Received: from localhost ([::1]:41838 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZ9LF-0005Lq-Ld; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:54:25 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:37549) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZ9Kh-0005Ju-No for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:53:54 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id f140so24625562wmd.2 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:53:51 -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=3XTzEeTYHs1ZRvWAPdskpkDIe2NlAth8RAKxsqrWSgg=; b=ZytCw58+hPWLuKFl/1QWetwfuog/wOySpe1w/81dBJRRKl46ypVhts3AfWm2kVvJoP 9qm2mXYGUgd4WSIHOnsfn2nDWwEhqoDOjpXWFr/oSKMOkQ21ncwXieoS5ioJgd7FIT4o TRyT/QlxCD3FRKVNWS6ZlvfExXDSSqafcFayqS5km0iMELiTmkGeH1bdtYsaMFTeqjcZ kVjAcYgssCTInj/sYlrCIinr+hj2+UGOLzcICCpvWF3/eIB4v8dzbQIJLzvQ5TKaBqoU KKnBm07RJnUuY4Z2XL9SnDgajR2DySORgc5D5w7olZdLAp+JmU4L86aW0YGbuiVZHoTn rQWw== 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=3XTzEeTYHs1ZRvWAPdskpkDIe2NlAth8RAKxsqrWSgg=; b=P2dh3UfU8gHRLP9kjqCkAiG9/pJYGbRVg49OwI3aybaP02mIPtFsRwroRcvZKck67y VvrZ3vhUSwZ2ajElaqCFcERcFIubIHoPOa+iCB3dGhhqRsrE/yO+eJdNzIDwvCKjhiGX pq+5PJTarxd7vFWBJxS7m5GUUHXIdlFJ7p4J52gzFkJrDVTuXzVb73nrgJ/u1GbbIABO wL+jUS36ZaHEv1D99FzLiH9AeC9Xlb3X9x9wgYswv2KncAogQ8geC7uHeS/SJzCahUXQ dtFM8P2RIT4Gjo4vDar2zOP+C/6l3YhxioKA9UhSGa+0CrA/hROAwtRbQzT8uFnSStKk Jt7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJUO7Vx1Lnc6v3rdBwNVvD9LzqNQq/jZrSRWmqk7g5n/WVGbrko 5KgbEBW14J2MHlw0c81NhKFac50aaxOewHloyhxJ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosRnEpcSEEkiS8pzvj6N596b9EDyUjrgYmFMEX21t/BkqOOT9EIiQP1F5VVFZLuMBrSb9vfdQMGX37vOSo78HA= X-Received: by 10.80.179.14 with SMTP id q14mr24919779edd.251.1515563625051; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:53:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:53:04 -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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:53:04 +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="===============8577326289394588792==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8577326289394588792== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0a528a817ca2056265a75b" --94eb2c0a528a817ca2056265a75b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > Is Cowen's edition available online? > Probably here https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince/orig but better to scan it to be absolutely sure. > For me the issue will be accessing the newer version > it's sold in paper form. It's available online. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Complete_Lojban_Language > since the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the > issue is the opposite. > > In any case we are faced first with questions of how we want the LLG to > function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the path includes a more > gradients lojban then we can discuss what standard we will use as a base. > > .karis. > > On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote= : > >> >> >> 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 bas= ed >>> 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 propos= e >>> 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 withou= t >> further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce lots of n= ew >> 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 publish= ed 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 documen= ts, I >>>> have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and pla= ced >>>> on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have accoun= t 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 effo= rts >>>> 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 fluenc= y. >>>> 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 learni= ng. >>>> 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 betwe= en >>>> language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of lang= uage >>>> and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natur= al >>>> 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 necessaril= y >>>> want to prevent significant change all together, but want change by >>>> evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a few people thi= nk >>>> their new way is the way everyone should now speak. >>>> >>>> >>>> My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and hop= e >>>> 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 discourag= ed. >>>> 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'r= e >>>> describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant ways. >>>> Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing signific= ant >>>> portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict. >>>> >>>> - This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone wh= o >>>> 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 logica= l >>>> 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 the= y >>>>> 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=BCf= t. >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --94eb2c0a528a817ca2056265a75b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <= comcaresvcs@gmai= l.com>:
=
Is Cowen's edition available online?


Probably here=C2=A0https://github.com/lojban/c= ll/tree/docbook-prince/orig but better to scan it to be absolutely sure= .

=C2=A0
For me the issue will be accessing the new= er version


it's so= ld in paper form. It's available online.

=C2=A0
since the= original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the issue is the o= pposite.

In any case we are fa= ced first with questions of how we want the LLG to function. Once we have a= clearer path then, if the path includes a more gradients lojban then we ca= n discuss what standard we will use as a base.

<= /div>
.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.co= m> wrote:


2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <= comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna&= quot; <g= leki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems there are several lo= ng time participants who seek backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojba= n being documented and based on CLL.
But those members do not participa= te 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 va= riant of Lojban.

E.g.
1. confirm that CL= L is the basement
2. select policy for rolling back deterio= rations of Lojban done in Robin's edition of CLL back to the original C= owan's CLL
3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) o= f 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.=C2=A0
<= /div>

Well, we can't just approve CLL w= ithout reading it first.
Robin's edition added lots of new in= formation 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.
<= div>

2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services &= lt;comcaresvcs@g= mail.com>:
I want to respond to a few of the comments ma= de 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&g= t; 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.
=

=
> Throughout all these years the community has known about Lo= jban'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, w= e are now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progre= ss, 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 w= ith this language for decades participating in this meeting. We haven't= abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original publica= tion of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' and Boar= d) included discussions of the problems with the language and efforts to fi= x them.=C2=A0

Certainly = lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of people learning l= ojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency. The baseline was on= e aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "Will lojban be subs= tantially 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


Some peopl= e want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and impro= vements to explanations).
Some people want Lojban to be= further developed (substantial changes, make the language more logical, fi= x issues, etc).



>= Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is establis= hed to promote the scientific study of the relationships between language, = thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of language and to det= ermine 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 LL= G's purpose.
Lojban being a stable language is useful for lea= rning and using and experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG= 9;s purpose.
Lojban being further developed is useful for buildin= g substantial improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's = purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojba= n 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 disagreement an= d confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take.
This is causing frustration: people wanting development, tryin= g to implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel = like they're wasting their time.
This is causing doubt: peopl= e wanting stability are unsure if their work using the language will be inv= alidated by changes to the language in the future.
This is causin= g conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their preferred direction.<= /div>

True.=C2=A0

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this= conflict.
This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), anno= yed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make beginners c= onfused and discouraged.
This conflict also cultivate persona= l 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) Re= evaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits into th= e 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 t= hink you're describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant= ways. Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing signif= icant portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict.=C2= =A0

- This m= ay 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 developme= nt?
- Can the LLG learn from other logical languages?
<= div>- Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical la= nguage?
- Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/= future logical language?
- Can the LLG explore/document options a= nd design decisions in logical 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.

These are still not all the written or spoken i= nstances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened bef= ore.=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@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


--94eb2c0a528a817ca2056265a75b-- --===============8577326289394588792== 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 --===============8577326289394588792==--