Received: from localhost ([::1]:50784 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebzVb-000549-J8; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:51 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182]:40365) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebzV5-000522-EC for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:20 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f182.google.com with SMTP id j128so6814189ywg.7 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:19 -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=O8nKMeZ1qIZoIXMIggKerz4G59B2VMYNdYHR7glwoNA=; b=hhrsOFV3SlI51HiE75eQT1ZP6KsCc3fn4Qp0MQc4HhSv3sxIg2az1S6ybgMysXQ335 t4hoovOyFfoq92LyUel4ct+af3p1UevyTOc/GObtMMPUk5XrWEERx9w/9fsGM9z2fWsj xMnjv2L7C7ALbeGOUy4kxUhOBsisoRXutNNdPQA/sskOU/DyGJTyh5RJo8NB9rrtqWVr 2myEyNSAF22Rf1nRy/S8iKPT78ATMSdiJIQZF+2xha6AVFB1jq4TnwcTTBjXQgXw8QIu f3nst56eXUvOs/85awfgi+niFAm6ylguTAnDYpvM/VEj9NDN/f3Urwaj9GPC+ANRUIEW xZzg== 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=O8nKMeZ1qIZoIXMIggKerz4G59B2VMYNdYHR7glwoNA=; b=sUeCDPkxVgptxKP5Xqt4FkjvR65BF1vZjVzhONrEl4V4RVL7vi3Kqw+SpKRiCunAtj uJmjQFk3YdBqwQ8YlFIxfDLE59XcI2pbKuRpp3G0T68mOC4AOLbJM1eZUBQ8A9Hz8iQw 0R+x7R+usJXHywPOZmeO2R//7H6icBF0JeEutCzcg1wGy7LlOI6G7eJbPh5t+NlsQlYJ ry+Zrwbuu+s5KWCdv9dfLGTzmNZD4Ic1tQsx+qnOP0z4f4vVWbHcQuJXjDQAfNoROYjE 0rGz8QCvCXKAU3s9X9JS43KAJc7xDcHfwkzKbMlKI8qsB1q7hVj1rGOcCG79mGSfJ7XI JLlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcBvs4cIYdDE0QtdycM1rf6R46uJnTLmQ5BDqP1ERuQDoCmE0O/ GORCnU8g4yTWB1LMN/a6mVeMthcI0PNw+3EDe/c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovW4so6Kgm7tYb8DHWyuQSx4RCs3397pcVOCFA/1g26m5A6IL3vfaFKBc8QAh3cdXQjs3cRZ+CNM6gpn7NvVMM= X-Received: by 10.37.128.138 with SMTP id n10mr1529682ybk.230.1516240812729; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 21:00:12 -0500 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] Summary of Votes 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="===============6195038873526867340==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6195038873526867340== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0823108c096e6905630353fc" --089e0823108c096e6905630353fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Jan 17, 2018 4:55 PM, "Thomas Porter" wrote: >Motion #1: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support loglangs. It exactly defines "loglang" for the >purposes of this motion and the subsequent two separate motions. I vote Aye. >Motion #1 amended-version: Same as Motion #1 proper, except the definition (really, a description) of "loglang" is >broader and left vague; the precious criterion is sufficient here but would not necessarily be necessary. This description >would propagate to the next two separate motions as well. I abstain, because it is too open-ended to be meaningful. >Motion #2: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support Lojban, regardless of its categorization >as a loglang according to any given definition (particularly that of either version of Motion #1). Presumably, we >would have to find some consensus on which Lojban is meant. I vote Nay. Lojban without logic is as good as dead. Just to be clear, Motion #2 references Lojban as it currently is. It does not mean a version of Lojban which is stripped of its current properties. The current version of Lojban simply does not satisfy the definition of "loglang" from Motion #1 proper. So, it may be the case that you already do or should think that Lojban is as good as dead, based on your comment. Does that make sense? >Motion #3: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support the development of some loglang which >is derived from Lojban, where "loglang" would align with the adopted version of Motion #1. I vote Aye. >Motion #4: Adopt a policy in which the LLG will search for so-called 'official-seeming' accounts and request that >the disclaim their lack of affiliation with the LLG and of support/grant of officialness therefrom. Exactly who >would oversee this effort was not addressed. I abstain from this one because I don't understand what it is conveying. >Motion #5: Adopt a policy in which unofficial content on *.lojban.org will be disclaimed as such. Exactly who >would oversee this effort was not addressed. I vote Aye. >Motion #6: Sets up a separate body in order to implement Motion #4 or Motion #5 (rather than leaving those >policies toothless or leaving them to the LLG to directly oversee). The wording was a bit problematic in regard to >which of those two motions would be covered by the body, but the intention was to only implement those >policies which are adopted, if any. I abstain. >Motion #6 Amended 1ce: Same thing as Motion #6 proper in spirit, but with the aforementioned wording >problem fixed, improved presentation/organization, and some protections put in place in order address fears >and concerns which had been raised. I vote Aye. _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --089e0823108c096e6905630353fc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jan 17, 2018 4:55 PM, "Thomas Porter" <osiris_hades_deathland@hotmail.= com> wrote:

>Motion #1: Adopt the policy t= hat the LLG shall advocate for and support loglangs. It exactly defines &qu= ot;loglang" for the >purposes of this motion and the subsequent two= separate motions.


I vote Aye.

>Motion #1 amended-version: Same as Motion #1 proper, = except the definition (really, a description) of "loglang" is >= ;broader and left vague; the precious criterion is sufficient here but woul= d not necessarily be necessary. This description >would propagate to the next two separate motions as well.

I abstain, because it is too open-ended to be meaningful.

>Motion #2:=C2=A0Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support Lojban, rega= rdless of its categorization >as a loglang according to any given defini= tion (particularly that of either version of Motion #1). Presumably, we >would have to find some consensus on which Lojban = is meant.

I vote Nay. Lojban without logic is as good as dead.
=
Just to be clear, Motion #2 references Lojban as = it currently is. It does not mean a version of Lojban which is stripped of = its current properties. The current version of Lojban simply does not satis= fy the definition of "loglang" from Motion #1 proper. So, it may = be the case that you already do or should think that Lojban is as good as d= ead, based on your comment. Does that make sense?
=

>Motion #3:=C2= =A0Adopt the policy that the = LLG shall advocate for and support the development of some loglang which &g= t;is derived from Lojban, where "loglang" would align with the adopted version of Motion #1.

I vote Aye.

>Motion #4: Adopt a policy i= n which the LLG will search for so-called 'official-seeming' accoun= ts and request that >the disclaim their lack of affiliation=C2=A0with th= e LLG and of support/grant of officialness therefrom. Exactly who >would oversee this effort was not addressed.

I abstain from this one because I don't understand what it is conveying= .

>Motion #5: Adopt a policy i= n which unofficial content on *.lojban.org will be disclai= med as such. Exactly who >would oversee this effort was not addressed.

I vote Aye.=C2=A0

>Motion #6: Sets up a separa= te body in order to implement Motion #4 or Motion #5 (rather than leaving t= hose >policies toothless or leaving them to the LLG to directly oversee)= . The wording was a bit problematic in regard to >which of those two motions would be covered by the body, but the in= tention was to only implement those >policies which are adopted, if any.=

I abstain.

>Motion #6 Amended 1ce: Same= thing as Motion #6 proper in spirit, but with the aforementioned=C2=A0word= ing >problem fixed, improved=C2=A0presentation/organization, and so= me protections put in place in order address fears >and concerns which had been raised.

I vote Aye.


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


--089e0823108c096e6905630353fc-- --===============6195038873526867340== 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 --===============6195038873526867340==--