Received: from mail-pd0-f185.google.com ([209.85.192.185]:51816) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XJ8bw-0005cr-5r for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:07:38 -0700 Received: by mail-pd0-f185.google.com with SMTP id g10sf1067667pdj.12 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=pTtEFCgxuCmHePVut3djfJNXerK8L1+Y6Pm3F2hIpQQ=; b=MMTH3+y8lp6OLmUqDRdL0acUjqaQwsEvLnUZAIwgn6064TArVDNpNG7vE1I31ByhRO t2rSD1oiOrvb2CmbSdGsqINAVdhqwwKhXPbWzjCo6aV28Y+x+6DfLvWBBwR1Ktmmw5in Z3udNfa02tT3zugG7NLEop4co1SVIT+Lg7btJj45+HXdZP+rMQSr5X7jQBtwgZRu6S3L Ac4T/lsr6tX/vqi0wj9cwpzXsC23ZDt2KtaE804BQf/CkqxdA/2awnWV9xwqKbFTjCfh 06VFhXB3W+2orrak2QiJYtKYF/LkeHqtFe5SIaO87CDecZ+PllSwGWr4D00ng2f6MTfg gVCw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=pTtEFCgxuCmHePVut3djfJNXerK8L1+Y6Pm3F2hIpQQ=; b=Zajh4azB3nSmrzW00OYlRa75R8b9Ntu1jIe5N3FGuBHGPtPFEXulzfWLjXEefzrSkV 77230BvPCC2ovAMixOvOH2H4HrkVf2GziSAvRFUXSddrdSbCN+HOJTeFRf5cXJewIore nUlzSk7HuyflkfnolUL9i4h6un3l1h6E5weVZyIgOBASvoHSQdABbP3XwPf/ohnhQPxg S9QPwYx1Pc0OIqoGmCGF3gh4kqoSdQneOfvPxt0Pe8EgorUUMxiyH2yUF6xSy36zJwrD 6GZF5CtwzXXZPYeAzN9OVULL7PWZNSh194oFT2ESLGjTEk8764kAX+CSNE8wOnirvCPC MKyg== X-Received: by 10.50.77.51 with SMTP id p19mr385465igw.17.1408313249492; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.97.6 with SMTP id dw6ls1460058igb.10.gmail; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.50.169 with SMTP id d9mr1506192igo.2.1408313249002; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:07:27 -0700 (PDT) From: mukti To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: Subject: [lojban] Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: shunpiker@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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_556_360064900.1408313247738" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_556_360064900.1408313247738 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 At the 2013 annual meeting=20 , lojbab called=20 attention to a distance that has grown up between LLG as an organization=20 and the lojban-using community. He noted, for example, that no new members= =20 have been added for several years. He asked members to consider, for=20 discussion at the 2014 annual meeting, what steps might be taken to promote= =20 the future of the organization. In the course of studying lojban and reading up on its history, I've come= =20 up with some ideas for rebuilding and reinforcing the bonds between LLG and= =20 the community it serves, thereby improving its prospects. There are a few= =20 broad themes: 1. Restoring transparency to LLG as a institution=20 2. Revising LLG's commitments to better correspond with its resources=20 3. Removing the obstacles to officially documenting lojban as it is used= =20 today Before I present my proposals, I'd like to define the problems they are=20 intended to address. Members of LLG may not be aware of the extent to which the organization has= =20 become opaque, especially in recent years and especially to non-members. Non-members haven't been advised of the dates of annual meetings since 2010= =20 . Since that time,=20 the date of the annual meeting has only been announced on the members-only= =20 "llg-members" mailing list. (During this period, there was actually an=20 announcement on the "lojban" list that the 2012 annual meeting would soon= =20 be announced=20 . But the= =20 announcement of the meeting itself=20 ,=20 appeared exclusively on "llg-members".) The announcement of the annual meeting is traditionally accompanied by a=20 call for new members. Since for the last few years that call has only been= =20 received by those already confirmed as members, and since the annual=20 meeting is traditionally where new members are confirmed, the fact that=20 there have been few recruits should not surprise. Aside from being unannounced, the proceedings of recent meetings have been= =20 invisible outside of the membership. Prior to a few months ago, no=20 summaries or minutes had been published since the 2009 meeting=20 . Sometime prior to 2010, a decision was taken to recognize the email list=20 archives as=20 satisfying the legal requirement for minutes. As a result, members could=20 consult the archives for unsummarized meetings and reports which may not=20 have been included in minutes. But at some point the archives were=20 truncated such that they only go back to 2011. As a result, there is=20 currently no accessible record for members or non-members of important=20 proceedings such as the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings, and documents such= =20 as the first BPFK report, as provided to the 2003 annual meeting, have=20 fallen into obscurity.