Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org>
References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com>
	<540B374A.9040409@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 20:38:54 +0400
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+gQQtt4qtnrj6LUWpj5rv5Qpkoy3GaKsg+CewG3-Mw+OA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
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=f46d041555fcb2a65a05026838a2
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--f46d041555fcb2a65a05026838a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2014-09-06 20:33 GMT+04:00 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG <
lojbab@lojban.org>:

> On 9/5/2014 9:48 PM, And Rosta wrote:
>
>> Am I mistaken, or has nothing come of this proposal?
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>  Or is something coming of it, but after only four months not yet visibly?
>>
>
> I would not be surprised if the topic came up in the annual meeting, which
> I will be calling in the near future.  But what was posted is both more and
> less than would be needed to seriously discuss such a proposal.
>
> My suggestion would be, if the proponents of this proposal are still
> interested, that they draft a revised policy statement to replace the 2002
> baseline statement.
>
>  It would be interesting & welcome to see documented in one place a
>> vision (e.g. a consensus of Selpa'i and his interlocutors) of what
>> Lojban would potentially look like were the BPFK's work finished.
>>
>
> It is not clear to what extent selpa'i and his allies even accept the
> charter of BPFK.  If they did, then Robin could accomplish much merely by
> informally delegating considerable authority to selpa'i, while retaining
> final authority on matters of policy.
>
> Following is my current thinking on the matter.
>
>  some extremely active and hard-working jbopre have,
>>> over the
>>> years, contributed many efforts to the language such as translations,
>>> music but
>>> also proposals of enhancements or refinements of various aspects of
>>> the language
>>> including its grammar, cmavo and general lexicon. However without an
>>> active
>>> leadership many of these modifications remain in conversational limbo
>>> where they
>>> are discussed for years in vain since there is no explicit mechanism for
>>> integration into the language or lexicon. New speakers get confused at
>>> the
>>> apparent lack of consensus.
>>>
>>
> The above is probably the main factor under dispute - whether a bunch of
> unspecified "enhancements or refinements" are integrated into the language,
> more or less imposed by fiat, before the original byfy effort has been
> completed (and with some doubt as to whether it would be completed or not).
>
> This in turn hinges on the question of whether Lojban is considered
> essentially DONE as an engineering effort, or whether the intent is to
> continue changing the language prescription indefinitely.  We started
> Lojban in part as a rejection of JCB's plan to open-endedly continue
> language engineering, because every time a change is made, some number of
> people give up and turn away from learning and using the language.


Not only turning away from the language. Some don't even want to use xorlo
because they bought CLL, paid their own money for it. CLL says that it
contains almost ultimate specification of the language. And they are not
going to throw this book away. Or they will throw it away together with the
language.

The language of the poster suggested an intent to continually evolve the
> language prescription (i.e impose evolutionary change by fiat into the
> indefinite future), rather than switching the effort to a descriptive one
> reflecting and somewhat lagging actual usage changes.
>
> This of course is more or less the same "conservatives vs modifiers"
> debate that caused the original byfy effort to start to break down about
> the time xorlo was being discussed.
>
> I should note, by contrast, if the issue were the formal approval of a
> specific set of modifications that are already agreed upon and in use by
> actual users of the language, and documented to the same level as the
> status quo language (ideally as a set of changes to CLL, while completing
> the existing baseline documentation), then I would expect some sort of
> consensus to be possible, probably along the same lines under which xorlo
> was made official (see Craig Daniel's post of 26 Aug, which I think
> pertains to this approach).
>
> Otherwise, any substantial change would indeed be schismatic, in part
> because a lot of people like myself have absolutely no idea what changes
> they are talking about, and no real way to find out; a lot of people
> presume that the language is that which is described in CLL.
>
> (The need for a new edition of CLL in about a year, when we expect to run
> out of the existing edition, is also a factor in all this.  If changes are
> adopted and no new CLL edition is produced pretty much right away, then
> schism is inherent.  Similarly, if a new CLL is produced, and yet
> additional changes continue to be made, schism still results.  Only by
> having the language thoroughly and accurately described by CLL can we keep
> everyone "on the same page".)
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

