Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fef8c82f-c3b3-4f99-925b-9b940d0c5913@googlegroups.com>
References: <fef8c82f-c3b3-4f99-925b-9b940d0c5913@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:00:40 +0400
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+jUHi17dKQ27SCHxe7J3UUjwN4t9n-F6OnUGNmAaD3C+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bae47e61e8e1a0500e54853
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7bae47e61e8e1a0500e54853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

IMO the main drawback is not any committees but the lack of CMS.

The tiki had a page "ongoing projects". However, it wasn't said how you
contribute. There was no algorithm of how you can help with those projects.

1. I partially fixed this problem for gimste providing a gimste (in Google
Spreadsheet) ready for translation into other languages.
This list
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D0Ahngu1CNj7wddFltdkVpZFNLWlQ=
5dVN1VVpXSnphVVE&usp=3Ddrive_web#gid=3D2>
has
a clear instruction of what to do.

That's how we got Chinese gimste because one of our readers successfully
used that list.

2. There is no platforum for translations to Lojban.
The corpus is not in an editable form.
Currently I'm trying to create a copy of the corpus in another wiki and
collect all texts there. The wiki format will allow to edit texts and to
monitor diffs.

3. Another succesfull project is Masato Hagiwara's camxes.js

That it was placed on github allowed us to start developing it further.
Github is another nice platform for completing projects.

4. Many people don't even know that they can add words to jbovlaste. Yes,
it's not a joke. They don't know cuz nobody tells them!

5. Few know about the IRC channel #lojban which is the main place of
activity.

I'm trying to address issues 4 and 5 in another wiki.
The link to IRC chat is shown as the first link in the Facebook group now.

I understand that LLG policy can impede users' desire to contribute but
since most of active Lojbanists are not members of LLG I don't understand
how LLG policy can affect them.


2014-08-18 2:07 GMT+04:00 mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com>:

