From craigbdaniel@gmail.com Sat Oct 13 11:02:13 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.186]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IglJQ-0001Ot-L7 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:02:13 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so879267nfv for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:02:07 -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:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=1A2lOXQbptP9DyDXIki2kQrHPCuUgRtzVNKoGPW8UPw=; b=K+u/pQA5unAwyUt4lYteGvnTBb+9EgaSWO447FUR04TrJIiAVIsgwgbInMWGbXC3N5pCvS5mSGdNQG5BNYxsIaHgDPVcf59raKDAp31dR2Woy0Cmy2ERiqUxkiV3rPAjbgvtOfvQ/cUkKcIAqPQpexzFZO0GtIMyk+dMvCKUzXo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=mlCK072qXXhH33uTJtEsG5nfQi/ehjlLLsKr0n840rNzSSpVlrVJkKTVFYGo4+9Hri+ohTy6tMDujWtotLXHvF6HR7mAScZb2UM3xqIbKxQSFFT8m5C3AumjECefeY+nvL1kFSg+YJYeOSQC1ZNMMWezGcrEJKt6c6KmBWcGivA= Received: by 10.78.190.10 with SMTP id n10mr3207277huf.1192298526510; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.172.8 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55b258c20710131102u170485cevacee927b246dcbf9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:02:01 -0500 From: "Craig Daniel" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: Arnt Richard now chairs the meeting In-Reply-To: <4710AA35.1050200@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071013101821.GT1196@nvg.org> <4710AA35.1050200@gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 957bf871dafac161 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 409 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 On 10/13/07, And Rosta wrote: > I propose a specific BPFK reform under New Business (-- reforms as per Xorxes's >suggestion) with the intention that any vote on it should precede any vote on xorlo (for the >sorts of reasons already stated by me & Craig). I've had a little while to think about how to phrase the details, and I would like to actually submit it as a motion. I move that the following procedures be added to the extant BPFK procedures: "Any proposal which at least half of the BPFK membership has voted on in a tentative vote with none voting against, may be submitted by the BPFKJ to the general membership as a possible piece of the zasni gafyfantytei ("interim baseline", herein after referred to as the ZG). Such a proposal requires a two-thirds majority of those voting to vote in favor of it at the general membership meeting in order to pass. Voting something into the ZG has the following effects: 1. The proposal will be considered correct Lojban until such a time the complete new baseline is established and approved by the membership. Usage according to the CLL standard will not be considered incorrect, but usage according to the ZG will be preferred. 2. The BPFK will recognize that such a vote indicates a desire by the membership for the proposal in question to be included, in modified form if necessary, when the new baseline is finished. Such a desire will not be considered binding in any way. 3. The membership is encouraged to use the ZG standard in all pedagogical contexts, and in all Lojban conversation. The ZG will last only until the entire new baseline is written by the BPFK and approved by the membership." I believe this will pave the way for pro-xorlo action within the BPFK procedures (as amended), keep to the spirit of the idea that the entire new baseline will be approved as a package because the pieces interact so much, and not invalidate the current standard. It may occasionally lead to confusion when the CLL and ZG standards are not identical; if anybody wishes to propose an amendment to the above to avoid said confusion, I'd certainly be in favor. mu'o mi'e .kreig.daniyl.