From ted.reed@gmail.com Thu Oct 11 17:53:55 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.185]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig8mj-0006Px-GF for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:55 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so564396nfv for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:42 -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=1oIwriczsS2Q1YRU/vKR2n0bjXuzGIsCC/UpNW3NDOU=; b=j8ji3att8MCr/lMLDXIN6TLb0DukigthlmHhdB+rhMwsFxRivpaDA32kL/fDrcTAX/HlSUoWYoDUAXs1iQ6Y+0ORXEDCzJn8xl7wWmz4b5mS0QBpOvAQuF6OyVzJFjsQdtaYxW+9BxGUY3qYNTMc56Uz7CiPxhm9cTdfaDtHlJQ= 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=gUP+OwoTLnfmBYfFSGt0IHCaMdWnMimf1TrUpP4dpLo+xgYReezwb3U8XIHjiC/3mx5REQ2TpB1MrE7FcEZCMfyjvjBv09mdiXBaXDqcH4YrXwfk6fFkDfnXOswEAQXGvmWLJOIi4zTTfRFZgCfq9wDPgqggTd/1RhIoxk9cxK8= Received: by 10.78.200.3 with SMTP id x3mr1956957huf.1192150421141; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.150.15 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:41 -0700 From: "Theodore Reed" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business In-Reply-To: <470EC2F2.6070006@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> <470EC2F2.6070006@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 383 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: > Theodore Reed wrote: > > 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. The byfy is still under the authority of the LLG. The LLG membership, in this case, are not voting on the particulars of the proposal, I don't think your argument about non-users is valid. > >>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. You can vote no at any time. I think waiting until the end to drop a bomb on the byfy is a bad way of doing things. > > 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. Okay, but I don't see what that has to do with the original point. > >>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. I'll address this a bit lower with the following: > 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 am confused. If usage has decided, then usage has decided. But usage hasn't been decided until the new definition appears in the CLL? That sounds backwards to me. I fail to see what usage has to do with any sort of baseline. mu'omi'e.bancus.