--f46d041555fcb2a65a05026838a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">2014-09-06 20:33 GMT+04:00 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder -=
 LLG <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojbab@lojban.org" target=3D"_=
blank">lojbab@lojban.org</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<span class=3D"">On 9/5/2014 9:48 PM, And Rosta wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Am I mistaken, or has nothing come of this proposal?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Correct.<span class=3D""><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Or is something coming of it, but after only four months not yet visibly?<b=
r>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I would not be surprised if the topic came up in the annual meeting, which =
I will be calling in the near future.=C2=A0 But what was posted is both mor=
e and less than would be needed to seriously discuss such a proposal.<br>
<br>
My suggestion would be, if the proponents of this proposal are still intere=
sted, that they draft a revised policy statement to replace the 2002 baseli=
ne statement.<span class=3D""><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It would be interesting &amp; welcome to see documented in one place a<br>
vision (e.g. a consensus of Selpa&#39;i and his interlocutors) of what<br>
Lojban would potentially look like were the BPFK&#39;s work finished.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
It is not clear to what extent selpa&#39;i and his allies even accept the c=
harter of BPFK.=C2=A0 If they did, then Robin could accomplish much merely =
by informally delegating considerable authority to selpa&#39;i, while retai=
ning final authority on matters of policy.<br>
<br>
Following is my current thinking on the matter.<span class=3D""><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
some extremely active and hard-working jbopre have,<br>
over the<br>
years, contributed many efforts to the language such as translations,<br>
music but<br>
also proposals of enhancements or refinements of various aspects of<br>
the language<br>
including its grammar, cmavo and general lexicon. However without an<br>
active<br>
leadership many of these modifications remain in conversational limbo<br>
where they<br>
are discussed for years in vain since there is no explicit mechanism for<br=
>
integration into the language or lexicon. New speakers get confused at<br>
the<br>
apparent lack of consensus.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br></span>
The above is probably the main factor under dispute - whether a bunch of un=
specified &quot;enhancements or refinements&quot; are integrated into the l=
anguage, more or less imposed by fiat, before the original byfy effort has =
been completed (and with some doubt as to whether it would be completed or =
not).<br>
<br>
This in turn hinges on the question of whether Lojban is considered essenti=
ally DONE as an engineering effort, or whether the intent is to continue ch=
anging the language prescription indefinitely.=C2=A0 We started Lojban in p=
art as a rejection of JCB&#39;s plan to open-endedly continue language engi=
neering, because every time a change is made, some number of people give up=
 and turn away from learning and using the language.</blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>Not only turning away from the language. Some don&#39;t even want=
 to use xorlo because they bought CLL, paid their own money for it. CLL say=
s that it contains almost ultimate specification of the language. And they =
are not going to throw this book away. Or they will throw it away together =
with the language.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> The =
language of the poster suggested an intent to continually evolve the langua=
ge prescription (i.e impose evolutionary change by fiat into the indefinite=
 future), rather than switching the effort to a descriptive one reflecting =
and somewhat lagging actual usage changes.<br>
<br>
This of course is more or less the same &quot;conservatives vs modifiers&qu=
ot; debate that caused the original byfy effort to start to break down abou=
t the time xorlo was being discussed.<br>
<br>
I should note, by contrast, if the issue were the formal approval of a spec=
ific set of modifications that are already agreed upon and in use by actual=
 users of the language, and documented to the same level as the status quo =
language (ideally as a set of changes to CLL, while completing the existing=
 baseline documentation), then I would expect some sort of consensus to be =
possible, probably along the same lines under which xorlo was made official=
 (see Craig Daniel&#39;s post of 26 Aug, which I think pertains to this app=
roach).<br>
<br>
Otherwise, any substantial change would indeed be schismatic, in part becau=
se a lot of people like myself have absolutely no idea what changes they ar=
e talking about, and no real way to find out; a lot of people presume that =
the language is that which is described in CLL.<br>
<br>
(The need for a new edition of CLL in about a year, when we expect to run o=
ut of the existing edition, is also a factor in all this.=C2=A0 If changes =
are adopted and no new CLL edition is produced pretty much right away, then=
 schism is inherent.=C2=A0 Similarly, if a new CLL is produced, and yet add=
itional changes continue to be made, schism still results.=C2=A0 Only by ha=
ving the language thoroughly and accurately described by CLL can we keep ev=
eryone &quot;on the same page&quot;.)<br>
<br>
lojbab<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <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%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"=
_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@<u></u>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/<u></u>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/<u></u>optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></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 />

--f46d041555fcb2a65a05026838a2--