Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:60342) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WlAPQ-00046G-La for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:31 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f189.google.com with SMTP id il7sf1160283vcb.16 for ; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=561df68bmWmuDqaoPAzuS3vBqFM+mls3ghXucuPRrU4=; b=jj/paZPSfHPgGcJTHVyRdoZS64J5dCY9Grt4p3sdt+CUR8x0aZmAK50ZaOgnn4KO3N eR9zEtQdWGqx1+S7+TWfUPyGDL6KbcKqFdNHObC3LUMzegOBRNekf7bcdn2IvgBS0m1g THKSwjkAgW0EYUOXYq3Gzbb3YVhWICn0FBdY3TkUh/tuDHhQXjlsZVsTal9pg6sLd8hF mQOhYPKzd7N4YO4ghRu1HRTtXTzTi0Xz3IEpoL7kbIuFYUWmzJ3vYEI1JKNq6P0whf3K iJ47ZIZYTbNxJFdolEOXHbE+8yjAGhBLtfXl4LmCcLei+9z9HtfLcy/hYvtwnUe3NlnZ f+uQ== X-Received: by 10.50.117.68 with SMTP id kc4mr951103igb.13.1400217010514; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.114.202 with SMTP id ji10ls214201igb.3.canary; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.65.109 with SMTP id w13mr4769902pas.21.1400217010021; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22f.google.com (mail-qg0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ga1si1016907qcb.0.2014.05.15.22.10.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f; Received: by mail-qg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id j107so3362470qga.20 for ; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.42.12 with SMTP id b12mr20153908qga.109.1400217009882; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.39.200 with HTTP; Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <20140515173852.477d9f55@aol.com> <20140516015036.1f762326@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 23:10:09 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Lojban's leadership and how I don't give a shit about it From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com 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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1172c7b8d7c04f97d6da5 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --001a11c1172c7b8d7c04f97d6da5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Dustin Lacewell wrote= : > Hmm, I definitely don't understand this response very well. It sounds lik= e you're saying that the baseline is complete yet undocumented. > > No. The baseline is the state of the language, it is not something that can be "complete" or not. The /*documentation*/ of the baseline is what is not complete, and will not be until the things on the BPFK Sectionspage have been finished. (Because that's the documentation I refer to.) > Reminding us that the language is intended to be "frozen" until the docum= entation is indeed complete. > > It's not "intended" to be frozen. It /*is*/ frozen. No changes to the languages can be made, no proposals will be looked at, nothing can be changed until the baseline is completely documented, per the standing orders of the LLG, who created the BPFK for that specific purpose, as well as the eventual purpose of reviewing and (dis)approving any changes after such documentation is finished. > Furthermore, that you don't believe the BPFK will ever be "finished" comp= leting that documentation. You then state that lojban is a non-static evolv= ing language. > > No again. I most definitely believe that the documentation can and will be finished. What I said was that I don't think the duties of the BPFK will, as the duties of the BPFK, other than completing the baseline documentation, are to review and (dis)approve any change proposals, and the only reason I know of for such proposals to stop happening is for people to stop using the language, because only /*dead*/ languages don't change. > So if I at least read you correctly, I'm unsure how to interpret the cont= ent. > > Then it's a good thing you didn't. > Are you suggesting that BPFK will never complete the documentation of the= baseline (and hence reach an unfreeze) *because* lojban is ever changing? > > No, I'm saying that no official changes can be made to Lojban until the documentation of the language /*as it is right now*/ (A.K.A., the baseline) is completed. The /*freeze*/ is /*on*/ /*the*/ /*language*/. The freeze means that /*no changes can be officially made to the language, and anyone who uses unofficial changes is *not* speaking Lojban, they are speaking an unofficial dialect*/. > (If not, why do you believe the BPFK will never finish - we agree that it= s unlikely but if lojban's dynamic nature is not the reason, I'm interested= as to why you think so) > > Because the duties of the BPFK beyond completing documentation of the baseline are to review and (dis)approve any proposed changes to the language, and only languages that aren't used (dead languages) don't change= . > What is the overall aim of your reply? > > My aim is to point out that because there is a freeze in effect on the language, which means that /*no changes*/ can be officially made, it doesn't /*currently*/ matter what the proposal process is, and that the only way to lift said freeze is to finish said documentation. If you're interested in getting that freeze lifted, instructions for how to complete the documentation, which /*anyone*/ is allowed to do, can be found on this page . All it requires is some volunteers. > If you indeed believe that lojban is an evolving language then I don't ac= tually see the source of fervor. Maybe you are just emphasizing the suppose= d machinations of policy that are supposed to address the goals that we're = trying to accomplish by nominating selpa'i to this position? > > Nope. I'm saying that it doesn't currently matter if selpa'i is made the officiator of language change proposals, because no changes are currently allowed, and that when the baseline documentation is complete and change proposals are allowed, I don't like the idea of one person taking over the duties of the BPFK. > Maybe you are emphasizing the supposed freeze and trying to encourage us = to not endeavor to change it until this happens, especially by nominating s= omeone with the specific purpose of having the right to do so? > > Nope. I'm saying that change can not and will not happen until the freeze is lifted, regardless of endeavors, and that I don't like the idea of one person being the decider of what changes do or do not occur to the language once such freeze has been lifted. That said, I see no problem with selpa'i getting Robin's veto power, or being in charge of other things wrt Lojban, such as being the arbiter of our resources (instructions, the CLL, what-have-you). > Maybe I've missed you completely. Which I definitely don't want because I= 'd like to address your actual concern. > > Yeah, I'd say so. > On Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:39:52 PM UTC-7, aionys wrote: > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote= : >> >>> ...[T]he BPFK's role is to maintain and update the documentation of the >>> official status of the language, as in, what the words mean, how they c= an >>> or can not be used, etc. etc. >>> >> >> Which includes reviewing and approving any change proposals, as well as >> updating any relevant documentation accordingly. >> >> -- >> mu'o mi'e .aionys. >> >> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o >> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) >> > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=20 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 e= mail 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a11c1172c7b8d7c04f97d6da5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, May 15, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
Hmm, I definitely don't understand this response very well. It sou=
nds like you're saying that the baseline is complete yet undocumented.<=
/div>
No. The baseline is the state of the lan= guage, it is not something that can be "complete" or not. The /documentation/ of the baseline is what is not complete, and will not b= e until the things on the BPFK Sections page have been finished. (Because that's the docu= mentation I refer to.)
