Received: from mail-ie0-f183.google.com ([209.85.223.183]:51859) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TpkRs-0004G3-DO; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:51:13 -0800 Received: by mail-ie0-f183.google.com with SMTP id 13sf7633618iea.0 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam:x-authority-analysis :x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=dATIupm9D4qNahTN2QxoMrc1DA02xBJY+so+nnPCuA8=; b=Xo3+ETulM7endTo1qrlC/Y658Xo3h9Zfgq5pQ7zxtqK4zYAnEenpkZWP6LCE8xvKDd Qew8MGnSGqcLxAtN12c7KByylfVR8ABSDjtipcVWuvJsSKvJ49WumUvjZjb9OMJOQxit DLnHuTO2cfsDhKWFKiB9+LwQfMH4g+/3ajz97iqlI0P6D36bBQmVjWK4tRf5YRUjUmy1 DJSIKOVOz5neMtV/tm/rJi90kVnM/f9dTx+R1dOK5DPxxsVseSIonqWoApng+nqDoWtG uAKT3BlBF+AVlJvvCAk3qDzzWntJR9uPLzPvC2JF/HP9iETj3BpQikbmDTuOgnayGIN1 1BeA== X-Received: by 10.49.48.41 with SMTP id i9mr6182633qen.36.1356979849663; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:49 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.119.162 with SMTP id kv2ls5518357qeb.86.gmail; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.52.71.169 with SMTP id w9mr17831259vdu.7.1356979848284; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.52.71.169 with SMTP id w9mr17831258vdu.7.1356979848273; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo102.cox.net (eastrmfepo102.cox.net. [68.230.241.214]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id q13si12919472vdh.0.2012.12.31.10.50.48; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.214 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.214; Received: from eastrmimpo306 ([68.230.241.238]) by eastrmfepo102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20121231185047.UEIX18834.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo306> for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:50:47 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([98.169.148.216]) by eastrmimpo306 with cox id iJqn1k00b4gNKFm01JqnYe; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:50:47 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.50E1DE87.00CB,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=TqZkdUrh c=1 sm=1 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=IPHh7_3Ra0sA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=aB2t1-zLDNoA:10 a=-Dgr0fxCkWpFdaEdM2MA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <50E1DE87.4090706@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:50:47 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier 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: <20121228185329.GO18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228215107.GR7855@samsa.fritz.box> <50DEF2D2.6080309@lojban.org> <50E04A0F.8080408@lojban.org> <80850efe-706f-4afe-8788-77fd6daa6b59@googlegroups.com> <50E05EB8.5040104@lojban.org> <20121231120400.GB32434@samsa.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <20121231120400.GB32434@samsa.fritz.box> X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.214 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / v4hn wrote: > However, as I look through the byfy sections nearly all of them appear blue, > which is supposed to mean "ready for voting". To me this looks like _there is_ > currently work for the BPFK? This is surely no trivial work, but it is > well defined: "Read through the sections and vote on whether or not they are > coherent with how you understand lojban." > Will this happen in the near future so these sections get checkpointed? I doubt it, but that is up to Robin. Ah: Robin has explicitly marked the procedures section "obsolete" http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Procedures and that probably applies to the community work page as well by implication. > Is the voting apparatus/process still up and running? No idea. But per the above, such votes are probably irrelevant. Robin has the only real vote, until/unless he says otherwise. > Are there members of the BPFK gone/away without official leave? Yes. No one is required to have "official" leave. LLG has no employees, only volunteers. And probably most of the BPFK has done little or nothing over the many years of its existence, so it would be hard to tell whether someone has "left". The original jatna. Nick Nicolas, officially resigned that position. I don't think anyone else has formally "left" byfy (and I don't remember that Nick even did so - he resigned as jatna). Robin has the power to add to or eliminate people from byfy membership. > Would this hinder the voting? Yes and no. None of the votes that *were* held, so far as I know, attracted universal voting, and in many cases the calls for votes were almost completely ignored. Few of the byfy had time to review the proposals; if they were involved at all, they were too busy discussing the controversial. At one time LLG decisions were made in formal in-person meetings, with a requirement for a quorum, and decisions got made (the meetings were noted for being LOOONG, though). byfy was set up without a quorum requirement, and has had trouble with decision-making because we cannot get all of the byfy even thinking about the question at-hand in a timely manner. > Is there a list/a way to create a list of all missing cmavo, > which still need to be described? Without such a list, who is to know if > the baseline is complete? Robin says when it is complete, and then there will be voting. Probably at some point, the LLG voting membership will ratify the product of the byfy as an official baseline (since the voting membership created byfy), but I doubt that there will be any serious question when such a vote goes to the membership. >> When the baseline is complete, and not before, is when proposals may be >> submitted for consideration- and there's a formal procedure for that, too. >> Until then, it is an utterly pointless activity. > > Well, at least "perceived faults in the language" are documented somewhere > by then, so it's not totally pointless to write mails about them. I think the wiki is populated by all sorts of pages on perceived faults, and that is probably the best place to record them. Email archives are somewhat dependent on Google, and in any event are not indexed usefully, so discussions of perceived faults in email is NOT particularly productive. Of course I think it is somewhat presumptive for someone relatively new to the language to "perceive fault". It is quite possible that there are holes and faults in the language, but after 25 years, the ones that actually matter will mostly be recognized by usage difficulties. So a "perceived fault" is better expressed by a query "how do I say/translate X", which those more experienced in the language can attempt to answer. > However, it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss problems which > require changes in the language definition, agreed. It would probably make sense to do so, except that the odds that a perceived problem will actually REQUIRE changes to the language definition has become vanishingly small. So you need to express that in the subjunctive zo'o to satisfy gleki. 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.