From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Oct 12 02:36:15 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IgGwG-0001RZ-VW for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:36:15 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071012093606.HYDZ3884.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:36:06 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id zMc01X0023y5FKc0000000; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:36:05 -0400 Message-ID: <470F4074.9020802@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:37:56 -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> <470EC2F2.6070006@lojban.org> <20071012005156.GC13890@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20071012005156.GC13890@digitalkingdom.org> 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: 390 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 Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:42:26PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > >>Theodore Reed wrote: >> >>>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. > > Bob. > > xorlo hasn't changed *since 2004*. > > If you are asserting that you can't review a single BPFK section > given 3 years time to do it, When I have time and focus enough to review byfy sections (not often enough), I try to focus on whatever ones are currently under discussion, since I trusted your statement that the ones that are completed would be reconsidered at the end as part of the whole package. Therefore, it has not even occurred to me to look at it. > and that your failure to review it > in that time means you will automatically vote against, That is not what I said. I will vote against this motion as a member of LLG - it is not up to me as a member of byfy right now, since the checkpoint is not one of those that is under discussion. I said that, if I cannot count on your commitment that the entire package will be reviewed at the end, as a whole, then I will therefore NOT be able to trust that others can do the preliminary byfy work without my obstructionism, and I will be forced back into the objectionable and combative role I was playing at the beginning of the byfy effort. > I will do > everything in my power to have you removed from the BPFK > immediately, because that's an unacceptable position. byfy was intended to define the baseline. My position is that I want to review all changes to the baseline proposed in byfy as a package. I want to be able to negotiate on that basis. If baseline change decisions are made outside of byfy, that approach will not be possible. I will have to do what I must, and under pressure I become an archconservative on any baseline change proposal. This does not mean not mean that I cannot be convinced to approve a change, only that the options of negotiation have been completely removed, and people will have to work harder to convince me to stand down. Under the current policy, silence is deemed consensus. But there hasn't really been consensus, says as we all know, only a few people are actually voting on each checkpoint. I have been content to let my default vote be consensus, because the rules in place meant that no changes could become accepted until a later review where my no vote will count as much as it does now. If the rules change, and baseline changes can be adopted, not by consensus, but by majority vote, and not of the byfy, but of the membership, and if furthermore the 11-0 vote on record is taken as evidence that byfy has approved it, when in fact some have withheld from voting, then I cannot support the checkpoint scheme, and must vote on all changes as if they are the final package. In that case, then until I am convinced, it is my obligation to have a default "no" vote, and to abstain on nothing. It also means that I will work a lot more intensely on byfy, since I will have the obligation to negotiate each checkpoint. But my intense working on each byfy checkpoint was causing a lot of heartburn because I seldom review anything in just a few days. If your approach to dealing with conservatives on byfy that are reluctant to change anything, is to remove them from byfy, well that is your choice as byfy jatna. If your approach as jatna to the slowness of byfy's work is to make motions negate the byfy that you are chairing, then I am obliged to vote no. > I suspect you don't intend to say that, but that's what you just > said. > > The last section I have you on record as having voted for was in > March of 2004. There's no schedule that can accomodate people who > don't review anything in that kind of time window. Sorry. I have presumed that there is no point even looking at any other checkpoint other than the one currently being worked on. Previous checkpoints are presumed to be closed until the final review. You now seem to be changing the rules of the game, but not within byfy, but the members meeting. lojbab