Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.214;
Message-ID: <53F9FD82.6070306@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:58:10 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
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: <fef8c82f-c3b3-4f99-925b-9b940d0c5913@googlegroups.com>	<53F79061.5000706@lojban.org>	<53F7D98A.5020101@lojban.org>	<53F893AE.8030901@lojban.org> <iDg81o01256Cr6M01DgANX>
In-Reply-To: <iDg81o01256Cr6M01DgANX>
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
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 8/23/2014 9:39 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> 2014-08-23 17:14 GMT+04:00 Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org
> <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>>:
>
>     On 8/23/2014 12:33 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>
>              Probably.  I'm not sure that I could do it, and actually be
>         able to
>              communicate.
>
>         There are enough speakers in IRC who can at least produce Lojban
>         sentences if not in real time but at least with the help of a
>         dictionary.
>
>     But the suggestion specified meetings by email, not on IRC.
>
> Bob, I only mean that Lojban nowadays is not a project but a fully blown
> USABLE and USED language. There are fluent speakers.

But for the most part, they haven't been especially interested in 
organizational matters.  Robin is one who has.  He's wanted someone to 
take on the Secretary/Treasurer job from him for years.  Not the 
slightest interest.  Even the relatively Lojbanic job of keeping the 
Lojban home page current with news has fallen by the wayside.

> There are enough people who talk to each other in Lojban and understad
> each other.

I'm sure there are.  But I never see them; only hear about them.

For example, one would think that with all these fluent people, someone 
would have produced a in-Lojban blog and gotten a link to it on the home 
page.  Matt and a couple of others had blogs a couple years ago that 
were so-linked, but IIRC they were about Lojban rather than in the language.

If IRC Lojban is so good, as some have said, someone could be selecting 
a "best of IRC" and making it easy to find.

But I admit that I myself probably wouldn't be spending a lot of time 
trying to read them.  Reading and writing Lojban has always been hard 
work for me - worth doing but still hard.

> That's why allowing people who can produce correct sentences in Lojban
> should be forbidden.

I assume you meant "cannot".

LLG might just disappear if we made such a rule.

> Speaking Lojban only is not a problem for a lot of people.

Good for them.  I approve.  But I'm not one of them.

> Then why are we still talking about Lojban not in Lojban?

No one can stop us.  And for the most part, not that many want to do 
otherwise.

This whole thread has been posted in English.  Nothing stopping any 
poster from posting in Lojban.

> I suggest that you allow fluent speakers + those who can produce correct
> discourses in written form like in email lists.

I'm not stopping them.

> If a person can speak fluent Lojban why disallow him/her from BPFK and LLG?

Who is disallowing anyone?

> I remember you logged in only once during the last 6 months or so.

Probably.  I don't try very often.

>     Any conclusion about Lojban reached based on the voting membership,
>     many of whom date from when Lojban was NOT a working language, would
>     be bound to be erroneous.  Then bear in mind that the primary focus
>     of the membership is on organizational matters rather than Lojban
>     matters.
>
> Well, as for financial issues sure, LLG members might know nothing about
> Lojban.
> But in general this situation is silly. What are we here for if not to
> learn Lojban and produce texts in it?

Since you ask, I presume you have not read the bylaws:
> Section 1. Purpose. The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established
> to promote the scientific study of the relationships between
> language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of
> language and to determine the requirements for an
> artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and experiment
> with such a language; to devise and promote applications for this
> language in fields including but not limited to linguistics,
> psychology, philosophy, logic, mathematics, computer science,
> anthropology, sociology, education, and human biology; to conduct and
> support experimental and scholarly research in these fields as they
> may bear upon the problems of artificial language development; to
> communicate with and to educate interested persons and organizations
> about these activities; to devise and develop means and instruments
> needed for these activities; and to accumulate and publish the
> results of such studies and developments. In the furtherance of these
> purposes, and in addition to the above activities, The Logical
> Language Group, Inc. may award grants to individuals for
> experimentation, travel, publication, study and similar activities.

Over the years, LLG has chosen to limit its activities with regards to 
artificial languages to Lojban as opposed to alternatives.  But there is 
a lot more there than learning and using the language.

Not that I have a problem with others primarily interested in learning 
and using.  I was one of them for many years.  I could plausibly become 
one again, though I'd probably go in for translation.

I've found that part of my problem with talking Lojban, is that I have 
found not much that I am interested in talking about in Lojban.  I am 
totally disinterested in the online social networking activities that 
most people are into these days.  I read a couple of blogs, but have 
almost never posted a response or comment to one. (I was a lot more 
active on Usenet when it was still thriving, but I rarely post there 
anymore either).

But this is me; others may have different interests and priorities.

>     One might question the fact that almost all discussions of byfy
>     matters has been in English rather than in Lojban (even when
>     conducted by people who have demonstrated the ability to write
>     voluminously in Lojban).  But of course if they were in Lojban,
>     there would be zero chance that I would read them, for example.
>
> When Lojban was being developed people need to somehow explain that
> "This construct is translated into English as..., use it in these
> situations: ..."
>
> At that time English was a platform to build Lojban.

This doesn't seem to have changed.

> However, nowadays Lojban is mostly complete and there is no need in English.

Except for the fact that all of the postings are still in English.

>        I could do so, but it hasn't been my priority given the lack of
>     time I have been spending in recent years.  I could wish it were
>     otherwise, but it isn't.
>
> Well, of course. But do you wish other people continue the great work
> you've done in past? If so the number of written stuff in Lojban should
> increase over time.

