From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Oct 11 14:29:19 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig5an-0008Fy-Nx for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:29:19 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:29:17 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business Message-ID: <20071011212917.GY13890@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-archive-position: 373 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:24:16PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Whereas I will vote "no". > > My reasoning is if there is a substantial number who think that > xorlo should be made the rule, then they should be plugging away > at byfy work so that when it gets done and there is sufficient > consensus, it will be the rule. While that has been my past stance, I note that it's a completely useless thing to say to a newbie. It's also a rather annoying assertion coming from you. (le'o cu'i) > If we start adopting things piecemeal by membership vote then I don't think we should; I think this is a singular case. > 1) The concept that the membership is about the organizational and > business aspects of the Lojban community, and not the language > definition (already asserted once in this meeting) is thoroughly > destroyed. The BPFK *is* an LLG committee; it even has to get its final decision ratified by the membership. But yes, I see your point. > 2) It sets a precedent for going around the byfy, Erm. The BPFK has already voted 11 to 0 on this. (Yes, I'm aware the BPFK isn't done yet, I'm just saying). > That being said, I will offer a substitute motion that I could > support, because of its nonbinding nature. "... that it is the > sense of the LLG membership that xorlo should be adopted by the > byfy, and that it is the sense of the membership that the > self-consistent use of either xorlo or the CLL standard by members > of the community, pending a final decision by the byfy, should not > be considered incorrect and subject to correction". Awfully fence-sitting, but certainly better than the status quo. > I will say honestly that I have avoided giving much thought to > xorlo. I avoided the byfy discussion because it was too time > consuming and contentious. I have not learned it, and I have not > tried to use it. Yes, but you don't speak the language anyways. (le'o cu'i sai) -Robin -- Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/