> At the 2013 annual meeting
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2013>, lojbab called
> attention to a distance that has grown up between LLG as an organization
> and the lojban-using community. He noted, for example, that no new member=
s
> have been added for several years. He asked members to consider, for
> discussion at the 2014 annual meeting, what steps might be taken to promo=
te
> the future of the organization.
>
> In the course of studying lojban and reading up on its history, I've come
> up with some ideas for rebuilding and reinforcing the bonds between LLG a=
nd
> the community it serves, thereby improving its prospects. There 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 as it is
>    used today
>
> Before I present my proposals, I'd like to define the problems 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 to non-membe=
rs.
>
> Non-members haven't been advised of the dates of annual meetings since
> 2010 <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Archived+News#9AUGUST2010>. Since that
> time, the date of the annual meeting has only been announced on the
> members-only "llg-members" mailing list. (During this period, there was
> actually an announcement on the "lojban" list that the 2012 annual
> meeting would soon be announced
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/UJ1HSvrYn60/gbmHJZbcH0cJ>. But th=
e
> announcement of the meeting itself
> <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2012-October/000086.h=
tml>,
> appeared exclusively on "llg-members".)
>
> The announcement of the annual meeting is traditionally accompanied by a
> call for new members. Since for the last few years that call has only bee=
n
> 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 meetings have bee=
n
> invisible outside of the membership. Prior to a few months ago, no
> summaries or minutes had been published since the 2009 meeting
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2009+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>.
>
> Sometime prior to 2010, a decision was taken to recognize the email list
> archives <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/> as
> satisfying the legal requirement for minutes. As a result, members could
> consult the archives for unsummarized meetings and reports which may not
> have been included in minutes. But at some point the archives 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
> proceedings such as the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings, and documents such
> as the first BPFK report, as provided to the 2003 annual meeting, have
> fallen into obscurity.
>
> According to the bylaws
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Bylaws+of+The+Logical+Language+Group%2C+Inc.>=
,
> the minutes of Board meetings are also are to be kept in "appropriate
> books". Minutes were published for Board meetings in 2001
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2001+Board+Meeting+Minutes> and 2002 (
> first <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2002+Board+Meeting+Minutes> and sec=
ond
> meeting <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2002+Second+Board+Meeting+Minutes=
>),
> but for no other meetings. While a public record of proceedings may not b=
e
> strictly 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 the Board, and that this interest is not well served by the lack of
> transparency.
>
> As an example of how the lack of visibility of Board proceedings has
> affected activities outside of the Board, a 2003 rumor of pending Board
> intervention into the work of the BPFK
> <http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DBPFK:_Old_Meta-BPFK_Forum> brough=
t
> 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, a=
nd
> Board members refrained for several months from making a public statement
> of their objections and intentions.
>
> Now I'd like to turn from discussing the records and communications of
> LLG, to a review of its official activities and productions.
>
> Many of LLG's enduring accomplishments were achieved long before a policy
> defining "official projects" was adopted at the 2002 annual meeting
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2002+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>. But the
> record of completed official projects since that time is short indeed. Of
> the forty-something projects officially adopted at the 2003 annual meetin=
g
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2003+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>, few are
> recognizable as either continuing efforts or as having reached some kind =
of
> conclusion. Only a fraction seem to have ever met their quarterly reporti=
ng
> requirements, and none appear to have issued any reports since 2006. It's
> not clear whether any new projects have been commissioned or decommission=
ed
> since that time.
>
> There are success stories, particularly among software-related efforts.
> The "Lojban parser" project yielded camxes
> <http://users.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/>,
> which is now implemented in multiple programming languages. The "jbovlast=
e
> <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/>" project sealed the recognition of that
> institution. And the "lojban.org maintenance group" and "lojban wiki"
> projects continue to provide Internet hubs to the lojban-using community.
> Robin Lee Powell has been a central figure in each of these efforts.
>
> Among non-software projects, xorxes' translation of "Alice in Wonderland"
> <http://alis.lojban.org/> is a standout as an official project that hit
> its target.
>
> But the decline of LLG's official productions owes less to the 2002 polic=
y
> 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 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/vMQ-GQsAJEA/Lbxj4agFykcJ=
>,
> 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 lexicon -=
-
> the gismu, cmavo and lujvo lists were disqualified as "preliminary forms"
> of the dictionary -- recognition of the baseline "language definition" wa=
s
> suspended for six months. At the 1997 annual meeting
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+1997+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>, 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 publicized.
>
> In the years that followed, it proved difficult to define or describe a
> design which had been deemed complete despite the absence of a complete
> definition or description. The terms of the "design freeze", whereby the
> incompletely described design could not be amended, compounded this
> difficulty. Finding the community "unwilling or unable to work on
> completing the documentation of a baseline lexicon under freeze
> conditions", the Board drafted the "Official Baseline Statement" of 2002
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement> and submitted it
> to the community for an up-or-down vote.
>
> The 2002 "Baseline Statement", once approved, rolled back the 1997
> declarations of the baseline and the completion of the language design. I=
t
> formed the BPFK under Nick Nicholas, providing it with a limited mandate =
to
> complete the language design under strict conditions.
>
> It was projected that BPFK work would be completed by the time of annual
> meeting in 2003, at which point the resulting "final baseline" would be
> submitted to membership for ratification. The deadline was missed, and Ni=
ck
> soon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the
> interpretation of the committee's order of business and the requirement f=
or
> consensus-minus-one on all decisions. The Board appointed Robin Lee
> Powell as chair
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/KG-NXZbgmas/HjaYJ5njs58J>.
>
> Despite initial progress in 2003-2004, reports of the BPFK over the
> following years were consistently grim: "near total lack of activity
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2005+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>" (2005), "cu=
rrently
> stuck <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2006+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>"
> (2006), "lack of progress
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2007+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>" (2007), "[n=
othing]
> of significance to report
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2009+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>" (2009), "ch=
air
> =E2=80=A6 not receiving any help
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2012>" (2012), "nothing
> to report <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2013>" (2013).
>
> By way of comparison, the annual meeting minutes for both 2000
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2000+Annual+Meeting+Minutes> and 2001
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2001+Annual+Meeting+Minutes> -- before
> the introduction of the "Baseline Statement" -- had posted a similar
> report: "Production of dictionary: not advanced". The policy changed, but
> the results remained constant.
>
> In his seventh year as chair of BPFK, Robin wrote an essay, "Lojban:
> You're Doing It Wrong
> <http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=3DLojban%3A+You%27re+Doing+I=
t+Wrong>,"
> (2010) in which he opined that the 2002 baseline policy had done
> "incalculable damage" to lojban. The constraints of scope and process
> placed upon the BPFK made it unlikely 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 wholly in BPFK. *[ Note: The
> essay may not reflect Robin's current opinion, and the use I make of it i=
n
> this message should not be understood to express his opinions, past or
> present. ]*
>
> The essay and its proposals were met with wide approval. Matt Arnold, who
> was serving at the time as president of LLG, wrote "I agree with your
> essay in its entirety.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/xn8hCt3Aagw/7ABInRgR4wAJ>" But
> Matt resigned in the midst of the debate that followed, and the proposals
> were never 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 without the propos=
al
> itself ever receiving actionable consideration. It became widely rumored
> that LLG had no business regarding the language itself, and was 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 voluntee=
rs
> to pick up where he left off: To formally eliminate the obstacles that ar=
e
> holding back LLG from effectively executing on its mission to promote and
> preserve lojban. To amend or replace policies which have long failed 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 into
> the future.
>
> To this end, I submit the following outline of proposals, in anticipation
> of bringing those that receive support to the actionable consideration of
> the annual meeting of the membership. I hope that those who object to the=
se
> 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 meeting in
>    general interest forums, including the web site and the "lojban" and
>    "lojban-announcement" mailing lists.
>    2. Open the "llg-members" archives to the public. If there is a need
>    for confidential members-only communication, create a separate list fo=
r
>    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 is not
>    practical, adopt the practice of reporting minutes of Board proceeding=
s to
>    the general membership.
>    5. Reinforce the relationship of LLG to the lojban-using community by
>    instituting an annual honor for lojbanic achievement. Nominees could b=
e
>    submitted by members and non-members in the weeks following the
>    announcement of the annual meeting, and then voted upon by the members=
hip
>    at the 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 annual
>    meeting, including the lexicon documents as of October 31, 1997. These
>    documents, however imperfect, represent a palpable achievement that sh=
ould
>    be celebrated and built upon.
>    8. Acknowledge that the lojban community has superfluously observed
>    the requirement for a five-year design freeze on the 1997 baseline. Th=
e
>    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 w=
ere
>    administratively entitled to that designation.
>    9. Start a conversation about the baseline-and-freeze approach. To
>    what extent has stability or the perception of stability of the baseli=
ne
>    affected the popularity or learnability of lojban? Have the benefits o=
f
>    that approach outweighed the drawbacks? Is five years too long, or not=
 long
>    enough? Is an absolute freeze necessary, or might a less rigid approac=
h
>    work as well or better?
>    10. Empower the BPFK to manage its own business, including the
>    election of committee members and officers, the order in which committ=
ee
>    business is considered, and the manner in which it is considered.
>    11. Either invest unqualified design authority in the BPFK, or
>    delegate it in such a way that the BPFK can complete its work without =
undue
>    interference: Upon receiving a report from the BPFK, LLG membership co=
uld
>    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
> "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
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.

