From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 11 17:40:48 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig8a2-00064m-LA for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071012004031.SACT5742.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:40:31 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id zCgT1X00T3y5FKc0000000; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:40:30 -0400 Message-ID: <470EC2F2.6070006@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:42:26 -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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 379 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 Theodore Reed wrote: > 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. The LLG has power, but it was strongly advocated at the time byfy was started to separate that power and remove it from the business organization. It has been repeatedly noted that the qualifications for membership in LLG are interest in the organizational aspects and goals for the project. A goodly number of members have no especial skill at the language. A key purpose of byfy was to remove the problem of having non-language users deciding what the language will be. If the issue is decided by the membership, then it is being decided by a substantial number of non-users. >>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, NO IT HAS NOT. Robin (and Nick before him) has repeatedly said that all votes are preliminary. I and others have abstained, so as not to slow the work down. If that is suddenly post facto to be taken as "consensus" then I will have to insistently vote no on everything until I have properly reviewed it, which I cannot do on the schedule that has been laid out. > as far as xorlo is concerned That is simply false. > This motion doesn't go around anything except the > requirement imposed from above on how the byfy operates. Which requirement was fundamental to making byfy a workable enterprise given the disputes between factions. >>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. Precisely. > xorlo is not official and many of us are already > using it. This motion is about what is considered official. The baseline is official. It should remain official until we have a new baseline, with change pages to CLL describing that new baseline. Robin had agreed to that as byfy policy. The proposal renders that agreement null and void. >>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. If usage has decided, then no motion is necessary. But I content that usage cannot have decided, because some of us have explicitly avoided xorlo because of our commitment to the baseline. > A great many of us using Lojban daily are already using xorlo. I have no problem with that. >>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 want the entire language definition to be rebaselined. I will accept nothing less. If we cannot achieve that, then there has not been enough usage. >>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. Nor do I. But I do care that the standard of "correct Lojban" be changed only by agreed upon changes according to previously decided procedures. If there is such strong sentiment for making this change now, then it should be byfy voting to make this change now, and the jatna's problem to figure out how to make this work in the procedures he decided on. It should not be the membership making such a decision. lojbab