Received: from localhost ([::1]:42262 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eY4Pm-0007BV-9W; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:26:38 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175]:39863) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eY4PF-0007AJ-TP for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:26:07 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f175.google.com with SMTP id e19so4978884uam.6 for ; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:26:05 -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=n+A3CBLZK6Z2bw5P/1aUWvQ2YJ9ziOYszcKEZbOePx0=; b=rn+49OAmun83Oo/vjbggur/TXx4Jg4fHOWDkcE5XAE6u9bggAtAJwyf3ByEcPLQ/fO s68FS8+AwcHi2wDD01sF1UmxE0H5GZgnvaSyKXz2OauVBAPf4fjaRzXfqEN8dcED7Brg qfpnq/8c1XNDvv+SybkY7EQELhPZADpz40OSC8n9Si8iQP49TK8i9YUaP+q+i8ckDB3w O1JjNq0/iGS2jBaY/ecF21b/371d7LDuod6MV2FMLWP2iiGdKDFdkIwSFexv0Uc8Ul90 ewp9+53Z8b1WHKfkFoTG35D0QIMo2vRRPBzLOlAtZE9xESVYQBWeZqg9WR4p08veRn6M up5Q== 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=n+A3CBLZK6Z2bw5P/1aUWvQ2YJ9ziOYszcKEZbOePx0=; b=axXp/gV/l2BZbbXfRl4ItLnETjsb8m+9mDFlYx51dAhTwgfRgQ3IULdm0aYYu3aKK7 hlN7w4iOExjMfIozGImueFdtjYBUPEQvFXV+rSg0UOXp0uTeVogiG5N3IsLxhE5x0vxP InaRchhYbLMNuvV5XaoG0uID7TOI7Haajx5MUyyhejy2pH7w/z77dk0GIWuipnhpmBfe 0tPHDF9PgXHgVBP2o+mr0hdVOErFmtG1lxMyLO2WrRTYqLRTfD44WX9u5LQbw+vn+g+l rFKt8qXwo8G6cT2SjLHoOLfazlgA43UczUaG0DoFsz0EU/rG4Ai54dcCXV8n5gtTNH4M aeEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteGaOsk51xumTVSTIyPT10HpXko4fhXW1X0+WweMHJm5XHCRdDS FJqAFYCtQkmc3c+yIYX005/aO8cMRt/Hpp/hlq8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov3vYrtu5kzUz98wUSNPHwlMu/pZYAnHu2Yy5VJIBpI/+SPf45tDkndgfTsxXlZyK1QKBkgsvJAkrz8RJL2DRM= X-Received: by 10.176.112.136 with SMTP id m8mr2568025ual.105.1515306358338; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:25:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:25:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:25:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> <2f305760-8dd9-79f4-2951-f7bf7d357616@selpahi.de> <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> From: Creative Care Services Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 01:25:56 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.8 X-Spam_score_int: -47 X-Spam_bar: ---- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK 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="===============0509275283399834110==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0509275283399834110== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0832e1f436f8f4056229c145" --089e0832e1f436f8f4056229c145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some of the material to which these comments were made. 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. Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involved with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We haven't abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' and Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and efforts to fix them. Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of people learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency. The baseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "Will lojban be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learning. Whether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did, a shorter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan. 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. I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language necessarily want to prevent significant change all together, but want change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a few people think their new way is the way everyone should now speak. 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. True. 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. Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant ways. Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing significant portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict. - 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. > These are still not all the written or spoken instances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened before. --- > 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 --089e0832e1f436f8f4056229c145 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSai= din and some of the material to which these comments were made.=C2=A0

On Jan= 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net> wrote:
Hello,
I'm not a= n 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 archi= vists. As for the BPFK documents, I have more trouble with them because the= y are unstable contents and placed on a website managed by unreliable peopl= e, i.e. anyone who have account to edit the pages.

> Throughout all these years the community h= as known about Lojban's problems and shortcomings, yet the same communi= ty chose time and again to let some crazy rules about a "baseline"= ; ruin any chance of progress. Respecting those people's wish for basel= ine 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.

Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been = involved with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We h= aven't abandoned the language and we are all involved before the origin= al publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members '= ; and Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and eff= orts to fix them.=C2=A0

= Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of people = learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency. The basel= ine was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "Will lojb= an be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learning. Wheth= er efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did, a shorter= time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan.=C2=A0
=


Some people want Lojban to b= e stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvements to explana= tions).
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 require= ments for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and exp= eriment 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 an= d experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose.
=
Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial impr= ovements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both= .

I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable = language necessarily want to prevent significant change all together, but w= ant change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a few p= eople think their new way is the way everyone should now speak.=C2=A0
=


My impression is there is disagreement and confusion an= d doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take.
T= his 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 stab= ility are unsure if their work using the language will be invalidated by ch= anges to the language in the future.
This is causing conflict: pe= ople are trying to pull Lojban in their preferred direction.

True.= =C2=A0

<= div>I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict.=
This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frust= rated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make beginners confused an= d discouraged.
This conflict also cultivate personal conflict= s within the community.
Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus o= f 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?
- D= o all LLG members agree with them?

2) Reevaluate h= ow closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits into the LLG goal= s.

3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (m= aybe do development elsewhere) or continuously developed.

Forever st= able isn't the goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're d= escribing the conflict in opposing rather than significant ways. Continuous= ly developed in a gradual way over time vs changing significant portions of= it all at once is how I would describe the conflict.=C2=A0

- 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.<= /div>
- Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn from other logical languages?
- Ca= n the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical language?<= /div>
- Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future l= ogical language?
- Can the LLG explore/document options and desig= n decisions in logical language?


<= /div>

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.

These are still not all the written or spoken instance= s, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened before.=C2= =A0

---
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



--089e0832e1f436f8f4056229c145-- --===============0509275283399834110== 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 --===============0509275283399834110==--