--047d7bae47e61e8e1a0500e54853
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">IMO the main drawback is not any committees but the lack o=
f CMS.<div><br></div><div>The tiki had a page &quot;ongoing projects&quot;.=
 However, it wasn&#39;t said how you contribute. There was no algorithm of =
how you can help with those projects.</div>
<div><br></div><div>1. I partially fixed this problem for gimste providing =
a gimste (in Google Spreadsheet) ready for translation into other languages=
.</div><div>This <a href=3D"https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D0=
Ahngu1CNj7wddFltdkVpZFNLWlQ5dVN1VVpXSnphVVE&amp;usp=3Ddrive_web#gid=3D2">li=
st</a>=C2=A0has a clear instruction of what to do.</div>
<div><br></div><div>That&#39;s how we got Chinese gimste because one of our=
 readers successfully used that list.</div><div><br></div><div>2. There is =
no platforum for translations to Lojban.</div><div>The corpus is not in an =
editable form.</div>
<div>Currently I&#39;m trying to create a copy of the corpus in another wik=
i and collect all texts there. The wiki format will allow to edit texts and=
 to monitor diffs.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Another succesfull project i=
s Masato Hagiwara&#39;s camxes.js</div>
<div><br></div><div>That it was placed on github allowed us to start develo=
ping it further.</div><div>Github is another nice platform for completing p=
rojects.</div><div><br></div><div>4. Many people don&#39;t even know that t=
hey can add words to jbovlaste. Yes, it&#39;s not a joke. They don&#39;t kn=
ow cuz nobody tells them!=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>5. Few know about the IRC channel #lojban which is the =
main place of activity.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m trying to address =
issues 4 and 5 in another wiki.</div><div>The link to IRC chat is shown as =
the first link in the Facebook group now.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I understand that LLG policy can impede users&#39; desi=
re to contribute but since most of active Lojbanists are not members of LLG=
 I don&#39;t understand how LLG policy can affect them.</div><div><br></div=
>
<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">2014-08-18 2:07 GMT+04:00 mukti <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:shunpiker@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">shunpiker@gmail.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an>:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">


