Received: from localhost ([::1]:49948 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebaR9-0003of-PU; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:14:35 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:36256) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebaQe-0003nW-5r for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:14:04 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f3so11967712wmc.1 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:14:04 -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=nfHrwcBqOcrwfDNjX8CqiJXmOyGThkF0aE7khzfwIj0=; b=HGdsCE0CAd99G8YdyKgsCQxS/UJJtF/XIcHUoZitihrjzF2JaQnvkqG5UwMf03gZZc r6yTZ1s2qykkWsAFdmGZtHRBgoVgQk8kQBMnkkIs6fwxw7VaA/X54DFtNE2ePVzhHdFb Uo/cI27zY/4oRRZtS6gVc7R7JUd0GcWP6v2cWnykRnCVXbgkPSyOrZrVHD0y/XDNwOBo raCnhN1n9PMjCCsMy9guYWwBe1rDjk0MYgQVyHhOzLpqD4OkJuuGr7wavgz5TvmPLf8L CZ55WYDbuQ8s051NeiUalUIsz4T3ixJD1sv88YDbyS6mz082HBdmD+3Pi8Gvfh11F0Wp hqxw== 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=nfHrwcBqOcrwfDNjX8CqiJXmOyGThkF0aE7khzfwIj0=; b=lxUWqE2fP/SxxDAqiTEvrXJX2eAVvfKajIATlsMUqQKRkgkBZOFzyflbvtv1xuKRlV 1DXNlGDnwbWfsncOfDxQycEppXTyRVaLKgH1m+X57IvLluRLSTCy796ndrkpERn3iZ48 ImaX0olPR0jy/VvZ4lGQdXTrPE190BL/3f/t3g2tD9mryCqNOoCzJxZzqCaPm8Nui08K lhKQfKlqxoSNrFepdMZuPZjxS1upXW6PIf/T8YJOuLvE/kRxQ5PtJvSV7fv+wjtLx7ZF IVIDx708FgPAz6KRTroCHkZeq/oH4328PMr+aTHmBgFk1U+V4MI9YoIcfvZnX2DLghBY W5Kg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytclb7uVLrtbRL9B1dGwx3ry/I794j49rTqaX1JWwIS7E9XUY4Oj W8kIT7nyScwUHRCgLnyTYexnN9ww8JzG5VYcDpQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosgzg+Jip+7HmCzvvsTpBtdgU3+EluVcgi8mgw3LGWYidsJYh9/SU5UE8I+qc/KL8UnjS+AJgIcGCmsv5OGfg8= X-Received: by 10.28.132.207 with SMTP id g198mr495185wmd.118.1516144437270; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.145.197 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.145.197 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> <0bd3827c-a523-3356-8107-d30854d9d466@selpahi.de> From: And Rosta Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:13:56 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 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="===============4943318331849552814==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4943318331849552814== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11444d009c9ea10562ece27a" --001a11444d009c9ea10562ece27a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My apologies, the meeting exploded into activity at the same time as professional life renewed its demands on me. I am trying to catch up (seeing that my input has been solicited). On 31 Dec 2017 17:03, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" wrote: And (whom I hope I understand is retracting the resignation he submitted a couple of months back!) If retraction is allowed, then I will retract for the time being. I don't want to oblige the meeting to waste time deliberating this. (I'd resigned only to liberate myself from the painful duty of keeping up with the meeting.) imagined a world where "xorxes and selpa'i had been given carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement=E2=80=9D. I would like challenge the idea that this organization is exercising any material prior restraint that would prevent such a thing from happening. If John Cowan had not produced a work that aligned with the goals of this organization, it wouldn=E2=80=99t have received the support that it has. Likewise if xorxes = and selpa=E2=80=99i were to collaborate on a new reference grammar, whether it = be called =E2=80=9CCLL 2.0=E2=80=9D or anything else, I think we=E2=80=99d be = well within our rights and duties to consider how we wanted to support that work and describe it in relationship to our mission. But John had the full blessing of the community and was conservative in his respect for the status quo (lojbanically, I mean; John is of course inspiringly radical on other matters & has deeply shaped my own political thought). You couldn't expect Selpa'i to write a new reference grammar in the teeth of vociferous opposition from large sections of the community or at least without the full blessing of LLG. I am writing without yet having read the rest of this thread, but my view is that CLL Lojban should be left intact, documented lapidarily by CLL, and if LLG were to ask Selpa'i to do 2.0 it would be the loglang version of Lojban from Motion 3 (if I remember the motion numbering correctly). --And. --001a11444d009c9ea10562ece27a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My apologies, the meeting exploded into activity at = the same time as professional life renewed its demands on me. I am trying t= o catch up (seeing that my input has been solicited).

On 31 Dec 2017 17:03, "Riley M= artinez-Lynch" <shunpiker@gm= ail.com> wrote:

And (whom I hope I understand is retracting the resignation he submi= tted a couple of months back!)
<= div dir=3D"auto">
If retraction is allowed, then= I will retract for the time being. I don't want to oblige the meeting = to waste time deliberating this. (I'd resigned only to liberate myself = from the painful duty of keeping up with the meeting.)



imagined a world where "xorxes and selpa'i had been giv= en carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement=E2= =80=9D. I would like challenge the idea that this organization is exercisin= g any material prior restraint that would prevent such a thing from happeni= ng. If John Cowan had not produced a work that aligned with the goals of th= is organization, it wouldn=E2=80=99t have received the support that it has.= Likewise if xorxes and selpa=E2=80=99i were to collaborate on a new refere= nce grammar, whether it be called =E2=80=9CCLL 2.0=E2=80=9D or anything els= e, I think we=E2=80=99d be well within our rights and duties to consider ho= w we wanted to support that work and describe it in relationship to our mis= sion.

But John had the full blessing of the community and was = conservative in his respect for the status quo (lojbanically, I mean; John = is of course inspiringly radical on other matters & has deeply shaped m= y own political thought).

You couldn't expect Selpa'i to write a new reference grammar in t= he teeth of vociferous opposition from large sections of the community or a= t least without the full blessing of LLG. I am writing without yet having r= ead the rest of this thread, but my view is that CLL Lojban should be left = intact, documented lapidarily by CLL, and if LLG were to ask Selpa'i to= do 2.0 it would be the loglang version of Lojban from Motion 3 (if I remem= ber the motion numbering correctly).

--And.

--001a11444d009c9ea10562ece27a-- --===============4943318331849552814== 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 --===============4943318331849552814==--