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: <51B4F29E.2020605@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:24:46 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
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] cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com> <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3+aWwW0E3QP271aRNP8oKMy9hNDipjypX6hhJkauM+_A@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F326.2020901@lojban.org> <51A8F89D.2040408@gmx.de> <51B00097.8080004@lojban.org> <51B06D24.6020102@gmx.de> <51B46762.8080509@lojban.org> <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de> <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box> <51B48B09.2080709@gmx.de> <51B4BAC4.8050505@lojban.org> <51B4DD14.5080701@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <51B4DD14.5080701@gmx.de>
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: /

selpa'i wrote:
> (a hypothetical discussion on a hypothetical list, could be the BPFK list)
>
>> Lojban List is not the forum for *deciding* anything about Lojban.  That
>> is what the byfy is for,
>
> Maybe not for making *formal* decisions concerning changes of the
> language,

That is the only kind that matters to me, since I do not recognize 
anything else as being valid Lojban.

> but a discussion should hopefully be able to show us what the
> community wants, and what things we were (or would be) able to agree
> upon.

The intent was that evolutionary changes AFTER the baseline would happen 
as a result of actual discussion (or preferably actual usage) in Lojban 
by Lojban speakers.  I am entirely unimpressed by the desires of 
English-speaking Lojbanists.

> I prefer discussions to
> be public so that everyone can participate. If 20 people voice their
> desire for a given change (say The Merge), I don't see why it should
> matter much where they voice it as long as it's in public.

But it does matter, because a lot of people don't actively read Lojban 
List, who might have an opinion (I am one - I would not normally have 
read a thread like this one, but I had a few extra minutes one day).

> It will tell
> us that people want it to happen,

It will tell "us" that certain people who post on the thread want it to 
happen.  As time goes on, the percentage of skilled speakers who might 
post to any thread on Lojban List (or even read what others have posted) 
will be smaller and smaller, and it becomes increasingly problematical 
to make changes based on what is proposed in threads.  Ideally in the 
long term it becomes impossible to change the language by fiat.

> and that's worth something, even if it
> does not by itself constitute a formal decision. Rather, it should act
> as a motivation for the people in charge to (re-)consider its adoption.

Who is "in charge"?  And what does it mean to be "in charge"?

The lojban community is almost a complete anarchy.  Leading it is like 
"herding cats" as commented by a certain former byfy jatna.

lojbab


-- 
Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

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