Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Message-ID: <53F3A68F.2050207@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:33:35 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting
References: <fy7b1o01Q56Cr6M01y7dHr>
In-Reply-To: <fy7b1o01Q56Cr6M01y7dHr>
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=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 8/17/2014 6:07 PM, mukti wrote:
> 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 and 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.

Actually, I think it is just as opaque to the members, because most of=20
them only think about organization matters when we have a meeting.  We=20
used to have a much more active discussion when the meetings were held=20
live (or later when they were on IRC).  But the time differential (and=20
travel costs) Have made those options difficult.

> 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.

This has been the fault of the President (which right now is me so mea=20
culpa; I'll try to do better this year).  The real problem has been that=20
we've repeatedly delayed the meetings to the point where I just need to=20
get them started, so we can get the mandatory elections out of the way,=20
and notifying people has gone by the wayside.

> 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 meeting is traditionally where new members are confirmed, the
> fact that there have been few recruits should not surprise.

We had expected that the existing membership would be aware of anyone=20
who wanted to join, but that apparently is not the case.

> Aside from being unannounced, the proceedings of recent meetings have
> been 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.

I can't help with most of this.  Robin has made the decision to use the=20
list as minutes because he doesn't have time to do more.  If someone is=20
willing to prepare a summary, they are encouraged to do so.  But I do=20
have said report in my personal archives and it is appended to this message

> 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".

They are supposed to be, but that item of the bylaws has more or less=20
been superseded with online meetings by the non-publication of minutes.

  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
> second 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 be
> strictly required,

The "Board Meeting" per se is an ongoing thing that never ends.  The=20
"minutes" as with the member's meeting consists of the mailing list=20
archive.  Since the meeting never ends, there is no "set of minutes" for=20
the meeting that are approved and thus none to be published.  We have=20
had to discuss issues that needed to be kept private, which is why the=20
list archive isn't open.  I don't think that there is any easy way to=20
solve this, unless we get someone who wants to actually prepare minutes.=20
  Robin again doesn't have time.

  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.

Probably you are correct.  But the Board for the most part hasn't been=20
doing much that is worth reporting.  I'll try to see if I can include=20
something in the President's report next annual meeting.

> 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, and Board members refrained for several months from making a
> public statement of their objections and intentions.

Probably because they didn't have any.  I just looked through all of the=20
2003 board messages and find nothing that fits this topic. Nick was=20
making all the decisions until at the end of the year he found he did=20
not have enough time to continue.  Having discussed various issues with=20
Robin, he resigned in Robin's favor.  The board accepted the resignation=20
and appointed Robin, but the substance of Nick and Robin's changes were=20
not discussed by the Board.  At no time did the Board question the=20
authority of the byfy jatna to decide how to run things.  I think most=20
such discussion occurred in the referenced meta forum.


>  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 meeting
> <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.

The bottom line problem is that very few people stick with a project=20
until it is completed, and few projects ever get more than 1-2 people=20
working on them.  When I was actively working, I got things done myself,=20
and John Cowan also got a lot done, but if we weren't working on it, it=20
usually remained incomplete (Nick also completed things in the years=20
when he was active.)

We now have many more activities going on, but if they are ever=20
completed, no one tells me, and no one edits the project page to report=20
changes in status, and no one asks to be recognized as an official=20
project.  LLG has become a much more decentralized organization.  The=20
board decides very little, and the members' meetings not much more.

> 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 commissioned or
> decommissioned since that time.

If not listed, they haven't been.  The bottom line is that the community=20
hasn't taken on the responsibility, and nothing will be reported unless=20
they do.

> There are success stories, particularly among software-related efforts.
> The "Lojban parser" project yielded camxes
> <http://users.digitalkingdom.org/%7Erlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/>,
> which is now implemented in multiple programming languages. The
> "jbovlaste <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.

Since he is the Secretary, as well as the web site manager, he=20
necessarily has to be.  But you-all who participate in those efforts=20
know more of what he does in those arenas than the Board does.

