From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Fri Oct 12 03:35:31 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.178]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IgHrE-0003IZ-57 for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:35:25 -0700 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m16so960006waf for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:34:46 -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:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=e9iOrQr7hSft9qEcXtQGBQKODaD36AsPrmLvze1K238=; b=cSjRLhGc1GyGPI8v53tsfXV2CZfbXt3HdH0AuWEW4tkMCaxMS7JXcj80lF5cFCqrbUkhXx1iH0UXT9rvdoDqO5N3L7ocn6cRjwd7OVTQPLo+8ayMvQA6Xa4etahfVEsLEkoFpjZDUZiYMUyI51jcCBoHpHuzCSp6NhohBbbmmf4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=mGVSeuiTChx/FON2kOuNjf1q0J8t88hTIKIK0WBSzmEh4bXwh4KeLhsdXMDwghXVTpLyVS88CXVoBVhvqKbODbSoBUCFEEtZ2ryQV6JaNl+DW7c6blxd4g5cD6mUs6oWgidDq/3wehfsV8nIgr72UP9JjTXlWgCrORCKdooANik= Received: by 10.114.66.2 with SMTP id o2mr3326144waa.1192185286574; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.16.20 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:34:46 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" 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-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 391 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 10/11/07, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > NB: The emotions expressed in this mail are exaggerated, but they > won't be in another year or so. I'm looking out for my future self, > here. > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:24:16PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > 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. > > > > 3) It is the pressure to get that consensus agreement, and the > > tradeoffs that people need to make to reach that point, that make > > consensus building possible. By removing issues from the table by > > membership fiat, consensus building becomes harder. > > In light of the fervor (which I note to be the work of a single > person so far) that my proposal has generated, I feel the need to > explain why I did it. > > I am not, and was not, speaking as BPFK anything. > > I am not, and was not, speaking as an LLG member, let alone board > member. > > I am, and was, speaking as a member of the wider Lojban community, > and a user of the language (and, in fact, the single most prolific > user of the language *of all time*, although xorxes is close behind > me). > > I totally understand, and agree, that my proposal is a slap in the > face to the purpose of the BPFK. > > The problem is that the BPFK has been slapping the face of the > community for over 3 years. > > We've been sitting here dealing with a forked language, and in the > meantime the BPFK is utterly failing to actually get anything > substantial done. Yes, BAI was nice, but what has the BPFK done for > me lately? [speaking as a BPFK member: I know that I am personally > to blame for that in my own way, but as one of the 4 or so BPFK > members that has ever done any substantial BPFK work, I say that you > don't get to blame me until you've blamed everybody else, thanks] > > My proposal was borne out of despair at the BPFK ever completing its > job. A job, by the way, that was supposed to be completed in, what, > 1995 or something? Long before the BPFK was formulated. > > I despair. > > I am tired of trying to deal with a forked language. > > If you wish me to despair less, you must show me that this situation > will be resolved in the forseeable future. Telling me that I'm > missing the point of the BPFK is no good: I already know, and I'm > very nearly past caring. Telling me you will confront me with > legalities is no good: it simply increases my despair, because if > legalities will be used to slow the process of something that is > already this slow, we will literally never finish. > > Show me another way. Show me something other than the future I see > before me, which is another 5 years of trying to respect the > baseline in front of newbies when my own writings use xorlo. > > Show it to me, because I do not see it. > > -Robin > Hear, hear. -Eppcott