From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Aug 27 12:05:01 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MgkHK-0004i1-Iy for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:05:01 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20090827190453.NXLQ11036.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:04:53 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id ZX4r1c00K22sj6m02X4rJV; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:04:52 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=TGKSVeWkFEgA:10 a=A-8c6EGUXV6vLBDvJ9sA:9 a=KEZcavSriUwjEP_aRFwA:7 a=GBarGkCOvybv86p53Da-25hUtJ4A:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4A96D936.4020700@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:06:30 -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: Bob: Activity is low because it's a business meeting. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 769 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: >>I of course am bothered by the absolute silence among the bulk of membership >>for several days now. We switched from having the meeting on IRC (which had >>lots of participation that continued for a surprisingly long number of >>hours) to using the members' list in order to make it easier for more people >>to participate. > > When and where was the IRC channel meeting announced? I would have > liked to have participated in that. There hasn't been one for the last few years. Originally the annual meeting was held at LogFest. When I ceased to host LogFest after retiring as President, we went to online meetings using IRC. These were intense sessions - usually only 2 or 3 of them, lasting several hours, but the people who were present probably felt like they were *involved* in a real meeting. We went to mailing list meetings primarily because our international membership means that the IRC sessions are inevitably scheduled at times which are difficult for a few non-US members. But I am not sure that the potentially greater inclusiveness of the email meetings has manifested. International participation is no higher. >>But there is no participation at all, and the members >>meeting seems to have become something to simply check off each year as a >>pro forma legal event, rather than something that involves the community in >>governing the organization. > > That's because it's a business meeting full of parlaimentarianism. There actually was more parliamentarianism when we had real-time meetings, but people still participated. And the in-person LogFest meetings were even more parliamentary (and sometimes quite heated). In person meetings generally lasted about 5-6 hours and we typically had half the membership present and participating, and most of the rest of the membership represented by proxy (we made it a point to try to have proxy-givers give agenda-specific instructions, but there was a legitimate complaint that a few members who held 4-5 proxies each tended to dominate the voting, and there was the potential for abuse even though I don't think there ever was such abuse). There may be logs of some of the old IRC meetings in existence, that you could look at. They usually used two channels, one for the live meeting, and one supporting back-channel discussion so as to not interfere with the parliamentary procedures. At one point we were hoping to get to the point where the meeting was conducted entirely in Lojban, with a second channel used for live translation, but we never quite got that far. lojbab