> 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.

The original project was a group effort, but xorxes did most of it, and=20
I think afterwards went over the whole to ensure consistency.

> 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
> <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.

Not really.  I think that statement is still official policy.

  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" was 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.

There was in fact no action.  Both Cowan and I were "burnt out" by the=20
effort to publish CLL, and lost our productivity in technical matters.=20
I got bogged down in order fulfillment, complicated by the discovery=20
that some 20% of the printed books were defective. Nora and I and a=20
couple others spent many days (weeks?) paging through many of the 1500=20
copies looking for further defects, until finally we got the printer to=20
take responsibility.  Nick was inactive at that point, so basically=20
nothing technical got done for many months.  (Cowan and I worked on an=20
automated method to generate a dictionary file, and eventually I=20
published the result.  But that was still a couple steps short of being=20
a printed dictionary, because we had no good idea how to handle the cmavo.

> 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.

More or less accurate.

> The 2002 "Baseline Statement", once approved, rolled back the 1997
> declarations of the baseline and the completion of the language design.

No, it did not.

> It formed the BPFK under Nick Nicholas, providing it with a limited
> mandate to complete the language design under strict conditions.

The byfy was supposed to complete the language definition; the design=20
baseline still held.  It was recognized that there were some errors in=20
CLL, and some questions unanswered.  The byfy was empowered to answer=20
them.  Following completions of the baseline definition (documenting the=20
existing baseline), the byfy would be empowered to consider some=20
changes.  Eventually, after xorlo was documented and used by a subset of=20
the community, the membership voted to accept xorlo as documented as a=20
provisional change to the 1997 baseline.  No other changes to the=20
baseline have yet been considered, much less approved, by the byfy or=20
the membership.  (to the extent that the byfy documents include changes=20
to what is stated in CLL they may merely be proposals at this point).

> It was projected that BPFK work would be completed by the time of annual
> meeting in 2003,

We were eternally optimistic.


  at which point the resulting "final baseline" would be
> submitted to membership for ratification. The deadline was missed, and
> Nick soon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the
> interpretation of the committee's order of business and the requirement
> for consensus-minus-one on all decisions.

Actually he officially resigned from lack of time because of his=20
academic commitments.  But he was indeed frustrated because I and some=20
others refused to commit to consensus on things that were "changes"=20
until the whole was done.  Still, he and Robin seemed pretty much in=20
agreement with what needed to be done.  The problem was that few people=20
actually worked on getting the remaining sections done.


  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),
> "currently 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),
> "[nothing] of significance to report
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+2009+Annual+Meeting+Minutes>" (2009),
> "chair =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.

No workers  =3D=3D> no work done

> 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
> in this message should not be understood to express his opinions, past
> or present. ]/

I'm not sure if that is correct, but it has been de facto reality all=20
along.  LLG has the official authority to approve what BPFK comes up=20
with, (as well as the power to replace Robin), but there is zero=20
likelihood that the membership will reject what Robin comes up with. To=20
what extent BPFK will consider the consensus minus 1 standard to be=20
relevant is up to Robin.

It is possible that we will end up considering the CLL version 1.1 (with=20
corrections) and some set of words embedded in jbovlaste to be the=20
fulfillment of the 1997 baseline documentation, and then certain changes=20
will be accepted as baseline modifications in short order and a CLL 2.0=20
will be produced.


> and the proposals were never formalized or voted upon.

I think that is correct, but it still amounts to  Robin doing what he=20
decides, and the organization going along.

> Ironically, and in the absence of public records of annual meetings
> after 2009, the impression of one of the proposals took root without the
> proposal 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 membersh=
ip.

Almost correct.  LLG has assigned all business regarding the language=20
documentation to the byfy, and it is expected that the rump byfy will=20
retain that authority once the documentation is done, regarding any=20
future change proposals.


> I'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.

A few people have actually been working on byfy sections in the last=20
couple of months, especially Ilmen and selpa'i.  I don't know how much=20
remains to be done.