=20 According to the bylaws=20 ,= =20 the minutes of Board meetings are also are to be kept in "appropriate=20 books". Minutes were published for Board meetings in 2001=20 and 2002 (first= =20 and second=20 meeting )= ,=20 but for no other meetings. While a public record of proceedings may not be= =20 strictly required, I'd like to submit that the general membership as well= =20 as the lojban-using community at large has an interest in the proceedings= =20 of the Board, and that this interest is not well served by the lack of=20 transparency. As an example of how the lack of visibility of Board proceedings has=20 affected activities outside of the Board, a 2003 rumor of pending Board=20 intervention into the work of the BPFK=20 brought= =20 the business of that committee to a standstill only months after the BPFK= =20 had been called to order. Some members of the committee were able to read= =20 the discussion on the "llg-board" mailing list, while others could not, and= =20 Board members refrained for several months from making a public statement= =20 of their objections and intentions. Now I'd like to turn from discussing the records and communications of LLG,= =20 to a review of its official activities and productions. Many of LLG's enduring accomplishments were achieved long before a policy= =20 defining "official projects" was adopted at the 2002 annual meeting=20 . But the=20 record of completed official projects since that time is short indeed. Of= =20 the forty-something projects officially adopted at the 2003 annual meeting= =20 , few are=20 recognizable as either continuing efforts or as having reached some kind of= =20 conclusion. Only a fraction seem to have ever met their quarterly reporting= =20 requirements, and none appear to have issued any reports since 2006. It's= =20 not clear whether any new projects have been commissioned or decommissioned= =20 since that time. There are success stories, particularly among software-related efforts. The= =20 "Lojban parser" project yielded camxes=20 , which= =20 is now implemented in multiple programming languages. The "jbovlaste=20 " project sealed the recognition of that=20 institution. And the "lojban.org maintenance group" and "lojban wiki"=20 projects continue to provide Internet hubs to the lojban-using community.= =20 Robin Lee Powell has been a central figure in each of these efforts. Among non-software projects, xorxes' translation of "Alice in Wonderland"= =20 is a standout as an official project that hit its= =20 target. But the decline of LLG's official productions owes less to the 2002 policy= =20 on projects than to a series of missteps which complicated the follow-up to= =20 LLG's most ambitious and successful project: The landmark publication of=20 "The Complete Lojban Language" by John Cowan. The completion of the=20 long-awaited reference grammar was accompanied by the declaration of the=20 baseline ,= =20 announced January 10, 1997, and headlined, "THE LOGLAN/LOJBAN LANGUAGE=20 DESIGN is considered COMPLETE". Unfortunately, this triumph was soon undone. The fine print made a subtle= =20 but enormously consequential distinction between the "design" of the=20 language and what was called the "definition". The design was said to be=20 complete, but without a "baseline description document" for the lexicon --= =20 the gismu, cmavo and lujvo lists were disqualified as "preliminary forms"= =20 of the dictionary -- recognition of the baseline "language definition" was= =20 suspended for six months. At the 1997 annual meeting=20 , the=20 suspension was extended for an additional four months, "or a date deemed=20 reasonable by the Board of Directors". No announcement was made following= =20 the October 31, 1997 deadline. If the Board took action at that time, it=20 was not publicized. In the years that followed, it proved difficult to define or describe a=20 design which had been deemed complete despite the absence of a complete=20 definition or description. The terms of the "design freeze", whereby the=20 incompletely described design could not be amended, compounded this=20 difficulty. Finding the community "unwilling or unable to work on=20 completing the documentation of a baseline lexicon under freeze=20 conditions", the Board drafted the "Official Baseline Statement" of 2002=20 and submitted it= =20 to the community for an up-or-down vote. The 2002 "Baseline Statement", once approved, rolled back the 1997=20 declarations of the baseline and the completion of the language design. It= =20 formed the BPFK under Nick Nicholas, providing it with a limited mandate to= =20 complete the language design under strict conditions.=20 It was projected that BPFK work would be completed by the time of annual=20 meeting in 2003, at which point the resulting "final baseline" would be=20 submitted to membership for ratification. The deadline was missed, and Nick= =20 soon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the=20 interpretation of the committee's order of business and the requirement for= =20 consensus-minus-one on all decisions. The Board appointed Robin Lee Powell= =20 as chair .= =20 Despite initial progress in 2003-2004, reports of the BPFK over the=20 following years were consistently grim: "near total lack of activity=20 " (2005), "curr= ently=20 stuck " (2006),= =20 "lack of progress=20 " (2007), "[not= hing]=20 of significance to report=20 " (2009), "chai= r=20 =E2=80=A6 not receiving any help=20 " (2012), "nothing to= =20 report " (2013). By way of comparison, the annual meeting minutes for both 2000=20 and 2001=20 -- before the= =20 introduction of the "Baseline Statement" -- had posted a similar report:=20 "Production of dictionary: not advanced". The policy changed, but the=20 results remained constant. In his seventh year as chair of BPFK, Robin wrote an essay, "Lojban: You're= =20 Doing It Wrong=20 ,"=20 (2010) in which he opined that the 2002 baseline policy had done=20 "incalculable damage" to lojban. The constraints of scope and process=20 placed upon the BPFK made it unlikely to ever finish the job it was=20 commissioned to do. He proposed divesting LLG of its authority to define=20 the language, and investing that authority wholly in BPFK. *[ Note: The=20 essay may not reflect Robin's current opinion, and the use I make of it in= =20 this message should not be understood to express his opinions, past or=20 present. ]* The essay and its proposals were met with wide approval. Matt Arnold, who= =20 was serving at the time as president of LLG, wrote "I agree with your essay= =20 in its entirety.