<p>At the <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2013" t=
arget=3D"_blank">2013 annual meeting</a>, lojbab called attention to a dist=
ance that has grown up between LLG as an organization and the lojban-using =
community. He noted, for example, that no new members have been added for s=
everal years. He asked members to consider, for discussion at the 2014 annu=
al meeting, what steps might be taken to promote the future of the organiza=
tion.<br>
</p>
<p>In the course of studying lojban and reading up on its history, I&#39;ve=
 come up with some ideas for rebuilding and reinforcing the bonds between L=
LG and the community it serves, thereby improving its prospects. There are =
a few broad themes:</p>

<ol>
<li>Restoring transparency to LLG as a institution</li>
<li>Revising LLG&#39;s commitments to better correspond with its resources<=
/li>
<li>Removing the obstacles to officially documenting lojban as it is used t=
oday</li></ol>
<p>Before I present my proposals, I&#39;d like to define the problems they =
are intended to address.</p>
<p>Members of LLG may not be aware of the extent to which the organization =
has become opaque, especially in recent years and especially to non-members=
.</p>
<p>Non-members haven&#39;t been advised of the dates of annual meetings sin=
ce <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Archived+News#9AUGUST2010" target=
=3D"_blank">2010</a>. Since that time, the date of the annual meeting has o=
nly been announced on the members-only &quot;llg-members&quot; mailing list=
. (During this period, there was actually <a href=3D"https://groups.google.=
com/d/msg/lojban/UJ1HSvrYn60/gbmHJZbcH0cJ" target=3D"_blank">an announcemen=
t on the &quot;lojban&quot; list that the 2012 annual meeting would soon be=
 announced</a>. But <a href=3D"http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-m=
embers/2012-October/000086.html" target=3D"_blank">the announcement of the =
meeting itself</a>, appeared exclusively on &quot;llg-members&quot;.)</p>

<p>The announcement of the annual meeting is traditionally accompanied 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 meeti=
ng is traditionally where new members are confirmed, the fact that there ha=
ve been few recruits should not surprise.</p>

<p>Aside from being unannounced, the proceedings of recent meetings have be=
en invisible outside of the membership. Prior to a few months ago, no summa=
ries or minutes had been published since <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/t=
iki/LLG+2009+Annual+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_blank">the 2009 meeting</a>=
.</p>

<p>Sometime prior to 2010, a decision was taken to recognize the <a href=3D=
"http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/" target=3D"_blank">ema=
il list archives</a> as satisfying the legal requirement for minutes. As a =
result, members could consult the archives for unsummarized meetings and re=
ports which may not have been included in minutes. But at some point the ar=
chives were truncated such that they only go back to 2011. As a result, the=
re is currently no accessible record for members or non-members of importan=
t proceedings such as the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings, and=C2=A0documents=
 such as the first BPFK report, as provided to the 2003 annual meeting, hav=
e fallen into obscurity.=C2=A0</p>