There is a time limit priority to finish some sort of update to CLL,=20
because we will likely run out of copies within the next year or so.

> *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.

This I intend to do, though I'm not sure who has authority to use the=20
announcement list.

>  2. Open the "llg-members" archives to the public.

That is up to Robin.

>  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.

Again, up to Robin.

>  4. Consider also opening the "llg-board" archives. If that is not
>     practical, adopt the practice of reporting minutes of Board
>     proceedings to the general membership.

There are no minutes.  I will see if I can include some of this in my=20
President's report.

>  5. Reinforce the relationship of LLG to the lojban-using community by
>     instituting an annual honor for lojbanic achievement. Nominees could
>     be submitted by members and non-members in the weeks following the
>     announcement of the annual meeting, and then voted upon by the
>     membership at the annual meeting.

Sounds reasonable.

>  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.

LLG has no resources (other than a few thousand dollars in proceeds from=20
book sales that will likely go to publishing the next iteration).  The=20
community has to decide which projects it wants to support, and then do=20
them.

>  7. Restore recognition to the 1997 baseline per the 1997 annual
>     meeting, including the lexicon documents as of October 31, 1997.

I think that recognition is the status quo.  But the lexicon documents=20
are not considered sufficient.

>  8. Acknowledge that the lojban community has superfluously observed 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
>     twenty 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 approach. To what
>     extent has stability or the perception of stability of the baseline
>     affected the popularity or learnability of lojban? Have the benefits
>     of that approach 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 or better?

Once a new CLL version is done reflecting 1997 plus xorlo, BPFK will=20
decide on the changes to be incorporated into CLL 2.0 as well as what=20
will be a sufficient documentation of the lexicon.

> 10. Empower the BPFK to manage its own business, including the election
>     of committee members and officers, the order in which committee
>     business is considered, and the manner in which it is considered.

BPFK has this already, but with dictatorial power on such matters=20
vesting in the jatna. The Board/members have the power to replace the=20
jatna, (and possibly to modify what BPFK is intended to accomplish), but=20
realistically can only take what Robin passes to us, lacking anyone else=20
willing to undertake the commitment

> 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
>     could vote on whether to accept its recommendations in whole or in
>     part, or to refer them back to the committee with comments.

That is how as I understand things are now, with the provision that some=20
sort of document of the status quo language will be approved before new=20
proposals will be considered.

If that is not what Robin intends, I'll probably be unhappy, but doubt=20
that my arguments will result in any official objection to his policies.

