From arj@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Oct 13 04:26:00 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 04:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Igf7k-0006T3-St for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 04:25:56 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA5F94751 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:02:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l9DB2XS6019410 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:02:33 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id l9DB2XlH019409 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:02:33 +0200 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:02:33 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business Message-ID: <20071013110233.GU1196@nvg.org> References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 406 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:06:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > At the behest of certain others on #lojban, I therefore move that > the membership recognize xorlo. Specifically, I move that the > membership assert that xorlo is more correct than the CLL at this > time, that whatever the BPFK come up with xorlo will be part of it, > and that new Lojbanists should be taught it as soon as possible. It is interesting that Bob compares BPFK work to software engineering and configuration management. I suppose we all have our frame of reference for this kind of work (seeing that it has never been done before). To me, that frame of reference is quality assurance. Xorlo is what I would refer to as a "high-risk patch". A high-risk patch is a change whose consequences must be watched closely, not necessarily because it has been made in haste or otherwise poorly thought out, but because it could have severe consequences for large parts of the system if there is something wrong with it. It is not so that any BPFK section is hermetically sealed from the rest of the language; that's why the current BPFK procedures includes a mega-vote section at the end to iron out any large-scale inconsistencies. This is _especially_ the case with xorlo, which potentially interacts with everything that interacts with sumti. At the moment, I guess at an 80% chance of xorlo making it into the final BPFK decision with no changes. I think it is very improbable, much less than 1%, that the BPFK will adopt the entire CLL gadri system. The remaning ~20% is shared between modified xorlo proposals, and modified CLL-style proposals. As much as I agree with Robin that the current didactical situation cannot go on, I must side with Bob that it is a bad idea to go over the heads of the BPFK with this. It basically means that if the BPFK were to find that xorlo must be changed or rejected in light of interactions with other parts of the language, they have to go to the AGM to rescind this motion. Perhaps we could adopt a motion saying, not that xorlo is right, but that what the CLL says about gadri is wrong? Robin, would that be satisfactory? -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ P� hjul er du kj�rende.