From craigbdaniel@gmail.com Thu Oct 11 22:41:21 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IgDGr-0007dA-UM for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:41:20 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so605957nfv for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:41:09 -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:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; bh=E9Owy79red2RbYsmIpwJAQp5bcJxZjWYTrMVeDuLYlM=; b=AzUdMVnZAHn7DTEo/69SXlJdXMW/wMzJ+sS4BDzf3xNS5oWYyQiKFacCmWhJVtjsfnVNo/ititwy65BAyZ7rnBQzQVUtoSVu1W2qCXWkTXyhDYsADHNJ/c6wWWqzpaHsisxUVr3VhtejArSqrLhUO2vqWwlpdhULfwJwY8u2BZY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=V6FgVgwW5ayFpSPKfU2e5Rhfu+K1gZmsFHTDn30QWpc9lhOsJ+yBfZ3XDVpFkDEkJQ8Ln2fcFXpWDFSUjQeOF5Xx+GPIOoMxI/Vu2Y+nWXcDkHWbUISCkcb2LJQ5/RQ5rrtFMVUDyvBzUqgpsiBLGLv9ITjPNf4PHWYDmuNzBYo= Received: by 10.78.147.6 with SMTP id u6mr1980059hud.1192167669295; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.172.8 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55b258c20710112241s27f0cbb2k69e785c0a8d4d467@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:41:09 -0500 From: "Craig Daniel" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business (xorlo) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 293f3cc93ac03059 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 389 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: teucer@pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members I'd like to suggest that there is harm both in delaying the adoption of xorlo AND in ignoring the previously-established process for updating the baseline. As a result, while I really want to make xorlo official, I don't feel able to vote in favor of Robin's motion. I'm not sure how best to phrase the details, but I'd like to propose something along the following lines (not yet an actual motion, but hopefully discussion will turn it into one we can all get behind). 1. The BPFK procedure should be changed so that specific proposals supported by the BPFK can be adopted by the membership as "interim baseline", with the understanding that when the BPFK finishes everything they will likely be part of the new baseline. All changes prior to the completion of BPFK work shall follow the new procedures thus established rather than ignoring what procedures are in place. 2. Conformity to an interim baseline and to the old baseline will both be regarded as correct, but making something part of the interim baseline bespeaks a belief on the part of the LLG membership. 3. If an issue has received the support of at least two thirds of the BPFK, without any votes against, the BPFKJ is strongly encouraged to submit a motion recognizing it as the interim baseline. If the above or something like it were passed, I would then be strongly in favor of making xorlo part of the interim baseline. I'm pro-xorlo, and very much so - it's just that I'm also against ignoring our current procedures. Of course, the current procedures haven't been doing much - largely because the BPFK has done close to nothing since deciding to support xorlo. I consider myself, as one of the members (until recently) who didn't get anything done, to be part of this problem. I think the membership needs to officially recognize in some way that the current procedures aren't working - whether by changing them (as suggested above or differently, including a complete rewrite), censuring long-inactive BPFK members (and former members), removing all long-inactive members from the BPFK (even if we don't do this I encourage other inactive BPFK members to step down, as I have, so that the remainder can pass things more easily, and I encourage others to step up to take our places) - or all of the above. All of the above would probably be my preference, but I'm not going to submit a counter-counter-motion without seeing some discussion about what the details ought to be first. mu'o mi'e .kreig.daniyl.