Received: from mail-qg0-f63.google.com ([209.85.192.63]:45290) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XJrL6-0005Iv-E6 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:53:14 -0700 Received: by mail-qg0-f63.google.com with SMTP id a108sf991538qge.28 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:53:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references: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=cBc/6b4mQnDM2hulxSF6fBPiFvX0eG6eaJYxQTYTlp4=; b=UTBoLBGy5frn7YiQtda6POay71Q92okqISzRJgjPZmA+4SvmHeFITdsORLqHQVP7u5 PHmr0oaeWWTuL2ZQGyiZg6OxEmGeSsxr0ejZrP9wA4Yegq+J618Q5nwuIZ9LEP1jO6iF KzE1bn6qvaNgSKGTlgiereAmbYQDGDEsLZzRZJL5ijtyAJWyhD53dnO5kTD+DAgip/cQ W7WoZCpXRmyzVJ1qxDicbIiAC9t+cGZWjvYwpkZfxfvkBPvuJcNUsK9DBBSqa6lhrN7y sg9NZHzacpO5UdqLMF5SoVEZhpJB8CKdsC4AMdzbVFsUJdP2oXu/bzcXlhY0wsATkf/Y wKjg== X-Received: by 10.50.114.170 with SMTP id jh10mr200404igb.6.1408485186001; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:53:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.79.226 with SMTP id m2ls127592igx.17.gmail; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:53:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.66.170 with SMTP id g10mr21554249pat.12.1408485185616; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.74.199 with SMTP id v7msqaj; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.18.161 with SMTP id 30mr41789qgf.31.1408484563658; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:42:42 -0700 (PDT) From: matthew@igregoire.com To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [lojban] Re: Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: matthew@igregoire.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_2560_1700010676.1408484562888" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_2560_1700010676.1408484562888 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm fairly new to the Lojban community, and one of the main things I=20 struggle with is how complicated and diasporic the community is. The LLG=20 and BPFK and what each does is confusing enough, let alone digging up a=20 list of all the updates to Lojban since the CLL. It seems as if nothing is= =20 unified, and to truly understand Lojban I would have to read through=20 decades of mailing list archives. I think this is definitely something=20 worth solving, and a new CLL and full dictionary would be immensely helpful= . On Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC-4, mukti wrote: > > 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 member= s=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 promo= te=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 a= nd=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=20 > used 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= =20 > 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=20 > 2010 . Since that= =20 > time, the date of the annual meeting has only been announced on the=20 > members-only "llg-members" mailing list. (During this period, there was= =20 > actually an announcement on the "lojban" list that the 2012 annual=20 > meeting would soon be announced=20 > . But th= e=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 bee= n=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 bee= n=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 and sec= ond=20 > meeting ),=20 > but for no other meetings. While a public record of proceedings may not b= e=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 > brough= t=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, a= nd=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=20 > LLG, 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 meetin= g=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 reporti= ng=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 decommission= ed=20 > since that time. > > There are success stories, particularly among software-related efforts.= =20 > The "Lojban parser" project yielded camxes=20 > ,=20 > which is now implemented in multiple programming languages. The "jbovlast= e=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= =20 > its target. > > But the decline of LLG's official productions owes less to the 2002 polic= y=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" wa= s=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. I= t=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 Ni= ck=20 > soon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the=20 > interpretation of the committee's order of business and the requirement f= or=20 > consensus-minus-one on all decisions. The Board appointed Robin Lee=20 > Powell as chair=20 > .=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), "cu= rrently=20 > stuck "=20 > (2006), "lack of progress=20 > " (2007), "[n= othing]=20 > of significance to report=20 > " (2009), "ch= air=20 > =E2=80=A6 not receiving any help=20 > " (2012), "nothing= =20 > to report " (2013). > > By way of comparison, the annual meeting minutes for both 2000=20 > and 2001=20 > -- before=20 > the introduction of the "Baseline Statement" -- had posted a similar=20 > report: "Production of dictionary: not advanced". The policy changed, but= =20 > the results remained constant. > > In his seventh year as chair of BPFK, Robin wrote an essay, "Lojban:=20 > You're 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 i= n=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=20 > essay in its entirety.=20 > " But=20 > Matt resigned in the midst of the debate that followed, and the proposals= =20 > were 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 propos= al=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 voluntee= rs=20 > to pick up where he left off: To formally eliminate the obstacles that ar= e=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 the= se=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= =20 > for confidential members-only communication, create a separate list fo= r=20 > that 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 proceeding= s 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 b= e=20 > submitted by members and non-members in the weeks following the=20 > announcement of the annual meeting, and then voted upon by the members= hip=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 = such=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=20 > meeting, including the lexicon documents as of October 31, 1997. These= =20 > documents, however imperfect, represent a palpable achievement that sh= ould=20 > be celebrated and built upon.=20 > 8. Acknowledge that the lojban community has superfluously observed=20 > the requirement for a five-year design freeze on the 1997 baseline. Th= e=20 > CLL, and gismu, cmavo and rafsi lists have now served for nearly twent= y=20 > years as the practical baseline of the language, whether or not they w= ere=20 > administratively entitled to that designation.=20 > 9. Start a conversation about the baseline-and-freeze approach. To=20 > what extent has stability or the perception of stability of the baseli= ne=20 > affected the popularity or learnability of lojban? Have the benefits o= f=20 > that approach outweighed the drawbacks? Is five years too long, or not= long=20 > enough? Is an absolute freeze necessary, or might a less rigid approac= h=20 > work as well or better?=20 > 10. Empower the BPFK to manage its own business, including the=20 > election of committee members and officers, the order in which committ= ee=20 > business is considered, and the manner in which it is considered. =20 > 11. Either invest unqualified design authority in the BPFK, or=20 > delegate 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 co= uld=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_2560_1700010676.1408484562888 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm fairly new to the Lojban community, and one of the mai= n things I struggle with is how complicated and diasporic the community is.= The LLG and BPFK and what each does is confusing enough, let alone digging= up a list of all the updates to Lojban since the CLL. It seems as if nothi= ng is unified, and to truly understand Lojban I would have to read through = decades of mailing list archives. I think this is definitely something wort= h solving, and a new CLL and full dictionary would be immensely helpful.
On Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC-4, mukti wrote:

