From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 28 23:06:16 2007
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 28 May 2007 23:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1HsuqV-0007rB-Ie	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 23:06:16 -0700
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63)	(envelope-from <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1HsuqU-0007r3-1g	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 23:06:15 -0700
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:06:14 -0700
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: BPFK Taskmaster
Message-ID: <20070529060614.GN7871@digitalkingdom.org>
References: <745493.34128.qm@web88004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <745493.34128.qm@web88004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 4766
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 03:42:29PM -0700, ANDREW PIEKARSKI wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
> To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:17:57 PM
> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: BPFK Taskmaster
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 08:16:17AM -0700, ANDREW PIEKARSKI wrote:
> > I understand.  But please note, Matt, anybody reading the page on
> > standards and compliance
> > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Official+Baseline+Statement&bl
> > would understand that at least some of the texts are reviewed for
> > compliance - otherwise why have it there?  Your explanation of the
> > actual situation in your e-mail below is clear...but it's not on
> > the baseline page nor on the page listing the texts.  If it were,
> > then I wouldn't be wasting your time on this. 
> 
> It most cetrainly *is* there and very clear:
> 
>     Following the formal declaration of the baseline, the LLG Board
>     will assign a committee, probably a rump form of the byfy, with
>     the task of supporting baseline compliance.
> 
> I'm not sure how much clearer the first clause there could be.
> 
> -Robin
> 
> The clause is clear but doesn't answer the question: "Have any
> texts been reviewed for compliance?".  

Since the baseline hasn't been declared, no.

-Robin