Reminding us that the language is intended to be "frozen" un=
til the documentation is indeed complete.
It's not "intended" to be frozen. It /is/ frozen. No= changes to the languages can be made, no proposals will be looked at, noth= ing can be changed until the baseline is completely documented, per the sta= nding orders of the LLG, who created the BPFK for that specific purpose, as= well as the eventual purpose of reviewing and (dis)approving any changes a= fter such documentation is finished. 
Furthermore, that you don't believe the BPFK will ever be "fi=
nished" completing that documentation. You then state that lojban is a=
 non-static evolving language.
=A0No aga= in. I most definitely believe that the documentation can and will be finish= ed. What I said was that I don't think the duties of the BPFK will, as = the duties of the BPFK, other than completing the baseline documentation, a= re to review and (dis)approve any change proposals, and the only reason I k= now of for such proposals to stop happening is for people to stop using the= language, because only /dead/ languages don't change.
So if I at least read you correctly, I'm unsure how to =
interpret the content.
Then it's a g= ood thing you didn't.
Are you suggesting that BPFK will never complete=
 the documentation of the baseline (and hence reach an unfreeze) *because* =
lojban is ever changing?
No, I'm saying that no official changes c= an be made to Lojban until the documentation of the language /as it is r= ight now/ (A.K.A., the baseline) is completed. The /freeze/ is /= on/ /the/ /language/. The freeze means that /no cha= nges can be officially made to the language, and anyone who uses unofficial= changes is *not* speaking Lojban, they are speaking an unofficial d= ialect/.
(If not, why do you believe the BPFK will never finish - we agree that=
 its unlikely but if lojban's dynamic nature is not the reason, I'm=
 interested as to why you think so)
=A0Because the duties of the BPFK beyond completing documentation of the ba= seline are to review and (dis)approve any proposed changes to the language,= and only languages that aren't used (dead languages) don't change.= 
What is the overall aim of your reply?
<= div>My aim is to point out that because there is a freeze in effect on the = language, which means that /no changes/ can be officially made, it d= oesn't /currently/ matter what the proposal process is, and that= the only way to lift said freeze is to finish said documentation. If you&#= 39;re interested in getting that freeze lifted, instructions for how to com= plete the documentation, which /anyone/ is allowed to do, can be fou= nd=A0on this pag= e. All it requires is some volunteers.
If you indeed believe that lojban is an evolving language then I don&#=
39;t actually see the source of fervor. Maybe you are just emphasizing the =
supposed machinations of policy that are supposed to address the goals that=
 we're trying to accomplish by nominating selpa'i to this position?=
Nope. I'm saying that it doesn't curr= ently matter if selpa'i is made the officiator of language change propo= sals, because no changes are currently allowed, and that when the baseline = documentation is complete and change proposals are allowed, I don't lik= e the idea of one person taking over the duties of the BPFK. 
Maybe you are emphasizing the supposed freeze and trying to encourage =
us to not endeavor to change it until this happens, especially by nominatin=
g someone with the specific purpose of having the right to do so?
Nope. I'm saying that change can not and = will not happen until the freeze is lifted, regardless of endeavors, and th= at I don't like the idea of one person being the decider of what change= s do or do not occur to the language once such freeze has been lifted. That= said, I see no problem with selpa'i getting Robin's veto power, or= being in charge of other things wrt Lojban, such as being the arbiter of o= ur resources (instructions, the CLL, what-have-you). 
Maybe I've missed you completely. Which I definitely don't wan=
t because I'd like to address your actual concern.
Yeah, I'd say so.
=A0
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:39:52 PM UTC-7, aionys wrote:<= div class=3D"">
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <ey= e...@gmail.com> wrote:
...[T]he BPFK's role is to maintain and update the docum= entation of the official status of the language, as in, what the words mean= , how they can or can not be used, etc. etc.

Which includ= es reviewing and approving any change proposals, as well as updating any re= levant documentation accordingly.
=A0
--
mu= 9;o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&= #39;o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a11c1172c7b8d7c04f97d6da5--