On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de= > wrote:

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 08:40:34AM -0500, Bob LeChevalier= , President and Founder - LLG wrote:
> v4hn wrote:
> >I know the BPFK is not dead, I recognize a lot of names on the mem= ber list,
> >and I haven't been around for too long.
>
> It isn't dead. =A0It just has nothing to do as a GROUP, because th= ere
> haven't enough individuals actually doing the individual things th= at
> need to get done, which are mostly boring and time-consuming, (or
> requiring specialized knowledge).

Also, as someone just mentioned some people just don't
know what needs to be done and how they can help!

> > But it looks like that to me
> >because there weren't /any/ "official" announcements= concerning decisions
>
> That is because there have been no such decisions, and there won't=
> be any until after CLL 1.1 is done. =A0We have to document the status<= br> > quo before we consider changes, or people won't know what is being=
> proposed to change.

If CLL 1.1 is not about making decisions, not about including proposa= ls, etc.
then WHAT THE @!#$ _is it about_? Just typesetting?

CLL1.1 is about converting the existing CLL into a format that is more ea= sily able to be presented in various formats, including .pdf, web, and prin= t, and also easier to update the content of the CLL itself when changes to = the language (like xorlo) /are/ made.
=A0

The work that needs to be done for the baseline is nicely described here http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Community+Work
and I understand why it is hard to make progress with this..
(Though it seems, this is the best place to start contributing)
How does one get feedback on the stuff he wrote there,
given that he attempts to update some definitions?
Just wait for an email from someone who got notified about the change?
<= /blockquote>

Or you could specifically ask for feedback in the BPFK= list.
=A0
Does everything in there need to be finished for CLL 1.1 or do I mix up stu= ff here?
Will these definitions be included in the CLL (1.1?)?
=
You're mixing stuff up. The above is what needs to be done to compl= ete the baseline, which is, simply put, documenting the definitions, usage,= etc. of all the words in Lojban, not including fu'ivla, zi'evla, c= mevla and lujvo.

The CLL is, basically, a complete description of the grammar of Lojban,= whereas the BPFK baseline is a complete description of the vocabulary. And= I'm being overly simplistic here, of course, but that is the gist of t= he thing.
=A0

> >or even new official proposals
>
> There have never been ANY official proposals since byfy started.

At least in practice it seems to me like xorlo is such an official pr= oposal
which is still not incorporated(whatever this means exactly).

xorlo (and dotside, I believe) are officially part of the langu= age. Neither have been incorporated into the CLL yet, mostly because making= changes to the CLL as is is extremely difficult, and partly because right = now the focus is on making the CLL, as it is now content-wise, into somethi= ng that takes advantage of technologies that didn't exist at the time o= f its writing, such as concurrent versioning, and the internet.
=A0

> >or any other progress within the last year.
>
> The progress, such that it is, is whatever Robin says that it is.
> He was granted essentially dictatorial powers until (at least) such > time as CLL is updated.

That's a rather blurry and - given that Robin does not even have = time
to describe things - non-helpful description of what should be done.
Ok, he has dictatorial powers. But if few other people know what to do,
then something is severely wrong...

Concerning editorial work...
There is a TODO file/the issues page on github, but a lot of items on that = list
are just incomprehensible to me. What exactly does e.g.
"<lojbanization> tables are shit" mean?

Well, it means that tables that utilize the <lojbanization> sho= uld not be used, because they are "shit".
=A0