Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.217;
Message-ID: <50E056B8.5090606@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:59:04 -0500
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation?
References: <20121227231105.GO7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227232206.GI18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227232732.GP7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227233537.GJ18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227235946.GQ7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121228000348.GL18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <CAMKwHj2WkyJHuG13rVE37=MY6mw5oFGouAvP1PL0RVFMhv9ruA@mail.gmail.com> <20121228185329.GO18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228215107.GR7855@samsa.fritz.box> <50DEF2D2.6080309@lojban.org> <20121229205606.GB23303@samsa.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <20121229205606.GB23303@samsa.fritz.box>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

v4hn 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 member list,
>>> and I haven't been around for too long.
>>
>> It isn't dead.  It just has nothing to do as a GROUP, because there
>> haven't enough individuals actually doing the individual things that
>> 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!

At this point, one can only pay attention to whatever Robin says.  If he 
doesn't ask for help, there is nothing you can do right now.

Everything I write from here on is my own view of the situation. It may 
not be Robin's view, and Robin's view is absolute until/unless the 
Board/membership decides to fire him, which ain't gonna happen, since we 
have no better option.

Jonathan's summary may be more correct than mine, certainly more 
concise, and probably more nicely put %^)

>>> 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.  We have to document the status
>> 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 proposals, etc.
> then WHAT THE @!#$ _is it about_? Just typesetting?

Mostly that, and incorporating a raft of typos and corrections that were 
identified by the community over the last 15 years.  I don't know what 
these are, though there are wikipedia pages on the topic.  And Robin may 
be incorporating the non-controversial byfy topics, for all I know.

Once we have that done, THEN any change proposals can be considered as a 
delta to the formal status quo.  The sum of 1.1 plus all proposals 
approved will result in CLL 2.0.

> The work that needs to be done for the baseline is nicely described here
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Community+Work

That was the work required BEFORE Robin gave up on people actually doing 
such work.  Such writeups probably would still be useful, if anyone did 
them, but they are no longer the main effort/critical path.  Because no 
one ever did them.  For years.

> and I understand why it is hard to make progress with this..
> (Though it seems, this is the best place to start contributing)

5, 6, or 7 years ago, that would indeed have been the best place.  But 
at the rate it was getting done, byfy would not have a complete writeup 
20 years from now.  Because no one ever did the work.

People wanting to help now who weren't around then may suffer some from 
the nonproductivity of those who came before (including myself).

> How does one get feedback on the stuff he wrote there,

Back when that was the operative approach, one would submit the text to 
the appropriate byfy section, which would then be open for discussion. 
There were shepherds that would edit the submissions into a single 
document for a given byfy section and they had full edit privileges on 
that section. If there is no shepherd for a section, any byfy member 
could sign up for the job.

I am not sure that this submission procedure still holds, or whether 
editing is still restricted to the shepherd.  Originally byfy was a 
separate wiki but I think it has been merged with the main one.

Ideally, if you are following the guidelines, there will need to be no 
feedback, and you go on to another cmavo.  Feedback = discussion, and 
too much discussion means no one does any work to get discussed.

> given that he attempts to update some definitions?

You can't "update" definitions that have never been written in the first 
place.  And we aren't really interested in "updated" definitions.  We 
want to make sure we have the status quo language documented, before 
considering any changes/updates.

> Just wait for an email from someone who got notified about the change?

byfy members are part of a byfy mailing list, which sends a copy to all 
subscribers of any submission or discussion on the byfy pages.  For the 
last few years, there has only been intermittent discussion, and no 
subnissions at all.

> Does everything in there need to be finished for CLL 1.1 or do I mix up stuff here?

Ideally, we need complete definitions of all selma'o and cmavo within 
each selma'o for both CLL and for the dictionary.  The text format as 
described there was to serve as the raw material for those two 
documents.  I think effectively Robin has chosen to short-circuit that 
and go straight into CLL format (hopefully the dictionary format, closer 
to the byfy writeups in style, will come later).

> Will these definitions be included in the CLL (1.1?)?

What is included in 1.1 (and probably 2.0) is entirely up to Robin.  The 
work wasn't getting done, so he decided to make himself dictator.  And 
no one really objected.

>>> 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 proposal
> which is still not incorporated(whatever this means exactly).

xorlo was more-or-less adopted independently of the normal byfy process, 
precisely because the byfy process was never getting done, and the 
community wanted a decision on xorlo.  But no, I don't think Robin or 
anyone else has written it up in CLL format.  It was written up in byfy 
section format resulting in endless and vituperative discussion.  There 
was no possibility of consensus on the status quo gadri.

(xorxes and a few others have generally wanted to document the language 
as they wish it to be - or perhaps it is better stated that xorxes 
speaks and writes the language as he wishes to be, which is not in 
accordance with CLL 1.0, and the weight of his usage over the years has 
made his ideas a new status quo, which he and some others want to 
document.  In general, 1.1 is NOT supposed to contain such changes, 
which would become part of 2.0, with the exception of the specially 
approved xorlo proposal.  But that decision is really up to Robin at 
this point.

>>> 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.

To put it impolitely, "tough".

> Ok, he has dictatorial powers. But if few other people know what to do,
> then something is severely wrong...

Few other people can do anything, so there is nothing to "know".

> 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?

I have no idea.  And "github" is a meaningless buzzword to me (though 
not to Robin and others).  I never really made the conceptual transition 
to on-line web-based collaborative efforts, and remain stuck in the 
email era, which is why Robin is doing this and not me.  I think it is a 
tool where people turn the various formats of CLL into other formats, 
and thus probably the "<lojbanization>" refers to some sort of tag that 
is not usable as-is.  Probably to work on it, you need to know how the 
formatting tools work.  It isn't language work per-se, but software.

lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.