=20 " But Matt= =20 resigned in the midst of the debate that followed, and the proposals were= =20 never formalized or voted upon. Ironically, and in the absence of public records of annual meetings after= =20 2009, the impression of one of the proposals took root without the proposal= =20 itself ever receiving actionable consideration. It became widely rumored=20 that LLG had no business regarding the language itself, and was concerned= =20 only with legal and financial bookkeeping, to the extent that numerous=20 lojbanists were dissuaded from applying for membership. Little has changed since the 2010 essay. One can read it as if it were=20 written yesterday: Only the optimism seems anachronistic. Robin stopped=20 short of formalizing his proposals. I'd like to ask if there are volunteers= =20 to pick up where he left off: To formally eliminate the obstacles that are= =20 holding back LLG from effectively executing on its mission to promote and= =20 preserve lojban. To amend or replace policies which have long failed to=20 live up to expectations. To reconnect LLG with the vibrant community that= =20 continues to build around this extraordinary language, lojban, and to set= =20 the institution on a new trajectory: One that will take us together into=20 the future. To this end, I submit the following outline of proposals, in anticipation= =20 of bringing those that receive support to the actionable consideration of= =20 the annual meeting of the membership. I hope that those who object to these= =20 suggestions, as well as those who find them agreeable, will make their=20 thoughts known. Thanks for your attention, Riley Martinez-Lynch mi'e la mukti mu'o *Outline of Proposals* 1. Return to the former practice of announcing the annual meeting in=20 general interest forums, including the web site and the "lojban" and=20 "lojban-announcement" mailing lists.=20 2. Open the "llg-members" archives to the public. If there is a need for= =20 confidential members-only communication, create a separate list for that= =20 rather than defaulting to that level of privacy.=20 3. If possible, restore the pre-2011 "llg-members" archive, which=20 presumably includes important proceedings not recorded elsewhere such as= =20 the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings.=20 4. Consider also opening the "llg-board" archives. If that is not=20 practical, adopt the practice of reporting minutes of Board proceedings = to=20 the general membership.=20 5. Reinforce the relationship of LLG to the lojban-using community by=20 instituting an annual honor for lojbanic achievement. Nominees could be= =20 submitted by members and non-members in the weeks following the=20 announcement of the annual meeting, and then voted upon by the membershi= p=20 at the annual meeting.=20 6. Either enforce the "official project" policy, amend it so that it=20 better reflects the available resources of project leaders and the=20 webmaster, or scrap it entirely. Revise the list of official projects su= ch=20 that LLG only makes commitments that it has the resources to honor.=20 7. Restore recognition to the 1997 baseline per the 1997 annual meeting,= =20 including the lexicon documents as of October 31, 1997. These documents,= =20 however imperfect, represent a palpable achievement that should be=20 celebrated and built upon.=20 8. Acknowledge that the lojban community has superfluously observed the= =20 requirement for a five-year design freeze on the 1997 baseline. The CLL,= =20 and gismu, cmavo and rafsi lists have now served for nearly twenty years= as=20 the practical baseline of the language, whether or not they were=20 administratively entitled to that designation.=20 9. Start a conversation about the baseline-and-freeze approach. To what= =20 extent has stability or the perception of stability of the baseline=20 affected the popularity or learnability of lojban? Have the benefits of= =20 that approach outweighed the drawbacks? Is five years too long, or not l= ong=20 enough? Is an absolute freeze necessary, or might a less rigid approach= =20 work as well or better?=20 10. Empower the BPFK to manage its own business, including the election= =20 of committee members and officers, the order in which committee business= is=20 considered, and the manner in which it is considered. =20 11. Either invest unqualified design authority in the BPFK, or delegate= =20 it in such a way that the BPFK can complete its work without undue=20 interference: Upon receiving a report from the BPFK, LLG membership coul= d=20 vote on whether to accept its recommendations in whole or in part, or to= =20 refer them back to the committee with comments.=20 --=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. ------=_Part_556_360064900.1408313247738 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At the 2013 annual meeting, lojbab called attention to a distance = that has grown up between LLG as an organization and the lojban-using commu= nity. He noted, for example, that no new members have been added for severa= l years. He asked members to consider, for discussion at the 2014 annual me= eting, what steps might be taken to promote the future of the organization.=

