>> by John Cowan long ago: an issue-based information system that keeps tr= ack >>> 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 (= the >>> 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 cre= ated >>> the following diagram and page as an example of what such a structure c= ould >>> 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 t= o >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a11478e3c2d6ce40561e4c10d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I took a look and it seemed to mostly be a mind map, whic= h is the basic idea as I understand what Cowen wrote. Is there a limit on t= ext length and can you view the document in linear form?
<= br>
.karis.
On Jan 2, 2018 00:25, "Gleki Arxokuna&quo= t; <gleki.is.my.name@gmail= .com> wrote:
=
I suggest=C2=A0https://wust.space/ although adding reply functionality and &quo= t;likes/upvotes" might be necessary.
<= br>
2018-01-02 4:42 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Servi= ces <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
I can see many uses of the Elephant system beyon= d 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 ne= w thread.=C2=A0

.karis.=C2=A0

On Dec 31, 2017 13:51, "selpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wr= ote:
The BPFK was em= powered to determine its own decision-making process by the BPFK reauthoriz= ation charter [1]. In 2015, when that motion passed, the BPFK was coming ou= t of a long "bureaucratic blockade" and the new BPFK membership w= as happy to work under less bureaucracy. This worked quite well for the fir= st year or so, but it started to show deficiencies as the honeymoon phase e= nded.

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@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

--001a11478e3c2d6ce40561e4c10d-- --===============6252667385649503852== 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 --===============6252667385649503852==--