From craigbdaniel@gmail.com Tue Sep 21 07:14:06 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com ([209.85.161.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy3bL-0005Jv-Jc for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:14:05 -0700 Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so1930638fxm.40 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:13:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=InNOp809tJS8DPuGGfCatbttCjUm4RdMl+I3dOw+JTY=; b=N5266qUo+yWGV2bVrQmJ/eOL1s5HDlekUozaKmldch+U/SETVQkIBcKPaf/tPraG+Z CVIL49YKT+zZA51Ei56X5qmVZ+V1JgZeiCQtit+JoIANQDYHpDUbuHuW1ynghOB8lmop 3qAoaBu+fzJeee/ozewYO+wWai7jwEHANxUrM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=xYOFlseRtnaPD5JzU+QXh3QN3wd4ZUdzqkvpV03isuZZ3z71VsBSKtL9WfrS3iXvrC 8V6InD5hTB3hhsflzmfUiWLoCaTaFJVl9mEWaztdNI1tCWFMDJ+B/aguHOWaubgB7z0P qK8X1PfUbTj8WoEHVqQ1xy+BYvQDGpI9rvZ0o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.217.7 with SMTP id u7mr604408muq.49.1285078416833; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.96.18 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C97E2AD.5060500@lojban.org> <4C97EE1F.2080901@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:13:36 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: A8uHsfXTIWjlnNd4MQCITyjBym4 Message-ID: Subject: [llg-members] Re: 2010 Annual Meeting - byfy From: Craig Daniel To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 963 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: teucer@pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members 2010/9/21 Jorge Llambías : > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM, And Rosta wrote: >> Bob LeChevalier, On 20/09/2010 23:39: >>> Robin made some comments on the matter in a message to the Board - (email >>> dated 10 Sep.), which included a judgement of Lindar's skills and how much >>> work he could reasonably be expected to get done.  I don't know if Robin's >>> evaluation is unchanged, but I would prefer in any case to have him speak >>> for himself, and not quote the email. >> >> What does xorxes say should happen? Whatever that is, I expect that's what >> should happen. > > On the matter of hiring Lindar, I will go with whatever Robin thinks is best. Aren't decisions of a financial nature supposed to be at least usually up to the board? If the board needs the authorization of the rest of the membership I'm happy to support it, not because I am particularly strongly in favor of hiring Lindar but because I do not want to stand in the way of the board using LLG resources as it deems best unless I have a serious substantive objection. (In this case, I have no objections even of the frivolous and vaporous sort.) > On the general topic of the BPFK, I don't think there is much for the > LLG to decide, but what the BPFK should do in my opinion is abandon > the "all or nothing, once and for all" mode and embrace the notion > that "partial" and "provisional" are not necessarily bad words. There's already a mechanism in place for this, too. If the BPFK unanimously approves a piece of what it's up to, it can propose it to the general membership, which can approve it with a supermajority and make it part of the interim baseline (the zygy). Officially, when the BPFK's work is done, officially correct Lojban is whatever they decided on; until then, zygy and pre-BPFK Lojban are both correct, with the former being officially preferred. These are big hurdles, since the intent of the proposal was to let xorlo into the language now because nearly everybody seemed to want it that way without making it seem like the new baseline was going to come in spurts. I believed when I suggested the zygy, and still believe now, that it is likely that as later pieces are finalized they will interact with earlier ones such that a final baseline must be created all at once, possibly modifying any previously-approved zygy pieces to make it work. However, this view is not incompatible with bringing more pieces in via the zygy, and revising them later if problems arise. I'd be in favor of making the zygy easier to amend, provided it still requires strong approval from both the BPFK and the membership as a whole just like the final baseline will. It was created for gadri, which we saw as a particularly pressing item, and in three years nothing else has been seen to be as big a deal so it has only ever been used for the one issue for which it was suggested. Still, I don't see why it has to be limited by that intent. - mi'e .kreig.daniyl.