Received: from [::1] (port=51802 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYoWK-0000JP-4D; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:40:28 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:34582) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYoVn-0000HQ-6E for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:39:56 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y82so18980153wmg.1 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:39:54 -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=O34H8jWtgwk11MTE2JSqJoZG5lB86t7oaXg53jBS9SQ=; b=vJMgjaMaQ8Sbav3HMwbKUuDZvkWZwEvITujr5Ie1T063Psg5SkQDqJQsBKcRgZqjR+ xRFFt9CGTm9nXAKu99DWhTtL7qz3w9pyFm2Uqq0mQptgSZWA1/POewXQmd0V1WqBobnh Ol9AO1eNwYT4BxhOQa+JcuzuplcBcHS0Do/BWoZZ9ZpKbGkYGppXZ5REYZfui6OtmMr8 J1N+pzJOxlgx873pNfrRV7bHckS4vuN90OvYcC8jb/N0B7aYg0DHEl/+/VUiBjZKmCxU SyrxJULWq+rtzErwdoVp6WIiFCYdBRtrfg6LvAvIkXBWhvTn1oBv9rNMEZGX8i6L037P Iy6w== 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=O34H8jWtgwk11MTE2JSqJoZG5lB86t7oaXg53jBS9SQ=; b=Iuh7Lg5ZyOn8QqM0xz4xV3xoPQXIfVmax8GGSBtSoOVG8ItBAkV0RF6PPs4QQ7s5CC 0zt30KpQ+KQOSZCoN7WttnJJzm6vfCZGRG53FHufQGBsMbd2o/AUyoGLaAE/JWlXh7je 0PCdm5Vwx1dBrvhYv7ITM9fRUcRin0VdQuP0Kv1ElO0oWkBPYuAMtXETSzdcV27nzOG8 43gLlMJEKDmRVYtkNrb0Vu+fZj5rKP3Ftd2WfM9lD8DdBqNOnu0F06W9OAuY80LRtk+7 eKnoa8HvgILCvUtcx8MqaX3mumnMjg3Wl1IRZnYZ+mrvVePIC3GCbCO1zxRormhzY2dj 5ncA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ9LWkski/m20weOd2r2vzNGKZHNNVZIqK+BvLfS9zlDmBDr282 32G1JdTjCPiPd4H54Nu8z76slE2VthnsHYT2HA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovUEYmNefAN2ROmLK5dNMvRSCKQtsmBJzNwgZJtH4Iyd3kJAR3rcdCJfzJALE/vGMTVUM7xbtJwwIY904K6dmQ= X-Received: by 10.80.138.139 with SMTP id j11mr20614919edj.36.1515483587833; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:39:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 23:39:07 -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: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:39:07 +0300 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="===============2865483232079220457==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2865483232079220457== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0dcb82ea75d0056253041e" --94eb2c0dcb82ea75d0056253041e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > > > On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote= : > > It seems there are several long time participants who seek > backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and based > on CLL. > But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since BPFK > has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway. > > Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone propose > an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban. > > E.g. > 1. confirm that CLL is the basement > 2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in Robin'= s > edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL > 3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL > 4. confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement > > > This makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of whether > Robin's edition changes are deterioration or not. > Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it first. Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce lots of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL and "Robin's" ones. > .karis. > > 2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > >> 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 fr= ee >> documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents= , I >> have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and place= d >> 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 t= o >> let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. >> Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not m= uch >> 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 wa= s >> all a waste of time. >> >> >> Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involved wit= h >> 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 ' an= d >> Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and effort= s >> 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, "Wi= ll >> 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 langua= ge >> 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 li= ke >> 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 significan= t >> 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 muc= h >>> > 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > --94eb2c0dcb82ea75d0056253041e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <= comcaresvcs@gmai= l.com>:
<= span class=3D"">


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.co= m> wrote:
It seems there are several long time participa= nts who seek backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documente= d and based on CLL.
But those members do not participate in BPFK activi= ties, and since BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitless any= way.

Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting w= e/you/Someone propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban.<= /div>

E.g.
1. confirm that CLL is the basement=
2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban= done in Robin's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL
3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL
4= . confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement
<= /div>

This = makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of whether Robin= 9;s edition changes are deterioration or not.=C2=A0

Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it= first.
Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL = mechanically without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) i= ntroduce lots of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) pa= rts of CLL and "Robin's" ones.


<= /div>
.karis.

<= div>2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <= comcaresvcs@gmai= l.com>:
I want to respond to a few of the comment= s made by DerSaidin and some of the material to which these comments were m= ade.=C2=A0

On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net<= /a>> 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'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 we= re 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 was= te of time.




Some people = want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improve= ments to explanations).
Some people want Lojban to be f= urther developed (substantial changes, make the language more logical, fix = issues, etc).



> A= rticle 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is establishe= d to promote the scientific study of the relationships between language, th= ought and human culture; to investigate the nature of language and to deter= mine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natural language; to i= mplement and experiment with such a language...

Bo= th positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the LLG&= #39;s purpose.
Lojban being a stable language is useful for learn= ing 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 pu= rpose.
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 c= hange 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 shou= ld now speak.=C2=A0


My impression is there is disagree= ment 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 an= d 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 dire= ction.

True.=C2=A0

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also ide= ntifies this conflict.
This conflict makes everyone (on both = sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make= beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict also culti= vate 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 forw= ard is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the pu= rpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members have the same unders= tanding?
- 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 shoul= d be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or continuously develo= ped.


- 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 on= going development?
- Can the LLG learn from other logical la= nguages?
- Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a partic= ular logical language?
- Can the LLG do any work that would benef= it all current/future logical language?
- Can the LLG explore/doc= ument options and design decisions in logical language?


On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrot= e:
> 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 i= nstances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened bef= ore.=C2=A0

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
---
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



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


--94eb2c0dcb82ea75d0056253041e-- --===============2865483232079220457== 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 --===============2865483232079220457==--