Received: from localhost ([::1]:42732 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eY4t9-0008LI-3S; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:56:59 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.161.171]:40161) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eY4sc-0008KP-Lc for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:56:28 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f171.google.com with SMTP id g191so3263215ywe.7 for ; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:56:26 -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=AXBLlz1x17e95k0dMtKKXsoUXMmG473ryxxRRcxibvw=; b=N1F+lXC7RDBr/xPqjoUuNBVjF/hXX88EVq3EsuN2jvuu9DFwI/aH8tmJ/cXnsWOpaE jL9IT4iCJE/PHxFHBnbJdhDdjg/HDzDqPLUOHWIRF+LzwinOuro0XC3giC8u3tcy8H0k k2pBvJ9VcMJ/UDdB0juhEVgVjL83Q9h5fRfvQPfF7X1dijeBFN3RuWHDUWAYggALNelz eeNMAjPhYp8zxm7dbpdwckQheKktY842I6jAG1nexDWjpi2jmT2yzs7zhRlqs+okUiSq R2S8Dc9PhGbw5S9xPxoGIJ4GLutMqwmkYN/gwfL0ibsMMLp4/eMC+qrKSYq73ypIA4zo sXMg== 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=AXBLlz1x17e95k0dMtKKXsoUXMmG473ryxxRRcxibvw=; b=KsPq+doyOuf1kP0PA49/Rmh6ECJG0EuQfw8ssYA9Rs08EOQ4Kga20dd9fSHv5C4Hfe VPUvLtjVsntvpwQJxttZOzelvpKLaPUZeWcESa+z0SwjjjBd5yAkdqwSuOq9rPe6ZBDs nq1eXKOQvxmIHLPAgC5+CIMRlCGu7NoODzwgtxnGOzspVcPf1blbhnKe0AOuyxOvQHxA 04ITrB9Wi+zrcyd2lZssO8cNOF5LhX6KmxjknFy2/jqu13FfPuSjsUV2XA+SPYy5pqWT dnnYPRYFAp43zMVXcTRB3df2h9b+bnE/xoAUUhnRVg+4+QL2x5tHS0GJO6acEJjXFZbg lXmg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLWnN2Wu9gSGER2o9YpTkGYB+fuWaM00mAOrVuq+6nFwnaxs2mv gsZYbq4H/hJ23k/22NuCnZWYse7GDwRVPoDuVCc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosuGkeDqxUqeWSfNIcluQxeclBt7Y+X4YEysmSJ3gLQzD1bEkemXSMLOLPZFcKzeP6BRZoZU+r2/75TbUc2Tb8= X-Received: by 10.13.245.69 with SMTP id e66mr7653439ywf.268.1515308180260; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:56:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:56:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:56:19 -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: Curtis Franks Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 01:56:19 -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: 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="===============1430662836484774495==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1430662836484774495== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0885becf4f0b05622a2d22" --94eb2c0885becf4f0b05622a2d22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to add that some - a lot of - desired changes may be considered to be fairly significant and even sudden (or desired to be gained by pronouncement rather than natural adoption and usage), but are also back-compatible with some version of Lojban. In other words, they are just functionality expansions. On Jan 7, 2018 01:26, "Creative Care Services" wrote: > 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, ther= e > 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 t= o > 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 mu= ch > 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 peopl= e > 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, mak= e > 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 languag= e > 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 bot= h. > > > 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 lik= e > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c0885becf4f0b05622a2d22 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to add that some - a lot of - desired change= s may be considered to be fairly significant and even sudden (or desired to= be gained by pronouncement rather than natural adoption and usage), but ar= e also back-compatible with some version of Lojban. In other words, they ar= e just functionality expansions.

On Jan 7, 2018 01:26, "Creative Care Services&quo= t; <comcaresvcs@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin 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 an LLG member, I asked to join this list as a= n observer a few years ago.


> I = need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, there is n= ot 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 mor= e trouble with them because they are unstable contents and placed on a webs= ite managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account to edit the = pages.

=
> Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban&#= 39;s problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again= to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of pr= ogress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are = now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, th= ose 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 lang= uage for decades participating in this meeting. We haven't abandoned th= e language and we are all involved before the original publication of CLL, = to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' and Board) included d= iscussions of the problems with the language and efforts to fix them.=C2=A0=

Certainly lojban has pr= oblems, 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 e= fforts 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.=C2=A0

<= /div>

Some peop= le want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and impr= ovements to explanations).
Some people want Lojban to b= e further developed (substantial changes, make the language more logical, f= ix issues, etc).



>= ; Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is establi= shed to promote the scientific study of the relationships between language,= thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of language and to de= termine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natural language; t= o implement and experiment with such a language...

Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the L= LG's purpose.
Lojban being a stable language is useful for le= arning and using and experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG&#= 39;s purpose.
Lojban being further developed is useful for buildi= ng substantial improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's= purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojb= an cannot take both.

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


=
My impression i= s 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 n= ame of stability and feel like they're wasting their time.
Th= is is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their work usin= g the language will be invalidated by changes to the language in the future= .
This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in t= heir preferred direction.

True.=C2=A0

I think the = And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict.
T= his conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmot= ivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the com= munity.
Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these= problems threaten the LLG too.



I think the path forward is:

1) Re= examine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do= all LLG members have the same understanding?
- Do all LLG member= s agree with them?

2) Reevaluate how closely the L= LG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits into the LLG goals.
3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do developm= ent elsewhere) or continuously developed.

Forever stable isn't t= he goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're describing the co= nflict 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.=C2=A0

- This may dr= ive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone who remains.

4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to d= o.
- 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 languag= e?
- Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/futur= e logical language?
- Can the LLG explore/document options and de= sign decisions in logical language?



On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 26.12.2017 17:17, s= elpahi 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@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

--94eb2c0885becf4f0b05622a2d22-- --===============1430662836484774495== 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 --===============1430662836484774495==--