From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Oct 11 17:55:03 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig8nv-0006SQ-9J for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:55:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:55:03 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business Message-ID: <20071012005503.GD13890@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> <470EC2F2.6070006@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470EC2F2.6070006@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-archive-position: 384 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 08:42:26PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Theodore Reed wrote: >> On 10/11/07, Bob LeChevalier wrote: >>> 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. Those two things are *completely* unrelated. There's lots of Lojban usage happening all over the place; this doesn't help the language decription get finished. Usage and BPFK work have nothing to do with each other, because the people who are using the language are, by definiton, not doing BPFK work at the time. > 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. Actually, that's impossible; the BPFK isn't allowed to present anything to the membership for approval until the whole baseline is complete, as you're well aware. Any exception to that must come from where the BPFK did: the LLG. -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/