Received: from mail-we0-f188.google.com ([74.125.82.188]:65111) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XQLE8-0005Vt-BJ for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:51 -0700 Received: by mail-we0-f188.google.com with SMTP id t60sf1255928wes.5 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=DctWr+dZkNWedallhzYgzs50w5i7Ytacx6WginkwT0o=; b=Ob2oSw1FcvZxPevSqB50ySsC0xefCKuhrZEGkyVNKuaReb5nzCbi58jIf+6a+5ENmL 8Nx2C0GvMBQfcMJP9WiW8XU8EFpbO00kffVZpzw0A6vLZrAyo7eWg7aGnttdkHsDrXIS nOJ4P9Nm5KdGqbcM7Ujgy73qtB4cmknObQkhBdZT0/hj+ZVkf1QzvBqOUvmyjsjPZYz2 LK7pYXKFXcFGXDXJngtQHPoO6w7ZepldmOhQ6PlEouGtkiDcSULlwCfEkfQo0+o5Cnyy aXewz9wGCcgsz/O2gXI7G1SRkU9sUr+OLZzIW1pLllCQUAbLlX7QZ41ESlkRp0+rR8j+ uKJw== X-Received: by 10.152.20.195 with SMTP id p3mr259185lae.1.1410030041296; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.44.165 with SMTP id f5ls229111lam.33.gmail; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.184.197 with SMTP id ew5mr1748247lbc.0.1410030039939; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b6si484870lbd.1.2014.09.06.12.00.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dlacewell@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e; Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id pv20so15645638lab.33 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.23.42 with SMTP id j10mr3589722laf.82.1410030039818; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.168.75 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 12:00:39 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership From: Dustin Lacewell To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: DLacewell@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dlacewell@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dlacewell@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.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=089e0158c944a5667305026a3337 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e0158c944a5667305026a3337 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And, I lost faith in the endeavor. Here we are four months later still talking about schism and the CLL and lojbab still grand-standing his ultimate wisdom even though nothing has been done in the intern on his or anyone else's part. Tragically, most everyone who supported the original proposal here, to move the maintenance of the language to a more software-development format have all crumbled under the rhetoric of councils, bylaws, hearings and whatever needless muck that serves only to strain people's already volunteer interest and contribution. That said, all those guys appear to be suuuuuuuper excited to join the LLG when the next meeting takes place (whenever that is) and try to work within the constraints laid out subsequently in this thread by existing 'leaders'. Good luck to them. I'm not speaking for them, just relaying my impressions of their adjusted dispositions and what they've said. On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "lojban" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. --089e0158c944a5667305026a3337 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And,

I lost faith in the endeavor. Here= we are four months later still talking about schism and the CLL and lojbab= still grand-standing his ultimate wisdom even though nothing has been done= in the intern on his or anyone else's part. Tragically, most everyone = who supported the original proposal here, to move the maintenance of the la= nguage to a more software-development format have all crumbled under the rh= etoric of councils, bylaws, hearings and whatever needless muck that serves= only to strain people's already volunteer interest and contribution.

That said, all those guys appear to be suuuuuuuper = excited to join the LLG when the next meeting takes place (whenever that is= ) and try to work within the constraints laid out subsequently in this thre= ad by existing 'leaders'. Good luck to them.

I'm not speaking for them, just relaying my impressions of their adj= usted dispositions and what they've said.


On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM,= Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:=



2014-09-06 20:33 GMT+04:00 Bob L= eChevalier, 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.=C2=A0 But what was posted is both mor= e and less than would be needed to seriously discuss such a proposal.

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.

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 c= harter of BPFK.=C2=A0 If they did, then Robin could accomplish much merely = by informally delegating considerable authority to selpa'i, while retai= ning 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 un= specified "enhancements or refinements" 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).

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'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.

<= /div>
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 languag= e. And they are not going to throw this book away. Or they will throw it aw= ay together with the language.

The language of the poster suggested an intent to = continually evolve the language prescription (i.e impose evolutionary chang= e 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&qu= ot; debate that caused the original byfy effort to start to break down abou= t the time xorlo was being discussed.

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's post of 26 Aug, which I think pertains to this app= roach).

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.

(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 "on the same page".)

lojbab





--
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+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 a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.go= ogle.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un= subscribe@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 &= 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.
--089e0158c944a5667305026a3337--