From dlb@patriot.net Tue Sep 14 07:11:33 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.patriot.net ([209.249.176.77]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OvWEI-0004VK-IL for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:11:33 -0700 Received: from www.patriot.net (webmail.patriot.net [209.249.176.31]) (Authenticated sender: dlb) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CBBF58088 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 128.100.5.134 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dlb) by www.patriot.net with HTTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <65298.128.100.5.134.1284473479.squirrel@www.patriot.net> In-Reply-To: <4C8F787E.9000101@lojban.org> References: <4C8C2009.7060606@lojban.org> <4C8F787E.9000101@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [llg-members] Re: 2010 Annual Meeting - Old Business From: dlb@patriot.net To: llg-members@lojban.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 942 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: dlb@patriot.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Bob LeChevalier wrote: > There has been absolute silence. Perhaps this is because of active > discussions on other lists. Or is it that no one is interested in > Lojban Certification any longer? > > Or is nobody paying attention? > > I'm reluctant to initiate any other topics, not knowing why there is > little response. I wouldn't be too quick to draw any of these conclusions. My feeling is that we are in kind of a strange place, not just as lojban, but as a society. The economy has us scrambling just to live, there are more and more demands on our time, and the whole damn world seems to be hammering away. Expressed interest in a subject has usually led to an invitation to hop right in and start doing something, and we all have too many somethings to be doing. I think the interest is there, but I'm not sure how much energy there is outside the committee (which makes Arnt's reply cogent). Full disclosure here: I may be projecting. I'm back in grad school (yes, back in grad school at age 55) and I have continuing problems with migraines, to the point where I feel my world is shrinking like Raquel Welch's boobs in "Fantastic Voyage" (isn't it time they remade that?). So this may be just me. > > So: > ni'o > I'm beginning to think that the email format for meetings just doesn't > work. It gets the job done, more or less, but I get no sense that > members really feel like they are participating in a meeting, rather > than merely waiting till it is over. I'm not sure I would conclude that, as above. > > New Old Business topic (but the Lojban certification topic is still open). > > What would members think about returning to the IRC-based annual > meetings we had for a few years, for future meetings? IRC sessions were > intense and sometimes long, often inconvenient in time for some people > outside the US, but there was a lot more active participation, and a > sense that the members were in charge of the organization. It also > allowed non-voting-members of the community to freely participate > without playing with mailing list membership, which I think is a good > thing. I'm fine with IRC, but the thing with "immediate response" Emeetings like that is that people tend to respond because that's all they are doing. Email people respond when they are interested. The former tends to elicit promises that sound good at the time, but that wear as the demands of life make themselves felt. The latter tends (as you note, Bob) to produce a kind of lethargy where people wait for it to be over. I don't know which is better and which is worse, but I would no more count the greater participation as interest on IRC than I would count the lesser participation as lack of interest in Email. Dave Barton University of Toronto