<p>According to the <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Bylaws+of+The+Log=
ical+Language+Group%2C+Inc." target=3D"_blank">bylaws</a>, the minutes of B=
oard meetings are also are to be kept in &quot;appropriate books&quot;. Min=
utes were published for Board meetings in <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/=
tiki/LLG+2001+Board+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_blank">2001</a> and 2002 (<=
a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2002+Board+Meeting+Minutes" target=
=3D"_blank">first</a> and <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2002+Se=
cond+Board+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_blank">second meeting</a>), but for =
no other meetings. While a public record of proceedings may not be strictly=
 required, I&#39;d like to submit that the general membership as well as th=
e lojban-using community at large has an interest in the proceedings of the=
 Board, and that this interest is not well served by the lack of transparen=
cy.</p>

<p>As an example of how the lack of visibility of Board proceedings has aff=
ected activities outside of the Board, <a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.org/inde=
x.php?title=3DBPFK:_Old_Meta-BPFK_Forum" target=3D"_blank">a 2003 rumor of =
pending Board intervention into the work of the BPFK</a> brought the busine=
ss of that committee to a standstill only months after the BPFK had been ca=
lled to order. Some members of the committee were able to read the discussi=
on on the &quot;llg-board&quot; mailing list, while others could not, and B=
oard members refrained for several months from making a public statement of=
 their objections and intentions.</p>

<p>Now I&#39;d like to turn from discussing the records and communications =
of LLG, to a review of its official activities and productions.</p>
<p>Many of LLG&#39;s enduring accomplishments were achieved long before a p=
olicy defining &quot;official projects&quot; was adopted at the <a href=3D"=
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2002+Annual+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_blan=
k">2002 annual meeting</a>. But the record of completed official projects s=
ince that time is short indeed. Of the forty-something projects officially =
adopted at the <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2003+Annual+Meetin=
g+Minutes" target=3D"_blank">2003 annual meeting</a>, few are recognizable =
as either continuing efforts or as having reached some kind of conclusion. =
Only a fraction seem to have ever met their quarterly reporting requirement=
s, and none appear to have issued any reports since 2006. It&#39;s not clea=
r whether any new projects have been commissioned or decommissioned since t=
hat time.</p>

<p>There are success stories, particularly among software-related efforts. =
The &quot;Lojban parser&quot; project yielded <a href=3D"http://users.digit=
alkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/" target=3D"_blank">camxes</=
a>, which is now implemented in multiple programming languages. The &quot;<=
a href=3D"http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/" target=3D"_blank">jbovlaste</a>&quo=
t; project sealed the recognition of that institution. And the &quot;<a hre=
f=3D"http://lojban.org" target=3D"_blank">lojban.org</a> maintenance group&=
quot; and &quot;lojban wiki&quot; projects continue to provide Internet hub=
s to the lojban-using community. Robin Lee Powell has been a central figure=
 in each of these efforts.</p>

<p>Among non-software projects, <a href=3D"http://alis.lojban.org/" target=
=3D"_blank">xorxes&#39; translation of &quot;Alice in Wonderland&quot;</a> =
is a standout as an official project that hit its target.</p>
<p>But the decline of LLG&#39;s official productions owes less to the 2002 =
policy on projects than to a series of missteps which complicated the follo=
w-up to LLG&#39;s most ambitious and successful project: The landmark publi=
cation of &quot;The Complete Lojban Language&quot; by John Cowan. The compl=
etion of the long-awaited reference grammar was accompanied by the <a href=
=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/vMQ-GQsAJEA/Lbxj4agFykcJ" target=
=3D"_blank">declaration of the baseline</a>, announced January 10, 1997, an=
d headlined, &quot;THE LOGLAN/LOJBAN LANGUAGE DESIGN is considered COMPLETE=
&quot;.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this triumph was soon undone. The fine print made a subtl=
e but enormously consequential distinction between the &quot;design&quot; o=
f the language and what was called the &quot;definition&quot;. The design w=
as said to be complete, but without a &quot;baseline description document&q=
uot; for the lexicon -- the gismu, cmavo and lujvo lists were disqualified =
as &quot;preliminary forms&quot; of the dictionary -- recognition of the ba=
seline &quot;language definition&quot; was suspended for six months. At the=
 <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+1997+Annual+Meeting+Minutes" tar=
get=3D"_blank">1997 annual meeting</a>, the suspension was extended for an =
additional four months, &quot;or a date deemed reasonable by the Board of D=
irectors&quot;. No announcement was made following the October 31, 1997 dea=
dline. If the Board took action at that time, it was not publicized.</p>

