From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Aug 08 11:09:00 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.240.37]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GAW0e-0005h4-IG for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:08:58 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [24.250.99.39]) by eastrmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060808180852.BENP10599.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:08:52 -0400 Message-ID: <44D8D339.6000201@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:08:57 -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> <20060807041126.GE28190@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <44D6D0E3.30801@lojban.org> <55b258c20608070650h49460f55j94594cfa5e5ac0e6@mail.gmail.com> <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 250 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 Craig Daniel wrote: > On 8/7/06, Matt Arnold wrote: > >> On 8/7/06, Craig Daniel wrote: >> > What distinguishes this proposed dictionary from Jbovlaste? >> > >> >> Technically, jbovlaste is not quite official. (Someone correct me if >> I'm wrong.) We don't stand on formalities, so we treat it as official >> anyway; but it would be nice to get a PDF such as the one it generates >> and give it official imprimatur. > > > That's basically what I was picturing when lojbab raised this point. I > was just wanting to make sure there wasn't anything people were > looking for beyond that. (Unless anything else is expected I see no > reason not to do said officializing in this meeting, We could "officialize" it, but technically it is the job of byfy to do the "certifying" something as official language materials per its charter. Remember that the member organization is supposed to be about organization and business stuff, while byfy is the language definition and certification group. We can of course direct the priorities of byfy as a business concern (which is why I stressed the aspects of moneymaking, recruiting and customer satisfaction in my long winded reply - though it occurs to me in retrospect that I should have labeled my points in such businessy terminology to make that clear. lojbab