Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAP=UV6pp085S=Ym9O+TVfcUV6X3PtmgeWmtkrVNCwQUpVYs-eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP=UV6qF1goGJ_9HwakUWZKSqdfhxGuRQ1jniaXUa1b920x--g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP=UV6pp085S=Ym9O+TVfcUV6X3PtmgeWmtkrVNCwQUpVYs-eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:02:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP=UV6og5OnEpZG_DG0=TJtykqrNascSPuboMm-z9oGhQ69SgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] The ZG is broken.
From: Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@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=047d7b5d4b46239e650501681157
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7b5d4b46239e650501681157
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Recent discussions of the LLG and its responsiveness or lack thereof to the
community, and attendant questions about its role in language policy and in
overseeing the work of the BPFK (at a deliberately removed distance; as
Laozi might say, the language is like a fried fish which can be spoiled by
too much poking), have prompted me to look again at the most recent
concrete action the LLG has taken with respect to defining the baseline:
the creation, in November of 2007, of "interim baseline" or "zasni
gafyfantynanri" (ZG) status for those parts of the language the BPFK
considers to have been documented and debugged to a hopefully-final form.

That policy is broken.

I was one of the conservatives somewhat hesitant to adopt such a policy at
the time, which is precisely why I drafted the version of it we adopted.
Statements by Robin and And managed to convince me that some kind of action
on the xorlo issue was needed, and I wrote us a narrow way to implement it
as a sop to the desires of those like me who were hesitant to let the
membership vote on a new baseline piecemeal, favoring the model intended
from the establishment of the BPFK. Other members who viewed the issue as I
did were won over, and the policy was adopted and then immediately applied
to embrace xorlo; that it hasn't been used since is more or less
deliberate, since it is by design only applicable to cases where the need
for action is relatively clear. In hindsight, though, I see two large
problems with this policy as adopted:

1. The LLG's policy for the procedures by which the BPFK operates were,
deliberately, specified as allowing the jatna to run things in whatever way
best served the BPFK's mission. The policy defining interim baseline
status, however, depends on the specific tiki-mediated straw polls that
were a major part of how BPFK work was done in those days. Having suffered
a particularly severe case of the burnout that afflicts most people who
attempt BPFK work, I don't know how that work is organized now, but I
understand it to be different and far less formal. If those involved felt
any aspect of the baselined language needed revision, the jatna would have
to roll back a lot of how he structures the BPFK (including by restoring an
officially countable roster of members) in order to even conduct the straw
poll. Practically speaking, therefore, we have no policy which currently
permits such revisions even in extreme cases.

2. The original idea of the ZG was to allow the BPFK to finish its then
delayed mission of completing an entire new baseline which could be adopted
wholesale, while still enabling some measure of official recognition for
pieces that were seen as especially urgent to give us a more fully
functional language while we waited. Expecting the original design of how
the BPFK would complete its task to succeed in relatively short order was
optimistic then; today it would border on the delusional. The level of
restriction placed on "early" changes, therefore, is no longer sensible
even if the procedures referred to were still applicable.

I intend to propose a revision to this policy at the next annual meeting. I
welcome the input of everybody who feels they have a stake in the shape of
the baseline (whether you are or have been an LLG member, BPFK member,
both, or neither) to provide input into what form the revisions should
take, as I readily admit to having no particular answer of my own at this
time.

- mi'e .kreig.daniyl.

-- 
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.

--047d7b5d4b46239e650501681157
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">Recent discussions of the LLG and its responsiveness or lack=
 thereof to the community, and attendant questions about its role in langua=
ge policy and in overseeing the work of the BPFK (at a deliberately removed=
 distance; as Laozi might say, the language is like a fried fish which can =
be spoiled by too much poking), have prompted me to look again at the most =
recent concrete action the LLG has taken with respect to defining the basel=
ine: the creation, in November of 2007, of &quot;interim baseline&quot; or =
&quot;zasni gafyfantynanri&quot; (ZG) status for those parts of the languag=
e the BPFK considers to have been documented and debugged to a hopefully-fi=
nal form.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">That policy is broken.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I was one of the conservatives somewhat hesitant to adopt su=
ch a policy at the time, which is precisely why I drafted the version of it=
 we adopted. Statements by Robin and And managed to convince me that some k=
ind of action on the xorlo issue was needed, and I wrote us a narrow way to=
 implement it as a sop to the desires of those like me who were hesitant to=
 let the membership vote on a new baseline piecemeal, favoring the model in=
tended from the establishment of the BPFK. Other members who viewed the iss=
ue as I did were won over, and the policy was adopted and then immediately =
applied to embrace xorlo; that it hasn&#39;t been used since is more or les=
s deliberate, since it is by design only applicable to cases where the need=
 for action is relatively clear. In hindsight, though, I see two large prob=
lems with this policy as adopted:</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">1. The LLG&#39;s policy for the procedures by which the BPFK=
 operates were, deliberately, specified as allowing the jatna to run things=
 in whatever way best served the BPFK&#39;s mission. The policy defining in=
terim baseline status, however, depends on the specific tiki-mediated straw=
 polls that were a major part of how BPFK work was done in those days. Havi=
ng suffered a particularly severe case of the burnout that afflicts most pe=
ople who attempt BPFK work, I don&#39;t know how that work is organized now=
, but I understand it to be different and far less formal. If those involve=
d felt any aspect of the baselined language needed revision, the jatna woul=
d have to roll back a lot of how he structures the BPFK (including by resto=
ring an officially countable roster of members) in order to even conduct th=
e straw poll. Practically speaking, therefore, we have no policy which curr=
ently permits such revisions even in extreme cases.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">2. The original idea of the ZG was to allow the BPFK to fini=
sh its then delayed mission of completing an entire new baseline which coul=
d be adopted wholesale, while still enabling some measure of official recog=
nition for pieces that were seen as especially urgent to give us a more ful=
ly functional language while we waited. Expecting the original design of ho=
w the BPFK would complete its task to succeed in relatively short order was=
 optimistic then; today it would border on the delusional. The level of res=
triction placed on &quot;early&quot; changes, therefore, is no longer sensi=
ble even if the procedures referred to were still applicable.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">I intend to propose a revision to this policy at the next an=
nual meeting. I welcome the input of everybody who feels they have a stake =
in the shape of the baseline (whether you are or have been an LLG member, B=
PFK member, both, or neither) to provide input into what form the revisions=
 should take, as I readily admit to having no particular answer of my own a=
t this time.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr"> - mi&#39;e .kreig.daniyl.</p>

<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 />

--047d7b5d4b46239e650501681157--