Received: from localhost ([::1]:36788 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXOCO-0002us-6s; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:22:00 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]:36145) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXOBr-0002tA-7d for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:21:28 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id s139so2892497vkb.3 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:21:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MceydhFy/8JqXd9Civ/5Sa1KpgJlOvVjZV44rwDhzU8=; b=GxjWBAr9pKM4NA/Gjnyk7bY0CLskufPgnLBbX68FOhSERW1evYjD7ig3asv8jwlUlv 5qM4wE1SH4aByY4wLI1eBK3qOaQglqh2Y7SJQfZK4JTWdP/KlDos6tn/91nLai47kOCp q7/zFF0umrR/IDg5itl29+y1eH2n73tLrAk3nayjSzxVx9CcSVof2SGP7z+K+2o+uvBD kjZwHfrUAv5kxRw9MgansKeEY8ivWjd53LcGkSH7TrP45sbt7S9iv8jeMC1EmB1ZG4wr oOLJkvRkOac+XGBeqUA6aBPTcSZ+RmWPPFSarDa6s+kz7GmVHt1eONDZ586mXo4yxM+c Kpig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MceydhFy/8JqXd9Civ/5Sa1KpgJlOvVjZV44rwDhzU8=; b=oJEwMS/t0mjantnjwky8s2JkvKgJOwJqQIM5MceDpg/jrO6np+DxRpiiGCNaP58ugw bCEqzKhhQzCREK7+bI1w/CA1MxvEoGxbEGKQe0rmTnM3OC8kmh9b/6Vb77qRx3oZBy79 EKNZSgHYIEG5SaJV7AZ8/12t9+CYjfzlwOd6xNWIhN8KXyS1jrk+wXnpVc+ATJDooPkP /OIvGahT6vlMPkVdM2DtU52m3dC2i98Qde2glXNtCfZUiTND1FGRHaMS5/ryugm/C8p8 RugcPRymhe3FeT6tuUy6/8G4G0MLPtspzer0UnpxPtkPojWN+V42tNrlmLb0lQH+spqz vqug== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcBK6ziVzFKxvuZfT87f8eR/ph7vzRhwEp6gvS69Kqkz4iq80Vd iklMMbrSM9PtDHBXHkuHcZn/cl6dKxOTz2D+YoA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosit8zZePP2S/C9qEYEa2Qyz3NFHExP/gCUQ3Ui8t/qCx7Yy45EgOgwmLOcCHeOZLDIViqJHbvqoEG3g3BzEBM= X-Received: by 10.31.223.129 with SMTP id w123mr2083357vkg.13.1515144080226; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:21:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:21:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:21:19 -0800 (PST) From: Creative Care Services Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 04:21:19 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_bar: ---- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Motions regarding LLG goals 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="===============5133399661793917848==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5133399661793917848== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07dc90af7e1b056203f8b1" --94eb2c07dc90af7e1b056203f8b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Curtis has made three related movements, all seconded (without the amendment Curtis made to number 3) by Selpa'i. Since Selpa'i specifically had not included Curtis' amendment to number 3, that moron does not include the amendment I request that Curtis make this amendment as an add on if he still wants it included. Assuming there are no objections raised by our parliamentarian, discussion shall continue until 12:00 noon GMT in January 9, 2018 subject to early termination is the discussion ends before then. They will be discussed together, though we will vote on each separately. I hope I don't need to say this. Please tarot discussion on these morons to this thread and keep discussions here to these motions. .karis. Motion 1. The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of logical language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument structure (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' property. The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both from PAS to phonological form and from phonological form to PAS.) Seconded. Motion 2. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical language) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG. I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous motion in this message. Seconded. Motion 3. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a logical language. Seconded. My second does not include Curtis' amendment, because I consider the definition of loglanghood given by And adequate as is. A language that does not fulfill those (fundamental) requirements is not a logical language ("loglang"). On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" wrote: 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 > _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --94eb2c07dc90af7e1b056203f8b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Curtis has made three related movements, all seconde= d (without the amendment Curtis made to number 3) by Selpa'i. Since Sel= pa'i specifically=C2=A0 had not included Curtis' amendment to numbe= r 3, that moron does not include the amendment I request that Curtis make t= his amendment as an add on if he still wants it included.

Assuming there are no objections raised b= y our parliamentarian, discussion shall continue until 12:00 noon GMT in Ja= nuary 9, 2018 subject to early termination is the discussion ends before th= en. They will be discussed together, though we will vote on each separately= . I hope I don't need to say this. Please tarot discussion on these mor= ons to this thread and keep discussions here to these motions.=C2=A0
<= div dir=3D"auto">
.karis.=C2=A0


Motion 1. The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (= coequal with any other principal goals), the intention of exploration and p= romotion of logical language(s) in general, subject to the following defini= tional framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e= . linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument st= ructure (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is= one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimite= d number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' property= . The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both from PAS to phonological= form and from phonological form to PAS.)

Seconde= d.


=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 Motion 2. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other princi= pal goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical la= nguage) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG.


I likewise = (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous = motion in this message.

Seconded.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Motion 3. A = principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is creat= ion of a Lojban derivative that is a logical language.=C2=A0

Seconded.

My second does not inclu= de Curtis' amendment, because I consider the definition of loglanghood = given by And adequate as is. A language that does not fulfill those (fundam= ental) requirements is not a logical language ("loglang").


On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, &quo= t;DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net> wrote:
Hello,
I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a= few years ago.


> I need reliabl= e references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, there is not a big pro= blem 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 manage= d by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents, I have more trouble wi= th 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.
=

> Th= roughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's problem= s and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again to let some= crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Resp= ecting 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 peo= ple didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojba= n. It was all a waste of time.


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



&g= t; Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is establ= ished to promote the scientific study of the relationships between language= , thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of language and to d= etermine 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 l= earning and using and experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG&= #39;s purpose.
Lojban being further developed is useful for build= ing substantial improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG'= s purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Loj= ban cannot take both.


My impression= is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and hope over which optio= n Lojban has/is/will take.
This is causing frustration: people wa= nting development, trying to implement improvements, are blocked in the nam= e 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.<= /div>
This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in the= ir preferred direction.

I think the And Rosta quot= e selpahi gave also identifies this conflict.
This conflict m= akes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 = This conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged.
T= his conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community.
<= div>Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems thre= aten the LLG too.



I think the path forward is:

1) Reexamine, clari= fy, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG membe= rs have the same understanding?
- Do all LLG members agree with t= hem?

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 disa= gree, but it empowers everyone who remains.

4) May= be consider what other work the LLG would like to do.
- Should th= e LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development?
- Can the = LLG learn from other logical languages?
- Can the LLG do work mor= e meta than developing a particular logical language?
- Can the L= LG do any work that would benefit all current/future logical language?
- Can the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in logica= l 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-= members

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


--94eb2c07dc90af7e1b056203f8b1-- --===============5133399661793917848== 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 --===============5133399661793917848==--