<p>In the years that followed, it proved difficult to define or describe a =
design which had been deemed complete despite the absence of a complete def=
inition or description. The terms of the &quot;design freeze&quot;, whereby=
 the incompletely described design could not be amended, compounded this di=
fficulty. Finding the community &quot;unwilling or unable to work on comple=
ting the documentation of a baseline lexicon under freeze conditions&quot;,=
 the Board drafted the <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Basel=
ine+Statement" target=3D"_blank">&quot;Official Baseline Statement&quot; of=
 2002</a> and submitted it to the community for an up-or-down vote.</p>

<p>The 2002 &quot;Baseline Statement&quot;, once approved, rolled back the =
1997 declarations of the baseline and the completion of the language design=
. It formed the BPFK under Nick Nicholas, providing it with a limited manda=
te to complete the language design under strict conditions.=C2=A0</p>

<p>It was projected that BPFK work would be completed by the time of annual=
 meeting in 2003, at which point the resulting &quot;final baseline&quot; w=
ould be submitted to membership for ratification. The deadline was missed, =
and Nick soon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the inte=
rpretation of the committee&#39;s order of business and the requirement for=
 consensus-minus-one on all decisions. <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com=
/d/msg/lojban/KG-NXZbgmas/HjaYJ5njs58J" target=3D"_blank">The Board appoint=
ed Robin Lee Powell as chair</a>.=C2=A0</p>

<p>Despite initial progress in 2003-2004, reports of the BPFK over the foll=
owing years were consistently grim: &quot;<a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/=
tiki/LLG+2005+Annual+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_blank">near total lack of =
activity</a>&quot; (2005), &quot;<a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+=
2006+Annual+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_blank">currently stuck</a>&quot; (2=
006), &quot;<a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2007+Annual+Meeting+M=
inutes" target=3D"_blank">lack of progress</a>&quot; (2007), &quot;<a href=
=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2009+Annual+Meeting+Minutes" target=3D"_=
blank">[nothing] of significance to report</a>&quot; (2009), &quot;<a href=
=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2012" target=3D"_blank">=
chair =E2=80=A6 not receiving any help</a>&quot; (2012), &quot;<a href=3D"h=
ttp://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2013" target=3D"_blank">nothi=
ng to report</a>&quot; (2013).</p>

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

<p>In his seventh year as chair of BPFK, Robin wrote an essay, &quot;<a hre=
f=3D"http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=3DLojban%3A+You%27re+Doing=
+It+Wrong" target=3D"_blank">Lojban: You&#39;re Doing It Wrong</a>,&quot; (=
2010) in which he opined that the 2002 baseline policy had done &quot;incal=
culable damage&quot; to lojban. The constraints of scope and process placed=
 upon the BPFK made it unlikely to ever finish the job it was commissioned =
to do. He proposed divesting LLG of its authority to define the language, a=
nd investing that authority wholly in BPFK. <i>[ Note: The essay may not re=
flect Robin&#39;s current opinion, and the use I make of it in this message=
 should not be understood to express his opinions, past or present. ]</i></=
p>

<p>The essay and its proposals were met with wide approval. Matt Arnold, wh=
o was serving at the time as president of LLG, wrote &quot;<span><a href=3D=
"https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/xn8hCt3Aagw/7ABInRgR4wAJ" target=3D=
"_blank">I agree with your essay in its entirety.</a></span>&quot; But Matt=
 resigned in the midst of the debate that followed, and the proposals were =
never formalized or voted upon.</p>

