From ted.reed@gmail.com Thu Oct 11 17:16:55 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig8Ct-0005Tj-8r for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:54 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so558646nfv for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=dxbC1wnS6mXnrt5UkMtezP8VKT+g1ocLtXzvFnzF8ko=; b=QFCU2DrEduLQRdnrbxjrIJaeo0TqLN3THPbfupO4REWY4OiYJe2uod2ovqD0bPkYbwAXIWP+yUfFi01mAqQJG8tufK3GWeeoX/alLNLmPu+jvYKSMJo4EcOKWfoZzLYGI9285zWMb9jd4d2kDwLSWkWNpeHpR8GTWm7ZERAARcQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fAWm/Bw1bEP0E7/G54ivxSEIrH3CLSWAUy+6xN0anxYcPDXwsRQvAFy+TxyIrWdVDXH6O6mO2LYOWpLqsMg6rnfMvzxOz9TH949T4pet8rP/a+5LhOftiGp5XtuAD9lmzt8DXWZivatoA6l/WAFCKa36HjbdiY+yRFlghjawYdo= Received: by 10.78.81.20 with SMTP id e20mr1928533hub.1192148204506; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.150.15 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:39 -0700 From: "Theodore Reed" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business In-Reply-To: <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 376 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ted.reed@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 10/11/07, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > 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. "is thoroughly destroyed" by this motion? Or was destroyed before this motion? The former certainly seems to most definitely not be the case. If the LLG does not have any power over the language definition, this motion is meaningless. > 2) It sets a precedent for going around the byfy, with the decisions > being made by majority vote of the membership rather than consensus of > the byfy. This not only weakens the potential of the byfy, but tends to > detract even further from the motivation to get the job done. The consensus of the byfy has already been gathered, as far as xorlo is concerned. This motion doesn't go around anything except the requirement imposed from above on how the byfy operates. > 3) It is the pressure to get that consensus agreement, and the tradeoffs > that people need to make to reach that point, that make consensus > building possible. By removing issues from the table by membership fiat, > consensus building becomes harder. Granted. > 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". Sounds like the current state of affairs. People are going to use what they're going to use. xorlo is not official and many of us are already using it. This motion is about what is considered official. > This is actually in keeping with the "let usage decide" dictum. I have > no trouble with people just simply using xorlo. It is when they say > that someone using the CLL baseline standard is "wrong", that I get my > dander up. If they explain to a newbie that expression E means one > thing under xorlo and another thing under the baseline, and that most > people in that particular forum are using xorlo, that is fine. > Deprecating the baseline, especially in English language discussion, is > NOT "letting usage decide". On the contrary. This motion is being made precisely because of usage. A great many of us using Lojban daily are already using xorlo. > This should in general be true of any proposed change that has some > broad support. Run it up the flagpole of actual usage and have it > broadly accepted, and the byfy arch-conservatives like myself have > little ground to veto inclusion of the usage in the final consensus. How much more actual usage do you want to see? > 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. I > furthermore will not use it until the byfy makes the determination, > regardless of whether the original motion passes. > > (At that point, well, I am suspicious that my 20 years of ingrained > habits of Lojban usage may make those areas where there is in fact a > difference between the two systems, a gap that is beyond my ability (and > willingness) to relearn. If such is the case then I will go to my grave > speaking "incorrect Lojban" and not really caring). As is your right. Technically, I'm already speaking "incorrect Lojban" by using xorlo. And I don't much care. mu'omi'e.bancus.