From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Oct 16 08:31:36 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IhoOM-0004Cu-B6 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:31:35 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071016153129.UAGW19158.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:31:29 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 13XQ1Y00U3y5FKc0000000; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:31:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4714D9B2.8070500@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:33:06 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: The Most Common Word In The Language References: <20071016130859.GX1196@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 418 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Matt Arnold wrote: > On 10/16/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > >>On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 08:49:18AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: >> >> >>>You have heard the argument that the BPFK needs to consider every >>>change all at once, as a group, so that they can say "you can have >>>your way in this part of the language if I can have my way in that >>>part of the language". >> >>Where did you get the idea that the BPFK works like that? > > >>From Lojbab's passage to which I was directly responding. I may have > misinterpreted it. I will paste it below > - Eppcott > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:24:16PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > >>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. Ignoring the rather cynical view of negotiation as tit-for-tat tradeoffs, there is indeed another interpretation, and the one I have in mind for my own evaluation at the end of byfy's work. I expect to look at the whole of the language, and to see what has changed as a result of byfy. I see my bases for evaluation will be: 1) does the change work in usage? 2) is the change compatible with all the other decisions that have been made about the language? 3) How much will the change obsolete pre-byfy text? 4) How much relearning is involved for those of us who have used the baseline language for years? 5) Is the change necessary for any or all of a) achieving a goal of the language; b) resolving confusion in CLL; and unfortunately c) preventing schism in the community xorlo meets most of these tests already, but question 2 cannot be answered yet, and I am not sure about the answer to 4 because I have made no attempt to relearn. The tit-for-tat view of negotiation ignores the critical importance of question 5c, which has been the downfall of most artificial languages. It also ignores the question of how important the issue is to the negotiators. It also presumes that the only options are to include a change proposal in its entirety or to exclude it entirely. It excludes the buildup of good will that comes from a group working cooperatively together, that can lead people to accept things that they would not otherwise accept, merely because the rapport of the group is a positive one. Your presentation, Matt, makes it appear that you think that the xorlo decision would determine whether you stay with the language, or start a schism, or drop out, and that it is an all or nothing thing for you. I would hope that there are very very few issues that would be of such import to you or anyone. Frankly I would doubt that 99% of new people give a damn about the gadri, because in fact the gadri weren't much of an issue for the entire Loglan period, nor for Lojban until Jorge took up the challenge about 1994. I accepted a long time ago that enough smart Lojbanists agreed that there was a problem with gadri that xorlo might solve, so for me it is NOT an all-or-nothing issue - I can and will accept some sort of change to the gadri system, and "usage deciding" means that xorlo has a good shot at being accepted on that basis if no other. Under the pressure of consensus building, I would likely vote differently than I will for this motion on the table at present. But railroading xorlo through by membership fiat, counter to the near-unanimous consensus procedures that were agreed upon means that those consensus procedures die, and therefore byfy as an independent tribunal dies. It means that ANY issue can be removed from the table by a simple majority membership vote, with no consensus-building, and that means that likely all such issues will end up being voted on by the membership, and not by the byfy, because no one needs to concede anything if there is a possibility of getting the membership to vote (and in fact since most of the membership isn't speaking up and may not be paying attention, one can get issues passed by a minority faction at these meetings merely by making sure that the faction is all actually present at once, instead of being nominally present, and then popping the issue onto the table with no notice). Simple majority votes get decisions made quickly, but have often in the past led to major schisms in artificial language communities. Majority votes lead to disaffected minorities who have not bought into the decision. So they may leave, and either schism or drop out. By contrast, the byfy process requires all (but one) of the byfy members to buy into all of the decisions made. lojbab