From tommylee@whitlock.org Thu Aug 27 18:29:37 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iad.alfar.com ([192.148.252.37]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MgqHN-00063o-Kq for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:29:35 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iad.alfar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D5D4A01265 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iad.alfar.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (iad.alfar.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23047-10 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Macintosh-2.home (pool-173-66-69-165.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.66.69.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by iad.alfar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D575E4A0123D for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <6141580A-0AC0-4069-B425-8CB247D40F71@whitlock.org> From: TommyLee Whitlock To: llg-members@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20090827204341.GF27939@mercury.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: [llg-members] Re: Motion: Lojban Certification Program Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:29:06 -0400 References: <925d17560908261436r7364022dn735a98e5851cc7f9@mail.gmail.com> <200908270711.14068.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4A96BCF9.1020305@kli.org> <20090827174942.GC27939@mercury.ccil.org> <4A96CC11.2030309@kli.org> <20090827181416.GD27939@mercury.ccil.org> <20090827202043.GY5073@nvg.org> <20090827204341.GF27939@mercury.ccil.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alfar.com X-archive-position: 780 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: tommylee@whitlock.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Is this going to come to a vote? I like the idea and it seems to be pretty well formed, so do we need any further discussion? I think learners would like to be able to gauge their progress. (Btw, once the committee is formed, one thing I would suggest to the members of it would be to discuss the possibility incorporating the badge ideas with the levels.) .mi'e la tomis On Aug 27, 2009, at 4:43 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 02:14:16PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >>> Mark E. Shoulson scripsit: >>>> In the interests of moving this off to side-discussions where it >>>> belongs, I move that Lojban Certification Program motion as >>>> proposed by >>>> Matt be tabled, and instead that a committee be formed to work >>>> out the >>>> details of the certification program. This isn't something that >>>> needs to >>>> be hacked out in a plenary discussion, I think. >>> >>> I take that to be a motion to refer the question to an ad hoc >>> committee. >> >> Agreed. >> >> Such motions require a second. Do we have one? > > Seconded. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver > spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, "I want to be > rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to > act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley > >