From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 11 17:21:50 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.240.59]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig8Hj-0005cY-W6 for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:50 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071012002140.HXGN22953.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:21:40 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id zCMd1X00N3y5FKc0000000; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:21:39 -0400 Message-ID: <470EBE88.80609@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:23:36 -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 AGM 2007: New Business References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> <20071011212917.GY13890@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 377 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 Matt Arnold wrote: > This proposal is (or if not, should be) a vote to make this completed > part of the BPFK's work official before the rest of the BPFK's work. I disagree, because it renders the whole point of the byfy was to REMOVE the technical decision making from the members. (Robin says that the final byfy result is subject to member approval, but the intent was a ratification of the entire package as the new baseline, not to have the members decide any particular issue.) > The BPFK is nearly as much on board with xorlo as it is possible to > get them to agree on anything ever. The only thing that we would gain > by holding off on this would be to hold up the principle that we have > to wait until the BPFK is _completely_ done refining the _entire_ > language. I reject that as bureaucratic stuff and nonsense. Whereas it is the promise of a complete review and approval of the *entire* package that is fundamental to the byfy consensus project. If things that are contentious (and despite the 11-0 vote, there was still contention about xorlo - the conservative faction agreed to hold off and reserve judgment until the end, and decide in the context of the package deal). > If there were any issues which should be voted in piecemeal, they are > xorlo and the Dot Side. The Dot Side is much less universally accepted > and I am comfortable not deciding that in this meeting. But these two > issues are harming new Lojban adoption in a visible way. Frankly, I am not strongly concerned. Until we get the byfy work done, recruiting is of low importance. We need a completed language. Some will not learn it till it is completed. Others (including myself) among the old-timers are reluctant to spend a lot of time using a language which it is actively planned to have changes when the process is completed. Writing stuff which is obsolete in a few years is a distinct turnoff. Having some changes now, and more changes when byfy is done, only makes it worse. > xorlo is already Lojban in every sense that matters. Then no statement should need to be made. To me it is obvious that the desire for a statement contradicts this assertion. > Any statement to > the contrary rejects the long-established vividly-expressed will of > the active Lojban community, I don't call for a statement to the contrary. I call for no statement at all (or as minimal a statement as possible), until byfy can make that statement. > We must take pro-xorlo action Why? and we must take it now. Then let's get the byfy work done. I have stood down precisely because I was getting in the way of others achieving consensus (and Nora and I were slowing everything down because we insist on looking at things in detail in a way that is incompatible with one-week voting). I think other conservatives did so as well. If people are going to start taking my silence as acquiescence to change, then I will end up angering people by my admittedly strident advocacy of the status quo. And I'd rather the byfy work get done, even if I lose some battles. lojbab