<p>Ironically, and in the absence of public records of annual meetings afte=
r 2009, the impression of one of the proposals took root without the propos=
al itself ever receiving actionable consideration. It became widely rumored=
 that LLG had no business regarding the language itself, and was concerned =
only with legal and financial bookkeeping, to the extent that numerous lojb=
anists were dissuaded from applying for membership.</p>

<p>Little has changed since the 2010 essay. One can read it as if it were w=
ritten yesterday: Only the optimism seems anachronistic. Robin stopped shor=
t of formalizing his proposals. I&#39;d like to ask if there are volunteers=
 to pick up where he left off: To formally eliminate the obstacles that are=
 holding back LLG from effectively executing on its mission to promote and =
preserve lojban. To amend or replace policies which have long failed to liv=
e up to expectations. To reconnect LLG with the vibrant community that cont=
inues to build around this extraordinary language, lojban, and to set the i=
nstitution on a new trajectory: One that will take us together into the fut=
ure.</p>

<p>To this end, I submit the following outline of proposals, in anticipatio=
n of bringing those that receive support to the actionable consideration of=
 the annual meeting of the membership. I hope that those who object to thes=
e suggestions, as well as those who find them agreeable, will make their th=
oughts known.</p>

<p>Thanks for your attention,</p>
<p>Riley Martinez-Lynch<br>mi&#39;e la mukti mu&#39;o</p>
<p><b>Outline of Proposals</b></p>
<ol>
<li>Return to the former practice of announcing the annual meeting in gener=
al interest forums, including the web site and the &quot;lojban&quot; and &=
quot;lojban-announcement&quot; mailing lists.</li>
<li>Open the &quot;llg-members&quot; archives to the public. If there is a =
need for confidential members-only communication, create a separate list fo=
r that rather than defaulting to that level of privacy.</li>
<li>If possible, restore the pre-2011 &quot;llg-members&quot; archive, whic=
h presumably includes important proceedings not recorded elsewhere such as =
the 2008 and 2010 annual meetings.</li>
<li>Consider also opening the &quot;llg-board&quot; archives. If that is no=
t practical, adopt the practice of reporting minutes of Board proceedings t=
o the general membership.</li>
<li>Reinforce the relationship of LLG to the lojban-using community by inst=
ituting an annual honor for lojbanic achievement. Nominees could be submitt=
ed by members and non-members in the weeks following the announcement of th=
e annual meeting, and then voted upon by the membership at the annual meeti=
ng.</li>

<li>Either enforce the &quot;official project&quot; policy, amend it so tha=
t it better reflects the available resources of project leaders and the web=
master, or scrap it entirely. Revise the list of official projects such tha=
t LLG only makes commitments that it has the resources to honor.</li>

<li>Restore recognition to the 1997 baseline per the 1997 annual meeting, i=
ncluding the lexicon documents as of October 31, 1997. These documents, how=
ever imperfect, represent a palpable achievement that should be celebrated =
and built upon.</li>

<li>Acknowledge that the lojban community has superfluously observed the re=
quirement for a five-year design freeze on the 1997 baseline. The CLL, and =
gismu, cmavo and rafsi lists have now served for nearly twenty years as the=
 practical baseline of the language, whether or not they were administrativ=
ely entitled to that designation.</li>

<li>Start a conversation about the baseline-and-freeze approach. To what ex=
tent has stability or the perception of stability of the baseline affected =
the popularity or learnability of lojban? Have the benefits of that approac=
h outweighed the drawbacks? Is five years too long, or not long enough? Is =
an absolute freeze necessary, or might a less rigid approach work as well o=
r better?</li>

<li>Empower the BPFK to manage its own business, including the election of =
committee members and officers, the order in which committee business is co=
nsidered, and the manner in which it is considered.=C2=A0</li>
<li>Either invest unqualified design authority in the BPFK, or delegate it =
in such a way that the BPFK can complete its work without undue interferenc=
e: Upon receiving a report from the BPFK, LLG membership could vote on whet=
her to accept its recommendations in whole or in part, or to refer them bac=
k to the committee with comments.</li>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">
</font></span></ol></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_b=
lank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7bae47e61e8e1a0500e54853--