Received: from [::1] (port=37024 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXOMa-0003LY-Ll; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:32:32 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]:35904) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXOM4-0003Jr-Vw for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:32:01 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id j7so1659567ybl.3 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:32:00 -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=jH93s2KQSOjdj1M1HWDBQK9Dc4NJIMwZgKQTBgaMozw=; b=A+IdRRWX6Y2JgDZLTEhaCpNUx/xDHOO2n09cSkmF1RKNPz1ZLqNLz2mYtJAcLpzYfr tihlEgLtImwcBwbtBPrFUlYtNwiNReSoK3PNZcv2xr6tGuUhbg+/PE5fb2EeDVhgIuZD ynKSn71WVKu7Oi5FdnHA8DPpCXyTCpC+5YyaIBsA6MlJNTVXlW+5Bsk2HxuFd6+3IpMe IvoTt5zIuARG2SEFhEKuFy33avxD4SHRxwt9rTkjI1u4ugtivDQH/NC90xnMqvHwbrwO MRtLipLZXUvEBrSPHZDtep3E3Dm8XU39YCcYeKbrXpKnzvQbebfQldDDMS9h2j288MdV pmcA== 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=jH93s2KQSOjdj1M1HWDBQK9Dc4NJIMwZgKQTBgaMozw=; b=Y0ukfrs50RVuGt39aOAE8xslOaT5IszhF+v94ztJw6t4JsrqN0mZ/c7OqrOOs0dwAh BiIiJjECwnQzWTdQljFqBF/VX8NooQzBYTGTprVARsQGR6KpmdUM5YB9D8yXzyLvuxl2 sLeVeoalLuTzGlAZnSzEDHT0Ud/wIx29ypQFAS2xDXmI4dgrZjpWHVWuXMlRdmhYpUCY HZ9G2IsJtwSnH+5xJ4MeHib0uzA7gBFxQ5cSo282ADsYowEnnmpj1QJCecinNGWlvgC7 cxOKeKBOzvEf84194m5Q09Kx1c+cqui/RBChYmSnHqD4HrHY2bfFR4nYABSv5H0857VU LxIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ6V1BaLx7hcY8gKZLgG2BFVRLRQRAApi+HEF5JTM3KBIo7lJ52 XqwBPP42WVYnp2VW9o0Qzzyd/d40K1qqjw19rCw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovDVWgcxJ4CK6DLAYA5EQyEGXvsTBPpu+9nuwTGzKPekZ1ahvQwG2/ngWpkogPG0qcuw2CftZdULV4bpn8tBxA= X-Received: by 10.37.171.98 with SMTP id u89mr2330095ybi.29.1515144714665; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:31:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:31:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 04:31:54 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.5 X-Spam_score_int: -4 X-Spam_bar: / Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Concerning Unofficial Social Media Presences 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="===============4071188719599018992==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4071188719599018992== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19d7388045e10562041e87" --94eb2c19d7388045e10562041e87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Note that it also excludes individual posts and personal accounts. So, you can post on your Facebook page about Lojban without any fear. You just cannot devote a blog to it such that it purports to be or could in any way be confused with official policies, positions, or standards of the LLG or its endorsed version(s) of Lojban or other languages. On Jan 5, 2018 4:20 AM, "Curtis Franks" wrote: On Jan 4, 2018 12:47 AM, "Alex Burka" wrote: I strongly oppose this idea. Besides being a Sisyphean task Could we leave it to their (the body's) discretion. So, in other words, the provision would be amended so as to include discretionary powers and conditions (with the LLG having superior authority)? (This would be done by extending the last independent clause with/via a conditioning clause.) due to the nature of the Internet, why would LLG want to become known as that annoying group that pops up asking you to put disclaimers all over your creative work? Presumably, it would just be in some prominent, centralized location with at most a small notice or link included in serial posts or maybe some webpage-separated content. For blogs, Facebook Groups, and Twitter accounts, this would just be in a pinned post/tweet/entry or in the (biographical) description of the author or page or account. Wiki page probably would just have a disclaimer box at the top of the page or section. Wiki pages might instead or also be tagged or display a notice at the bottom of the page, and may be categorized as unofficial. They probably also should make some notice on the homepage. But, again, I think that we are getting ahead of ourselves in thinking about such details. If LLG wants to draw a distinction between official and unofficial Lojban, it should come up with a definition for official Lojban and some process for endorsing people who want to say their work is official. I am in favor of this, in the abstract. But what would it concretely look like? But whining to everyone that they aren't using a hypothetical official version is just divisive and pointless. And probably demoralizing. On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > 2017-12-30 19:27 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > >> Actually, I so move (officially). >> > > I second your motion. > > >> I take it that Gleki's second still applies (since he seconded the >> wording verbatim as a motion). However, if the official recordkeeping would >> prefer it, one may count Gleki's message here as moving/officially making >> the suggestion and this message from me as the second for the motion. >> >> On Dec 29, 2017 03:06, "Curtis Franks" wrote: >> >>> I propose (not quite as a motion) that the LLG adopt an official policy >>> that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose search for and >>> monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles, groups, >>> communities, bots, etc. (hereafter called "entities") which in any way >>> whatsoever relate to, promote, or use Lojban or other LLG-adopted logical >>> languages and which are not clearly human, personal, non-promoting, or >>> unofficial - and that such a body requests such entities to prominently >>> display a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial and not endorsed by >>> the LLG. >>> >>> (I do not think that we can enforce such requests, just make them. But >>> having an official policy about addressing them may be good and gives us >>> some moral 'standing') >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 --94eb2c19d7388045e10562041e87 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Note that it also excludes individual posts and pers= onal accounts. So, you can post on your Facebook page about Lojban without = any fear. You just cannot devote a blog to it such that it purports to be o= r could in any way be confused with official policies, positions, or standa= rds of the LLG or its endorsed version(s) of Lojban or other languages.