In the course of studying lojban and reading up on its hist= ory, I've come up with some ideas for rebuilding and reinforcing the bonds = between LLG and the community it serves, thereby improving its prospects. T= here are a few broad themes:

  1. Restoring transparency to LLG as a institution
  2. Revising LLG's commitments to better correspond with its = resources
  3. Removing the obstacles to officially documenting lojban a= s it is used today

Before I present my proposals, I'd like to define the probl= ems they are intended to address.

Members of LLG may not be aware of the extent to which the = organization has become opaque, especially in recent years and especially t= o non-members.

Non-members haven't been advised of the dates of annual mee= tings since 2010. Since that time, the date of the annual meeting has only been a= nnounced on the members-only "llg-members" mailing list. (During this perio= d, there was actually an announcement on the "lojban" list that the 2012 a= nnual meeting would soon be announced. But the announcemen= t of the meeting itself, appeared exclusively on "llg-members".)

The announcement of the annual meeting is traditionally acc= ompanied by a call for new members. Since for the last few years that call = has only been received by those already confirmed as members, and since the= annual meeting is traditionally where new members are confirmed, the fact = that there have been few recruits should not surprise.

Aside from being unannounced, the proceedings of recent mee= tings have been invisible outside of the membership. Prior to a few months = ago, no summaries or minutes had been published since the 2009 meeting.

Sometime prior to 2010, a decision was taken to recognize t= he email li= st archives as satisfying the legal requirement for minutes. As a resul= t, members could consult the archives for unsummarized meetings and reports= which may not have been included in minutes. But at some point the archive= s were truncated such that they only go back to 2011. As a result, there is= currently no accessible record for members or non-members of important pro= ceedings such as the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings, and documents such= as the first BPFK report, as provided to the 2003 annual meeting, have fal= len into obscurity. 

According to the bylaws, the minutes of Board = meetings are also are to be kept in "appropriate books". Minutes were publi= shed for Board meetings in 2001 and 2002 (first and second meeting), bu= t for no other meetings. While a public record of proceedings may not be st= rictly required, I'd like to submit that the general membership as well as = the lojban-using community at large has an interest in the proceedings of t= he Board, and that this interest is not well served by the lack of transpar= ency.

