From phma@phma.optus.nu Sat Oct 13 19:15:22 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phma.optus.nu ([166.82.175.165] helo=ixazon.dynip.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Igt0h-0001Ah-JU for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:15:22 -0700 Received: from chausie (unknown [192.168.7.4]) by ixazon.dynip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031F9CE893 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:15:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Abbat To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: Arnt Richard now chairs the meeting Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:15:11 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <4710AA35.1050200@gmail.com> <55b258c20710131102u170485cevacee927b246dcbf9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55b258c20710131102u170485cevacee927b246dcbf9@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710132215.11826.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 410 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Saturday 13 October 2007 14:02, Craig Daniel wrote: > 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. This sounds well put. I second the motion. I don't think {gafyfantytei} sounds quite right; a thing to which xorlo can be added is more like a selpla than a temci. Any suggestions on a better term? mu'omi'e .pier.