From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Jul 08 09:39:44 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.240.35]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzFqF-00045A-HE for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:39:42 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [24.250.99.39]) by eastrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060708163937.SFAM12945.eastrmmtao04.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:39:37 -0400 Message-ID: <44AFDF4A.7070009@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:37:30 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG 2006 Annual Meeting Thread References: <20060707224943.GB18983@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20060707224943.GB18983@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 202 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members I offer the following as a friendly correction to the minutes, with private email documentation sent to Robin in order to spare the list. Comment of importance added at the end. Robin Lee Powell wrote: > 6) Removal of old members > > Members not participating in any form last year: > > Burgess, Gary > Desquilbet, Jerome > Hodges, John > Le Du, Yann > Lynch, Keith > Nicholas, Nick > O'Sullivan, Paul Francis > Speer, Rob > Shoulson, Mark > Vilva, Veijo > Weeks, Stephen (made a member during the meeting but not present > for it, due to clerical error on my part) > > Whether we should *do* anything about any of these is a matter > for discussion; while I believe I have valid e-mail addresses > for all of them, I can't absolutely guarantee it. In > particular, Stephen doesn't appear to have actually been on the > list, which is my fault. > > I can not, in particular, guarantee that I have valid e-mail > addresses for the following people, as they did not respond to a > test mail: > > Dyke, Gregory > Desquilbet, Jerome > Hope, Charles > Lynch, Keith > Speer, Rob Keith Lynch was taken to have resigned last year before the meeting. Charles Hope aka xod and Gregory Dyke and Yann Le Du and Paul Francis O'Sullivan all participated in the meeting last year. Gary Burgess was mentioned in a minutes correction that suggested a private email to Robin, and also responded to a message in the leadup to the meeting. Mark Shoulson made a brief appearance in the leadup to the meeting, which I took to be an apology for inactivity. He has of course been active, as recently as this week, on the Lojban List. ("not participating in any form last year" is ambiguous, and I am sure that others mentioned participated during the last year in the list and the wiki, but I didn't look). Conclusion and comment and request for ruling: I may have missed some of the others (I looked only in member-list discussions that I saved), especially since some of those named like xod use a Lojbanic name when posting and not their real name, but this number of errors on who participated last year means that we should be VERY careful about deciding to eliminate someone for non-participation, and we probably should have a formal ruling from the chair at some point as to what exactly will count for "participation thus year" when this inevitably comes up next year. Given relatively short notice that an annual meeting is about to start (people take vacations, and a meeting might end before they know it started), and limited opportunities therefore to participate by proxy, I would favor the loosest possible definition of activity, and consider that a person's active involvement in any public Lojbanic activity should buy at least a year's grace on "participating in the meeting", and a special email well in advance of a meeting to jog their memory if their nonparticipation is likely to be raised as an issue. Who is legally a member and who isn't is potentially a critical issue if there were ever a formal (i.e. legal) dispute about some matter, and while it seems very mundane needs to be attended to more rigorously to prevent the potential problem, hence my request for a formal ruling. lojbab