At the 2013 annual meeting, lo= jbab called attention to a distance that has grown up between LLG as an org= anization and the lojban-using community. He noted, for example, that no ne= w members have been added for several years. He asked members to consider, = for discussion at the 2014 annual meeting, what steps might be taken to pro= mote the future of the organization.

In the course of studying lojban and reading up on its history, I've com= e 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 fe= w 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 t= oday

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-members= .

Non-members haven't been advised of the dates of annual meetings since <= a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Archived+News#9AUGUST2010" target=3D"_= blank" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'http://www.google.com/url?q\75http%3A%2F= %2Fwww.lojban.org%2Ftiki%2FArchived%2BNews%239AUGUST2010\46sa\75D\46sntz\07= 51\46usg\75AFQjCNEnrd4xYqhzhfraw2P2JUPRvOpu-Q';return true;" onclick=3D"thi= s.href=3D'http://www.google.com/url?q\75http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lojban.org%2Ftiki%= 2FArchived%2BNews%239AUGUST2010\46sa\75D\46sntz\0751\46usg\75AFQjCNEnrd4xYq= hzhfraw2P2JUPRvOpu-Q';return true;">2010. 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<= /a>. But the announcement of the meeting= itself, 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 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.

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 the 2009 meeting.

Sometime prior to 2010, a decision was taken to recognize the email list archives as satisfying the legal req= uirement for minutes. As a result, members could consult the archives for u= nsummarized meetings and reports which may not have been included in minute= s. But at some point the archives were truncated such that they only go bac= k 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 m= eetings, and documents such as the first BPFK report, as provided to t= he 2003 annual meeting, have fallen into obscurity. 

According to the bylaws, the = minutes of Board meetings are also are to be kept in "appropriate books". M= inutes were published for Board meetings in 2001 and 2002 (first and second meeting= ), but for no other meetings. While a public record of proceedings may not = be strictly required, I'd like to submit that the general membership as wel= l 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 tra= nsparency.

As an example of how the lack of visibility of Board proceedings has aff= ected activities outside of the Board, a 2003 rumor of pending 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 member= s of the committee were able to read the discussion on the "llg-board" mail= ing list, while others could not, and Board members refrained for several m= onths from making a public statement of their objections and intentions.

Now I'd like to turn from discussing the records and communications of L= LG, to a review of its official activities and productions.