As an example of how the lack of visibility of Board procee= dings has affected activities outside of the Board, a 2003 rumor of pendi= ng Board intervention into the work of the BPFK brought the business of= that committee to a standstill only months after the BPFK had been called = to order. Some members of the committee were able to read the discussion on= the "llg-board" mailing list, while others could not, and Board members re= frained for several months from making a public statement of their objectio= ns and intentions.

Now I'd like to turn from discussing the records and commun= ications of LLG, to a review of its official activities and productions.

Many of LLG's enduring accomplishments were achieved long b= efore a policy defining "official projects" was adopted at the 2002 annual meet= ing. But the record of completed official projects since that time is s= hort indeed. Of the forty-something projects officially adopted at the 2003 ann= ual meeting, few are recognizable as either continuing efforts or as ha= ving reached some kind of conclusion. Only a fraction seem to have ever met= their quarterly reporting requirements, and none appear to have issued any= reports since 2006. It's not clear whether any new projects have been comm= issioned or decommissioned since that time.

There are success stories, particularly among software-rela= ted efforts. The "Lojban parser" project yielded camxes, which is no= w implemented in multiple programming languages. The "jbovlaste" project sealed the recognition of that i= nstitution. And the "lojban.org maintenance group" and "lojban wiki" projec= ts continue to provide Internet hubs to the lojban-using community. Robin L= ee Powell has been a central figure in each of these efforts.

Among non-software projects, xorxes' translation of "Alice in Wonderland" is a standout as an = official project that hit its target.

But the decline of LLG's official productions owes less to = the 2002 policy on projects than to a series of missteps which complicated = the follow-up to LLG's most ambitious and successful project: The landmark = publication of "The Complete Lojban Language" by John Cowan. The completion= of the long-awaited reference grammar was accompanied by the declaration = of the baseline, announced January 10, 1997, and headlined, "THE LOGLAN= /LOJBAN LANGUAGE DESIGN is considered COMPLETE".

Unfortunately, this triumph was soon undone. The fine print= made a subtle but enormously consequential distinction between the "design= " of the language and what was called the "definition". The design was said= to be complete, but without a "baseline description document" for the lexi= con -- the gismu, cmavo and lujvo lists were disqualified as "preliminary f= orms" of the dictionary -- recognition of the baseline "language definition= " was suspended for six months. At the 1997 annual meeting, the suspension = was extended for an additional four months, "or a date deemed reasonable by= the Board of Directors". No announcement was made following the October 31= , 1997 deadline. If the Board took action at that time, it was not publiciz= ed.

In the years that followed, it proved difficult to define o= r describe a design which had been deemed complete despite the absence of a= complete definition or description. The terms of the "design freeze", wher= eby the incompletely described design could not be amended, compounded this= difficulty. Finding the community "unwilling or unable to work on completi= ng the documentation of a baseline lexicon under freeze conditions", the Bo= ard drafted the "Official Baseline Statement" of 2002 and submitted it to the c= ommunity for an up-or-down vote.

The 2002 "Baseline Statement", once approved, rolled back t= he 1997 declarations of the baseline and the completion of the language des= ign. It formed the BPFK under Nick Nicholas, providing it with a limited ma= ndate to complete the language design under strict conditions. 

It was projected that BPFK work would be completed by the t= ime of annual meeting in 2003, at which point the resulting "final baseline= " would be submitted to membership for ratification. The deadline was misse= d, and Nick soon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the i= nterpretation of the committee's order of business and the requirement for = consensus-minus-one on all decisions. The Board appointed Robin Lee Powell= as chair. 

Despite initial progress in 2003-2004, reports of the BPFK = over the following years were consistently grim: "near total lack of activity" (2005), "currently stuck" (2006), "lack of progress" (2007), "[nothing] o= f significance to report" (2009), "chair =E2=80=A6 not receiving any help" (20= 12), "nothi= ng to report" (2013).

By way of comparison, the annual meeting minutes for both <= a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2000+Annual+Meeting+Minutes">2000<= /a> and 2001 -- before the introduction of the "Baseline Statement" -- had = posted a similar report: "Production of dictionary: not advanced". The poli= cy changed, but the results remained constant.