On Jan 5, 2018 4:20 AM, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> = wrote:
<= div class=3D"quoted-text">


On Jan 4, 2018 12:47 AM, "Alex Burka" <durka42@gmail.com>= wrote:
I strongly oppose this idea. Besides being a Sisyphean t= ask

<= div dir=3D"auto">Could we leave it to their (the body's) discretion. So= , in other words, the provision would be amended so as to include discretio= nary powers and conditions (with the LLG having superior authority)?
<= div dir=3D"auto">
(This would be done by extendi= ng the last independent clause with/via a conditioning clause.)

due to the nature of the Internet, why wo= uld LLG want to become known as that annoying group that pops up asking you= to put disclaimers all over your creative work?

Presumably, i= t would just be in some prominent, centralized location with at most a smal= l notice or link included in serial posts or maybe some webpage-separated c= ontent. For blogs, Facebook Groups, and Twitter accounts, this would just b= e in a pinned post/tweet/entry or in the (biographical) description of the = author or page or account. Wiki page probably would just have a disclaimer = box at the top of the page or section.
=

Wiki pages might instea= d or also be tagged or display a notice at the bottom of the page, and may = be categorized as unofficial. They probably also should make some notice on= the homepage. But, again, I think that we are getting ahead of ourselves i= n thinking about such details.

<= blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc = solid;padding-left:1ex">

If LLG wants to draw a distinction between official and unofficial L= ojban, it should come up with a definition for official Lojban and some pro= cess for endorsing people who want to say their work is official.

I am in favor of this, in the abstract. But what would it concretely lo= ok like?

But whining to everyon= e that they aren't using a hypothetical official version is just divisi= ve and pointless.
And probably demoralizing.


On Sat, Dec 30= , 2017 at 12:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

=

2017-12-30 = 19:27 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:
Actually, I so m= ove (officially).

I second you= r motion.
=C2=A0
I take it that Gleki's second still applies (since he seco= nded the wording verbatim as a motion). However, if the official recordkeep= ing would prefer it, one may count Gleki's message here as moving/offic= ially making the suggestion and this message from me as the second for the = motion.

On Dec 29, 2017 03:06= , "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
I propose (not q= uite as a motion) that the LLG adopt an official policy that the LLG or som= e body constituted by it for such purpose search for and monitor social med= ia or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles, groups, communities, bots,= etc. (hereafter called "entities") which in any way whatsoever r= elate to, promote, or use Lojban or other LLG-adopted logical languages and= which are not clearly human, personal, non-promoting, or unofficial - and = that such a body requests such entities to prominently display a disclaimer= stating that they are unofficial and not endorsed by the LLG.

(I do not think that we can enforce such r= equests, just make them. But having an official policy about addressing the= m may be good and gives us some moral 'standing')

_________________________________________= ______
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



--94eb2c19d7388045e10562041e87-- --===============4071188719599018992== 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 --===============4071188719599018992==--