Many of LLG's enduring accomplishments were achieved long before a polic= y defining "official projects" was adopted at the 2002 annual meeting. But the re= cord of completed official projects since that time is short indeed. Of the= forty-something projects officially adopted at the 2003 annual meeting, few are re= cognizable as either continuing efforts or as having reached some kind of c= onclusion. Only a fraction seem to have ever met their quarterly reporting = requirements, and none appear to have issued any reports since 2006. It's n= ot clear whether any new projects have been commissioned or decommissioned = since that time.

There are success stories, particularly among software-related efforts. = The "Lojban parser" project yielded camxes, which is now implement= ed in multiple programming languages. The "jbov= laste" project sealed the recognition of that institution. And the "lojban.org maintenance group" and "lojban wiki" projects continue to provide Intern= et 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" is a standout as an official project that hit its targe= t.

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

Unfortunately, this triumph was soon undone. The fine print made a subtl= e but enormously consequential distinction between the "design" of the lang= uage and what was called the "definition". The design was said to be comple= te, but without a "baseline description document" for the lexicon -- the gi= smu, cmavo and lujvo lists were disqualified as "preliminary forms" of the = dictionary -- recognition of the baseline "language definition" was suspend= ed for six months. At the 1997 annual meeting, the suspension was extended for an a= dditional four months, "or a date deemed reasonable by the Board of Directo= rs". No announcement was made following the October 31, 1997 deadline. If t= he 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 def= inition or description. The terms of the "design freeze", whereby the incom= pletely described design could not be amended, compounded this difficulty. = Finding the community "unwilling or unable to work on completing the docume= ntation of a baseline lexicon under freeze conditions", the Board drafted t= he "Official Baseline Statement"= of 2002 and submitted it to the community for an up-or-down vote.

The 2002 "Baseline Statement", once approved, rolled back the 1997 decla= rations of the baseline and the completion of the language design. It forme= d the BPFK under Nick Nicholas, providing it with a limited mandate to comp= lete 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 su= bmitted to membership for ratification. The deadline was missed, and Nick s= oon resigned as chair in the midst of disagreements over the interpretation= of the committee's order of business and the requirement for consensus-min= us-one on all decisions. The Board appointed Robin Lee Powell as chair<= /a>. 

Despite initial progress in 2003-2004, reports of the BPFK over the foll= owing years were consistently grim: "near total lack of activity" (2005), "currently stuck= " (2006), "l= ack of progress" (2007), "[nothing] of significance to report" (2009), "chair =E2=80=A6 not receiving any help" = (2012), "nothing to report" (2013= ).

By way of comparison, the annual meeting minutes for both 2000 and 2001 -- before the in= troduction of the "Baseline Statement" -- had posted a similar report: "Pro= duction of dictionary: not advanced". The policy changed, but the results r= emained constant.

In his seventh year as chair of BPFK, Robin wrote an essay, "Lojban: You're Doing It= Wrong," (2010) in which he opined that the 2002 baseline policy had do= ne "incalculable damage" to lojban. The constraints of scope and process pl= aced upon the BPFK made it unlikely to ever finish the job it was commissio= ned to do. He proposed divesting LLG of its authority to define the languag= e, and investing that authority wholly in BPFK. [ Note: The essay may no= t 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. ]

The essay and its proposals were met with wide approval. Matt Arnold, wh= o was serving at the time as president of LLG, wrote "I agree wit= h your essay in its entirety." 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 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.

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'd like to ask if there are volunteers to = pick up where he left off: To formally eliminate the obstacles that are hol= ding back LLG from effectively executing on its mission to promote and pres= erve lojban. To amend or replace policies which have long failed to live up= to expectations. To reconnect LLG with the vibrant community that continue= s to build around this extraordinary language, lojban, and to set the insti= tution on a new trajectory: One that will take us together into the future.=

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.

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 gener= al interest forums, including the web site and the "lojban" and "lojban-ann= ouncement" mailing lists.
  2. Open the "llg-members" archives to the public. If there is a need for c= onfidential members-only communication, create a separate list for that rat= her than defaulting to that level of privacy.
  3. If possible, restore the pre-2011 "llg-members" archive, which presumab= ly includes important proceedings not recorded elsewhere such as the 2008 a= nd 2010 annual meetings.
  4. Consider also opening the "llg-board" archives. If that is not practica= l, adopt the practice of reporting minutes of Board proceedings to the gene= ral membership.
  5. 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.
  6. Either enforce the "official project" policy, amend it so that it bette= r 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, 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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. 
  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 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.

--
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_2560_1700010676.1408484562888--