From jjllambias@gmail.com Fri Oct 12 15:43:38 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:43:38 -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 1IgTEF-0003nz-GX for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:43:37 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so780121nfv for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:43:33 -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=2/o9Ivf+/1HpHIN+VLegzQg7TIgF7pxPoamts+7LQBI=; b=AK3vDo/Zvgbe/Y2H009yLccBGxXzzfkACrKBVhcUGaMy+r/u5/C6HXfA+kxY5n07EjtNcrNIT3gWeaonM/R0WS/bEeCm9XI5oacTQLB0SKMpyqJ5Awoe6sxpcJL7fBw60H3lu3Zcvf9x75Z9FixqZRiZld8EnMWD0gv94uQCCG8= 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=pj4psRjs/Ftp7xnp5sm6QTg5cgJ/ErnVp7QJRV2/tYt9t9ht+Np1hiJ92m2t93e3buDUp4qGxN6cbv3GioeDh/vsNYPC+kH9QeAmcljrZwVJhgb++aaRV+7BW5pLXikf8TNiwViBu4EflrvZ+AdiSxHAQnFKJSBJ7uhGZnwxje0= Received: by 10.86.4.2 with SMTP id 2mr2701936fgd.1192229013620; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.86.13 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560710121543u7022f8d2n56d06f14ac6f8e7d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:43:33 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business In-Reply-To: <470FD7BB.2030202@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> <20071012022955.GG13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470F688A.2050209@lojban.org> <20071012172307.GD31644@digitalkingdom.org> <470FD7BB.2030202@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 399 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 10/12/07, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > I have had the possibly unrealistic impression that byfy work gets > bogged down whenever there is debate. I think that is indeed unrealistic, but it should be easy to resolve the question. There are currently 17 BPFK members: And Rosta Arnt Johansen [tsali] Adam D. Lopresto? Jay Kominek [djez] John Cowan Bob LeChevalier [lojbab] Nick Nicholas [nitcion] Nora LeChevalier [noras] Pierre Abbat Robin Powell [camgusmis] Charles Hope [xod] Jorge Llambias [xorxes] Jordan de Long Rob Speer Mark Shoulson Adam Raizen Theodore Alexander Reed [treed, bancus, rizen] Has any one of those 17 members refrained from taking over a section as shepherd, or from working on a section they have taken over, due to an excess of existing debate? If not, then obviously debate is not what is keeping us bogged down. (In my particular case, I tend to do more, not less, when there is a spark of debate. General apathy tends to make any effort less attractive.) If any one of the 17 members is waiting for debate to abate before working on some section, please let us know so we can resolve that issue. Otherwise let's drop that as a lousy excuse. > The obvious solution then seems > to be to isolate the issues that need debate from the rest of the > language definition. Yes, that would be a good solution if that was the problem. But there has been little to no debate lately stopping anyone wishing to work on some section from doing so. > If my observation does not reflect reality, I have > no problem withdrawing the suggestion (though I still think that things > would have worked smoother if they had been done that way, the decision > to use checkpoints was made before you took on the job and I cannot > criticize you for maintaining the status quo). The problem is not the procedure. The problem is that nobody seems very interested in working on the remaining sections, In my case, because they are mostly uninteresting to me or because they contain cmavo that I would rather see dropped from the laguage, and I'm not going to waste time and effort trying to write good definition for them. Perhaps what we might do is decide that no new definition will be written for any cmavo for which nobody cares to write a new definition, and no examples of usage will be sought or created for them. Then the work on cmavo will be basically over and we can move on to morphology and formal grammar issues that I would like to see resolved. mu'o mi'e xorxes