-------------

Here is Nick's 2003 report


> Well. What to say about the BPFK.
>
> The proposal for a baupla fuzykamni, a body to bring to completion the  L=
ojban prescription and to fill in such gaps of definition of the  language =
as are necessary for a dictionary to be written, arose out of  discussions =
on the LLG board on how best to author such a dictionary,  and on how to de=
al with ongoing disputes and uncertainties as to the  language definition. =
The official announcement bringing it into being  was November: http://www.=
lojban.org/llg/baseline.html .
>
> I started work on the BPFK in February (after being distracted between  N=
ovember and January by a major discussion on jboske about Lojban  gadri, wh=
ich highlighted what the participants at least now believe to  be a major w=
eakness in the language.) In February, while I was in the  States, I finali=
sed with Robin Powell arrangements for the  infrastructure of the BPFK, nam=
ely the Twiki  (http://www.lojban.org/twiki/bin/view/BPFK/WebHome) and the =
phpbb  discussion board (http://www.lojban.org/phpbb). I envisioned the php=
bb  as being the repository of formal discussion, and the Twiki as being  t=
he repository of record, and the venue for votes, with more openended  disc=
ussion being diverted to jboske or the main wiki.
>
> The other task that took me a while to complete (March) was a formal  sta=
tement of guidelines as to how the BPFK should operate:  http://www.lojban.=
org/twiki/bin/view/BPFK/GuidelinesForUsing . My  concern throughout has bee=
n to place institutional safeguards in place  to ensure the success of the =
BPFK mission as I see it: to allow  efficient yet comprehensive review of e=
xisting identified problems in  Lojban, with fair representation of all vie=
ws, no compulsion of  inordinate attention on the part of commissioners (a =
frequent problem  with freer discussion, as amply demonstrated on jboske), =
and respect  for the proclaimed backwards-compatibility and fulfilment of d=
esign  criteria the BPFK has undertaken.
>
> The BPFK started working through phpbb mid-April. As part of the  divisio=
n of labour, I have divided Lojban cmavo up into around 70  paradigms. Six =
paradigms have had commissioners volunteer as shepherds  --- people who wil=
l coordinate discussion, keep records of findings,  undertake authoring the=
 summary of existing views and prescription, and  make new proposals they s=
ee fit. In my opinion substantive matters for  consideration have been rais=
ed for all six paradigms; two have  essentially already seen descriptive re=
cords (including of past  prescription and the status quo of usage). No for=
mal votes have been  posted on the twiki yet; see LeChevalier criticism bel=
ow.
>
> It was decided by the board that an ancillary to the BPFK, the vlatapla  =
fuzykamni  (VTPFK) be convened to resolve issues of Lojban morphology;  thi=
s step was taken because morphology was not explicitly mentioned in  the bo=
ard statement. Nora Tansky LeChevalier is to chair the commission  once she=
 is released from her administrative duties. Pierre Abbat and  Lionel Vidal=
 have been continuing research into morphological issues.
>
> There have been a number of criticisms of the setup and the functioning  =
of the BPFK; some I accept, some I don't, though this is not the venue  for=
 me to make detailed comment on them. The issues worth bringing to  the mem=
bership's attention are:
>
> 1. The guidelines are needlessly complex, and the split between twiki  an=
d phpbb is unnecessary but for the technical requirements of voting.  (Powe=
ll). There are some grounds to this, and the role of the twiki  seems to be=
 limited to the (future) formal votes. Commissioners have  appealed to the =
guidelines to police discussion; since the guidelines  were intended to ste=
er the BPFK in a specific direction following the  board's statement, I reg=
ard that as positive.
>
> 2. Polls of a reformist bent on phpbb, even if of an informal nature,  ar=
e counterproductive (Kominek vs. Rosta). My ruling (for now, anyway)  is th=
at polls on phpbb, being informal and with no binding consequence,  are har=
mless. My big picture view, which may well be at variance from  others and =
need to be curbed, is that my conservatism has nothing to  fear from a vote=
, particularly given the current strenuous requirement  of consensus-1.
>
> That said, consensus-1 is a lot easier said than done:
>
> 3. The consensus-1 requirement makes it impossible for any change to  hap=
pen, of whatever nature, and does not only exclude frivolous change  (Danie=
l).
>
> Conversely,
>
> 4. The BPFK has no business discussing any change until it first  complet=
es the task of documenting the entirety of the language; indeed,  change as=
 opposed to interpretation of the baseline is not the BPFK's  task. Time mu=
st be spent to allow consensus to develop and trust to be  established. As =
a result, votes should not be administered by  shepherds, but only by the B=
PFKJ (baupla fuzykamni jatna -- me), and a  time of my choosing --- much la=
ter than now. The shepherds should be  preparing full diffs to CLL and othe=
r baseline documents, and a fully  explicit formal proposal. Until the BPFK=
 shows it does real work, it is  becoming unproductive, and biassed towards=
 railroading through changes.  The current BPFK does not show indications t=
hat it is willing to reach  consensus, and the BPFK needs to be more proact=
ive in this regard. (R.  LeChevalier).
>
> These objections have arisen in the past week, and LeChevalier has not  y=
et presented his criticisms on a public forum (although there was a  sneak =
preview on jboske); they may significantly affect how the BPFK  runs. (Then=
 again, they may not.) So I'm afraid this report comes too  early for a res=
olution to be reported.
>
> The arguments between reformists and conservatives, both on and off the  =
BPFK forum, have at times been as acrimonious as one would expect, and  it =
is clear to me that much of my time will be spent, so to speak,  channellin=
g commissioners' energies into more productive outlets; I've  been doing so=
 already. I believe that I still have the confidence of  commissioners that=
 I will run the BPFK fairly and in the best interests  of Lojban, as unders=
tood by the current disposition (see guidelines,  board statement, etc.; be=
st summarised, probably, as conservative  formalist).
>
> And I wish to emphasise that, although this disposition is biassed  again=
st reformists, the shepherds I think it is fair to characterise as  reformi=
st (Llambias and Daniel) have done a commendable job of  documenting existi=
ng usage and highlighting issues for consideration in  their paradigms. The=
 shepherds have scrupulously been playing by the  rules, and they have my f=
ull confidence; so does the composition of the  commission and the guidelin=
es, which I believe adequate to the task of  keeping the BPFK on the track =
the board and membership have set for it.
>
> Yes I'm being stuffy and high-falutin'. That's a reaction to the  difficu=
lties of the position. This is a hard job to carry through, and  my metapho=
r of herding cats was not spoken idly. The next couple of  weeks in particu=
lar will be rough, because I will be asking  commissioners to consider whet=
her the BPFK is going the right way, and  how its operation might need to c=
hange.
>
> .i ku'i le gugdrpolska punaijecanai ca'o te jinga
>
> -------------------- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D----------------------
> Dr Nick Nicholas. Unimelb, Aus.  nickn@unimelb.edu.au;    www.opoudjis.ne=
t
> "Electronic editors have to live in hope: hope that the long-awaited
> standards for encoding texts for the computer will arrive; hope that  the=
y
> will be workable; hope that software will appear to handle these texts;
> hope that all the scholars of the world will have computers which can
> drive the software (which does not yet exist) to handle the texts (which
> have not yet been made) encoded in standard computer markup (which has  n=
ot
> yet been devised). To hope for all this requires a considerable belief  i=
n
> the inevitability of progress and in the essential goodness of mankind."
>                                                     (Peter M.W.  Robinson=
)
>