In his seventh year as chair of BPFK, Robin wrote an essay,= "Lojban: You're Doing It Wrong," (2010) in which he o= pined that the 2002 baseline policy had done "incalculable damage" to lojba= n. The constraints of scope and process placed upon the BPFK made it unlike= ly to ever finish the job it was commissioned to do. He proposed divesting = LLG of its authority to define the language, and investing that authority w= holly in BPFK. [ Note: The essay may not reflect Robin's current opinion= , and the use I make of it in this message should not be understood to expr= ess his opinions, past or present. ]

The essay and its proposals were met with wide approval. Ma= tt Arnold, who was serving at the time as president of LLG, wrote "I agree with your essay in its entirety." But Matt r= esigned in the midst of the debate that followed, and the proposals were ne= ver formalized or voted upon.

Ironically, and in the absence of public records of annual = meetings after 2009, the impression of one of the proposals took root witho= ut the proposal itself ever receiving actionable consideration. It became w= idely rumored that LLG had no business regarding the language itself, and w= as concerned only with legal and financial bookkeeping, to the extent that = numerous lojbanists were dissuaded from applying for membership.

Little has changed since the 2010 essay. One can read it as= if it were written yesterday: Only the optimism seems anachronistic. Robin= stopped short of formalizing his proposals. I'd like to ask if there are v= olunteers to pick up where he left off: To formally eliminate the obstacles= that are holding back LLG from effectively executing on its mission to pro= mote and preserve lojban. To amend or replace policies which have long fail= ed to live up to expectations. To reconnect LLG with the vibrant community = that continues to build around this extraordinary language, lojban, and to = set the institution on a new trajectory: One that will take us together int= o the future.

To this end, I submit the following outline of proposals, i= n anticipation of bringing those that receive support to the actionable con= sideration of the annual meeting of the membership. I hope that those who o= bject to these suggestions, as well as those who find them agreeable, will = make their thoughts known.

Thanks for your attention,

Riley Martinez-Lynch
mi'e la mukti mu'o

Outline of Proposals

  1. Return to the former practice of announcing the annual me= eting in general interest forums, including the web site and the "lojban" a= nd "lojban-announcement" mailing lists.
  2. Open the "llg-members" archives to the public. If there i= s a need for confidential members-only communication, create a separate lis= t for that rather than defaulting to that level of privacy.
  3. If possible, restore the pre-2011 "llg-members" archive, = which presumably includes important proceedings not recorded elsewhere such= as the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings.
  4. Consider also opening the "llg-board" archives. If that i= s not practical, adopt the practice of reporting minutes of Board proceedin= gs to the general membership.
  5. Reinforce the relationship of LLG to the lojban-using com= munity by instituting an annual honor for lojbanic achievement. Nominees co= uld be submitted by members and non-members in the weeks following the anno= uncement of the annual meeting, and then voted upon by the membership at th= e annual meeting.
  6. Either enforce the "official project" policy, amend it so= that it better reflects the available resources of project leaders and the= webmaster, or scrap it entirely. Revise the list of official projects such= that LLG only makes commitments that it has the resources to honor.
  7. Restore recognition to the 1997 baseline per the 1997 ann= ual meeting, including the lexicon documents as of October 31, 1997. These = documents, however imperfect, represent a palpable achievement that should = be celebrated and built upon.
  8. Acknowledge that the lojban community has superfluously o= bserved the requirement for a five-year design freeze on the 1997 baseline.= The CLL, and gismu, cmavo and rafsi lists have now served for nearly twent= y years as the practical baseline of the language, whether or not they were= administratively entitled to that designation.
  9. Start a conversation about the baseline-and-freeze approa= ch. To what extent has stability or the perception of stability of the base= line affected the popularity or learnability of lojban? Have the benefits o= f that approach outweighed the drawbacks? Is five years too long, or not lo= ng enough? Is an absolute freeze necessary, or might a less rigid approach = work as well or better?
  10. Empower the BPFK to manage its own business, including th= e election of committee members and officers, the order in which committee = business is considered, and the manner in which it is considered. 
  11. Either invest unqualified design authority in the BPFK, o= r delegate it in such a way that the BPFK can complete its work without und= ue interference: Upon receiving a report from the BPFK, LLG membership coul= d vote on whether to accept its recommendations in whole or in part, or to = refer them back to the committee with comments.

--
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.
------=_Part_556_360064900.1408313247738--