Received: from localhost ([::1]:33806 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXKrg-0003NE-Rm; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:48:24 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.213.53]:33906) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXKrA-0003MG-Hp for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:47:54 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j192so2422040vkc.1 for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:47:52 -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=vy5vwssxPy7U5tsG89eeW4Bu+tN3uM7EmL2AgYeZtA8=; b=e8Yan/jVdYC75Uk8YHf/LT/nMo5mU2kmfxVmUr0IgYPpbEN9RPwk0DihEzJWT15rvG qQv1jxAxZK9AW3Bf+s0d8OBM1o7zjefQpfTASGkb1/MbXDWe6zjlVal7xc3IPQEbuMPr ZA2eOTTAGWjNWRaer5dPcWw/f+gIL0Yv+HQGC3smPi2Y2/uZuOyffj2shT00RUyO+cCe p0AQwLjXj57/rgI1v9MlBCXLu0ukHK7VI7haJiFT1j6hCg1Rl5C16tBKfuqxk8rm/O0g o2ZxSZxC45/qLp47TTgj+CBBvYjqemL+pbvMn5WTQUVRpCj6GWhZWbVpuu4gCx/WUKtS K7kQ== 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=vy5vwssxPy7U5tsG89eeW4Bu+tN3uM7EmL2AgYeZtA8=; b=r4PbcH/dhdIUkNq7nKyAr6FoyZc9jQLc3tMdNO5i3M9F/V9UxAu1p+9NElxsZ1nT1E SwBBM79t8rDuqbmvSR/ZNYwgigMjh2Z/BEoCq8eLjbrTN69qUPtPbz/IJGRnfXFOGCJv ILAN1jnYYvrujlZYMOs7QTvLdnyj8OMdWIp5YZKlXWChvMRwrKsMu8b2FIpf5wocySTl pRiHHBLj6/zqiMdkHTZiXKchU8UVsc4cZNgqRMmdztDJ7A1s6G7xlGt/wTp1huCCo1GQ UrgnkSX8QgKEt/W3vUBAJQgz4VNiIZoQeDgIlUGvWtzlLUUxtI8+qnHpDor7GT6UnXqH k2Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdIlMefCDHZdPNKXFs/S2aU7NKbhGZcRDUta2H2glVb/EWpSulC jxquknm1zw4fIf2mMalarBVKnc80Xx6f8WXamhI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosgDQ63V5nhF7HPRdP5w38r0BpPut7xtySTNyAkEhjl46ESv9meexnFop1Ea80k373e1rLkskUp+A/8MazmL3w= X-Received: by 10.31.228.133 with SMTP id b127mr1801997vkh.39.1515131265563; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:47:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:47:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Creative Care Services Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:47:44 -0500 Message-ID: To: "llg-members@lojban.org" X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 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="===============4530573374848974778==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4530573374848974778== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c094fb8df4179056200fcda" --94eb2c094fb8df4179056200fcda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know it isn't as specific in structure, but until something better is available would Discord work in your minds? I believe that with separate sections for off topic chat, didactic, and just proposals with sub-sections for all the related statements and for proposal-specificdiscussion at least it would be much easier to follow each proposal than in open chat or listserv. I planned on bringing up the use of Discord or something similar when how to handle currie meetings came up. Other sites may work, but it's the site I find best in organization and maintenance of posts among the ones I use. .karis. On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, John Cowan wrote: > See http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/about.htm for Compendium, an > implementation of IBIS, the mental technology behind Elephant. However, > AFAIK Compendium is a desktop tool only without a Web interface; AFAIK > there is no Web or email based IBIS tool yet. > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Creative Care Services < > comcaresvcs@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 a= nd >> 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 b= y >>>>> the BPFK reauthorization charter [1]. In 2015, when that motion passe= d, the >>>>> BPFK was coming out of a long "bureaucratic blockade" and the new BPF= K >>>>> membership was happy to work under less bureaucracy. This worked quit= e 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 decidabl= e >>>>> due to there being different conflicting interests and ideals, and, t= here >>>>> being no clear decision-making process in place, it became hard to ma= ke >>>>> 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 >>>>> the BPFK's workings. >>>>> >>>>> There's also the question of what the role of the chair should be, an= d >>>>> more specifically, what powers the chair should have. >>>>> >>>>> A pertinent quote by Gregorio Guidi from the recent, very long, threa= d >>>>> 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, whe= n >>>>>> 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 = 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 = both >>>>> facilitates good decision-making and prevents premature decisions sho= uld 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 th= e >>>>> committee by a community-wide election. How can the BPFK achieve a hi= gh >>>>> level of acceptance such that its decisions will be accepted by the >>>>> community and not be perceived as violence of a group whose power doe= s 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, >>>>> proposed by John Cowan long ago: an issue-based information system th= at >>>>> keeps track of all the open (and closed) questions of the language. S= ee >>>>> 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-lik= e >>>>> program to see if it would make BPFK discussions more structured. I c= reated >>>>> the following diagram and page as an example of what such a structure= could >>>>> look like when applied to the kinds of problems the BPFK actually fac= es, 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 b= y 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 argument= s 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=BCf= t. >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > --94eb2c094fb8df4179056200fcda Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know it isn't as specific in structure, but until something better is= available would Discord work in your minds? I believe that with separate s= ections for off topic chat, didactic, and just proposals with sub-sections = for all the related statements and for proposal-specificdiscussion at least= it would be much easier to follow each proposal than in open chat or lists= erv. I planned on bringing up the use of Discord or something similar when = how to handle currie meetings came up. Other sites may work, but it's t= he site I find best in organization and maintenance of posts among the ones= I use.=C2=A0

.karis.

On Wednesday, January 3, 20= 18, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>= wrote:
See=C2=A0htt= p://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/about.htm for Compendium, an i= mplementation of IBIS, the mental technology behind Elephant.=C2=A0 However= , AFAIK Compendium is a desktop tool only without a Web interface; AFAIK th= ere is no Web or email based IBIS tool yet.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Creative Ca= re Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com> wrote:
I took a look and it seemed to mostl= y 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 for= m?

.karis.

On Jan 2, 2018 00:25, &qu= ot;Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
I suggest=C2=A0https://wust.space/ altho= ugh adding reply functionality and "likes/upvotes" might be neces= sary.

2018-0= 1-02 4:42 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com&= gt;:
I can see m= any 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 discuss= ion on this topic transfer to this new thread.=C2=A0

.karis.=C2=A0

On Dec 31, 2017 13:5= 1, "selpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> 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 blockad= e" and the new BPFK membership was happy to work under less bureaucrac= y. 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, 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@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


--94eb2c094fb8df4179056200fcda-- --===============4530573374848974778== 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 --===============4530573374848974778==--