From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Aug 27 12:31:04 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mgkga-0007OT-3a for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:31:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:31:04 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: Bob: Activity is low because it's a business meeting. Message-ID: <20090827193104.GS4151@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <20090827185838.GR4151@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-archive-position: 771 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:28:37PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Robin Lee > Powell wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 02:45:06PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > >> > 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. When the community knows it's going to be > >> like that, they stay away. > > > > Then they shouldn't be LLG members.  The only reason to be an > > LLG member is to participate in this meeting. > > > > The LLG is a business organization; being a member means > > participating in that organization's meetings.  If you want to > > help the *language*, go work on the BPFK. > > Granted, but I'm saying "don't be surprised". The LLG has, and > needs, almost no actual business, so activity is not to be > expected here. Certainly. > The problem is that the overall community wrongly perceives this > body to be vested with permission-granting authority for > independent individuals to act on behalf of the language. They > don't know whose toes they might be stepping on. I have seen the > result take place many times: they try to engage, they're bored > and confused by obstructionist legalisms, and fade away. When > somebody like me or Cosmic Ray comes along, we should just go out > and do what we want to do, and convince people to do it with us. > In any organization, that's the only real power. The rest is, as > Bob described it, "a pro-forma legal event". Agreed. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/