And here is Nick's resignation, as submitted to the Board on 20 Oct=20
2003.  It was officially accepted on the 27th, with Robin appointed to=20
replace him.
> Dear Board,
>
> as you'll have noticed, my Lojban time has been squeezed out in recent mo=
nths, which means I am not currently able to perform my duties as BPFK chai=
r. Compounded with this is of course the persistent sense of BPFK rudderles=
sness, that the duties expected of shepherds are too onerous, and that ther=
e is no clear sense of incremental direction for what the BPFK does. I have=
 conferred with Robin on this, and we are in agreement that I should step d=
own and Robin take over in the role of BPFK chair, which is to be regarded =
primarily as an administrative/gettings-things-done -- something Robin has =
demonstrably excelled at --- rather than linguistic/decision-making role.
>
> I have discussed with Robin his ideas for getting the BPFK moving, includ=
ing a notion of checkpoints, so that people can sense that concrete deliver=
ables are emerging, and of a tiki-based, more flexible and open voting sche=
me, which allows votes to be revisited and not to be regarded as finally bi=
nding without general consent --- but binding enough that something is seen=
 to be done. These have my approval, and are in the spirit of what I either=
 wrote or should have written.
>
> So. Discussion.
>
> [ Nick Nicholas.  French & Italian, Rm 637 Arts Centre, Univ. of Melbourn=
e ]
> [ nickn@unimelb.edu.au            x44917           http://www.opoudjis.ne=
t ]
> [ "There is no theory of language structure so ill-founded that it cannot=
  ]
> [ be the basis for some successful Machine Translation." --- Yorick Wilks=
  ]

Neither the Board nor the membership, so far as I know, have questioned=20
any of Robin's positions as jatna.

I've argued with him at times on Lojban List, mostly because I didn't=20
understand his position clearly. But he has always satisfied me,=20
sufficiently that neither I nor others has felt the need to have the=20
membership or the Board amend any policy/.

lojbab


--=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.