From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Sep 22 13:01:11 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.240.9]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OyVV6-0007P2-GU for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:01:11 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100922200059.GFFJ25033.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:00:59 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 9w0z1f00M3Xcbvq02w101l; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:01:00 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=yC2qc2vQlv8sGZde8H6j+ptPXNXumo3F9UlhLmG4EBA= c=1 sm=1 a=i857S-mOTf0A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=Iv5twLDruKPCpqeLRYkA:9 a=Day6IlIpAft4MIHUFLgA:7 a=ZrnHNQJ2bstB18TXAqpyoOdwIJoA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=rcZCyMMja0byot7x:21 a=ZEzdCTiVhGQj2b0m:21 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <4C9A6079.4040408@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:00:57 -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: 2010 Annual Meeting - byfy References: <4C97E2AD.5060500@lojban.org> <4C97EE1F.2080901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 971 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 Craig Daniel wrote: > Aren't decisions of a financial nature supposed to be at least usually > up to the board? Usually, but that is as much because the members only meet once a year, whereas the Board is nowadays more or less in continuous session. But in this case, the decision is more than a mere "decision of a financial nature". It is a precedent-setting policy issue on whether LLG should rely on volunteers, or should use paid workers, for language-related work. If someone gave us a donation to cover hiring byfy workers, then there would be no policy decision. Likewise, if we ever get grant money to do some Lojban-based research, that grant money will likely include salaries for key personnel. In both cases the people providing the money are in effect making the decision about what sorts of things that their money can be used for. But we have few stated policy criteria on what sorts of things to spend "general fund" money on (most of that money these days comes from CLL sales) > If the board needs the authorization of the rest of > the membership I'm happy to support it, The Board doesn't need "authorization". The Board does **want** the sense of the membership as to 1) whether they think this is the sort of thing LLG should spend its limited money on, 2) whether paying for work that has generally been done by volunteers will discourage others from volunteering (or encourage others to ask for money for their work, which then gets us back to the "limited money" question. 3) what sort of qualifications should there be for being paid for such work and other considerations of that sort. -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.