I'm not stopping anyone.

> More and more people should become fluent speakers. Nobody forbids you
> to use English or any other languages of course.
> It just appears that English is used to the detriment of Lojban these days.

The best way to change that is to post in Lojban and get others who can 
do so to also do so.  If people are exposed to Lojban more, perhaps some 
will bother to spend time at it.  Right now, they have to go look for it.

>         However, is it culturally neutral to continue using non-Lojban
>         for that?
>
>     No, but the purpose of LLG meetings is to get LLG business done (and
>     do so as quickly as possible, since business matters aren't the
>     highest lojban-related priority for much of anyone in the community
>     except possibly me), not demonstrate cultural neutrality.
>
> What business? If selling books then of course (Lojbanistan is
> non-existent, neither The Bank of Lojban).

You can look at the minutes/summaries for many years and see what LLG 
business is.  If that isn't the sort of thing you are interested in, you 
may not want to be a member.  (Or maybe you can find some new business 
that LLG should be interested in, and try to win support.  Just don't 
assume that agreement will be automatic.)

> But the bylaws, LLG minutes were written in English which is completely
> crazy.

The bylaws were written before Lojban existed.  No one has bothered to 
translate them, so complaining is a waste of time.  Robin is probably 
capable of writing minutes in Lojban, but hasn't done so, and doesn't 
think it is very important.  If someone wants to take over his job and 
write minutes in Lojban, he might not object.


>     Lack of time is precisely the reason.  And for most of us, dealing
>     with Lojban text (either writing it or reading it) takes a lot more
>     time than dealing with English.
>
> Well, you are not going to rename this community into {ju'i glipli}, do
> you? ;)

I assume that you are referring to the periodical that I edited for 
several years until 1994.  A couple others took over responsibility, but 
never produced an issue in any language.  If you can produce an issue of 
JL either partially or totally in Lojban, LLG might publish it.  (Of 
course our snail mail subscription list is probably worthless at this 
point, but we could produce an online periodical.)

>     Indeed I just checked and the whole effort to do meetings in Lojban
>     appears to have been approved in 2002 but was removed and/or tabled
>     indefinitely in 2003.  The one remaining motion approved in 2002 and
>     never superseded, was that official stuff on the web be translated
>     into Lojban.  So far as I know, absolutely nothing was ever done on
>     this by the people advocating it.
>
> Why not start from the beginning? Now we do have people who can not only
> translate existing bylaws but to produce new ones from scratch?

Bylaws don't work that way.  (Well, someone could produce a totally new 
set of bylaws, and get them adopted, but that isn't commonly done unless 
the organization has failed.)

> I want the community to go forward. Shall we continue making no headway?

I've seen no evidence that anyone wants to do the work.

>     They can be, but they aren't.  And it has been noted that there are
>     active people nowadays who don't know how to add to jbovlaste even
>     though there are instructions.
>
> All of the active speakers I know of know how to add words to jbovlaste.
> So for them this is not a problem.

Good for them.  Yet the issue was raised in this thread, by someone I 
think you consider active.  And I myself don't know how to do much of 
anything online on the web other than search it and read it.  I still 
live in the 20th century Internet, still read and edit emails off-line.

>     (I don't claim to be active in this sense, and I also do not know
>     how because I haven't bothered to figure it out, never having wanted
>     to add a word.)
>
>     Remember, BTW, that jbovlaste is an official project, but its
>     contents are not automatically "official" merely by being added.
>     We'd need some sort of formally published dictionary, approved by
>     byfy and/or LLG (depending on the conditions specified in the 2002
>     statement).
>
> Great.  Why not start discussing the new dictionary (discussing in
> Lojban ofc.)?

No one is stopping you.

>         Your replies showed that the Bylaws can be superseded by other
>         bylaws
>         that weren't even published.
>
>     So far as I know, no Bylaws have been superseded, and there are no
>     unpublished bylaws.  So I have no idea what you are referring to.
>
> I'm referring to your words: "They are supposed to be, but that item of
> the bylaws has more or less been superseded with online meetings by the
> non-publication of minutes."

The Secretary considers that the archived mailing list is sufficient to 
constitute the minutes.  No one has objected.  If someone did, then the 
Secretary would be obliged to come up with something or resign, and no 
one wants Robin to resign, since there is no one else who wants the job.

The solution is to find someone who wants to produce real minutes. 
Robin has said that he is willing to submit them if someone else 
produces them.

>     None of them were originally written in Lojban, and as yet, none
>     have been translated, so your response doesn't answer your original
>     statement about said initially written ones.
>
>
> If published bylaws are all still valid and we can accet them as
> ultimate truth then we ofc. can translate them. But by "we" I suppose
> only members of LLG which I'm not.

Anyone can translate them.  No one is stopping you.  To get such a 
translation approved so as to supersede the English version would likely 
be a bit harder, since it would have to be approved as an amendment to 
the existing Bylaws

>     LLG pretty much takes anyone who wants to join and is committed to
>     the goals and responsibilities of membership (which are primarily
>     organizational - see the Bylaws).
>
>
> ^ I will reply later to this.

OK

>        BPFK takes people under whatever conditions the jatna sets.
>
> Robin  said anyone could name themselves a member of BPFK.

Then those are the conditions %^)

lojbab

-- 
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.