Received: from mail-ob0-f190.google.com ([209.85.214.190]:57681) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XTIDq-0002tH-NX for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:44 -0700 Received: by mail-ob0-f190.google.com with SMTP id m8sf645489obr.7 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=references:message-id:date:from:reply-to:subject:to:in-reply-to :mime-version:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=MkDy/LEAUJYejoRXC6QDm4lVVeN5o355YMFNfRNd3A4=; b=MGBvSM57V1VLv6c2fe8hc9cmRklvOaaSDQ9/4xY2MmGSm1gkhrdVeHZARpFoHoC0WZ /JOfWak1L+pycGxNDndGGZTfUWgl8fPt2Sjg1ZPjC/Uamfzc5+6g2D+agp+6HZqUOpzJ EFqwqYpxJF4W6VXeGRggyt6vAKOcPvLP8Q/Zr+4/V8ULzqUG7XMq/So5R/4pupRJ2z21 0LHQ1bqV0OxLa6tmdegBgVDLQFH/Nl3foXX4qfexXWygCARAU9q9DQyuPWX6nL8Kqgue THV+4eGdTPONd3iTz2PFXvxDOaY5LlG4PO7VuV9H+BW6b3wzZCUXUN2KenozBYf4ppBE dA3Q== X-Received: by 10.140.20.83 with SMTP id 77mr438343qgi.0.1410733475939; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.89.231 with SMTP id v94ls1159743qgd.14.gmail; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.222.166 with SMTP id t36mr13197344yhp.24.1410733475511; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm26-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm26-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com. [216.109.115.213]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i4si529139qcm.0.2014.09.14.15.24.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.115.213 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.115.213; Received: from [66.196.81.161] by nm26.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2014 22:24:35 -0000 Received: from [66.196.81.130] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2014 22:24:34 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2014 22:24:34 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 979175.10439.bm@omp1006.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 68927 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Sep 2014 22:24:34 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: Cb33.kkVM1ms8o9SHrd5WgHUITq7KOORSAgybmxnZILPYs3 rzGHFOTt3I1qBZsNSSAfv2Ubihq5UXau4ASlakPoxAAJeapt3ZXoVHzNaoEl j3.TylIOKSHCBqnHDK8q7.zH21gfoorPl0UARH6A7CGkvY_y2ZfU8flssIT. fNjzEwS3qecaXiqILKdc1HoTeaEFvXJyE02clTUe.1KE8_MpEf6t47TiamFQ eC22PlMl8dv8dbsUqotdplc5UcgMfRfv9dTrTwVoH.92F4_dJv6_.uoDYCVl 1s9LyGkwREb0z0IvuE_9EWIkdpNorp0gSPb2uKj06r0bJTNc171zPECjC4ts PelojNBHHEf9U4OexuG5e4MEHK4xY.Oqk6lLQlkgXT6SQRj7Lhm6VWsH2yK9 WSLgfckQUDmb.Y6Ol_1DWelfNDHFzH2Aau2OaNfnPnoGWGZqlyKUKLAUqPGb EDlbfjiRKoNzm8OlF8fWc5J9kNAuqghm1o115wQSy22q21_6m2aGV2c34Vrb Wrz.2hJ6ykYhy4ZRLdiISK6HHEwoHykb4pom0voSacgy81qTYMEeoTGowaxo j_edc9iTtTTj3LgRHuLVRxIz8FCgneL3p2odjLQeie7zWPmuUyHJPpcMJDrR M_2WoPJsc3jZ60XXzJ1S_QN_s5mmbHzcnFguQeXF1_57heOFDXmymzgf4Em6 hKV7HFLdCTkhkIpRhudgODGb3bvIZez0YAElSH01Zo10- Received: from [99.92.109.82] by web181101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:33 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,CgpUbyB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbCBxdWVzdGlvbiAgdGhlIGFuc3dlciBpcyAiTm90IGF0IGFsbCIsIHRob3VnaCB3aXRoIHRoZSBwcm92aXNvIHRoYXQgd2hvZXZlciB0YWtlcyBvbiB0aGUgdGFzayBzaGFyZXMgdGhlIGdvYWwgb2YgcHJvZHVjaW5nIGEgbW9ub3BhcnNpbmcgZ3JhbW1hci4gIEkgYWRtaXQgSSBhbSBub3QgY29udmluY2VkIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyBhbW9uZyBEYXZpZCdzIGFnZW5kYSwgYnV0IHRoZW4gSSBhbSBub3QgY29udmluY2VkIGl0IHJlYWxseSBwbGF5cyB0aGF0IG11Y2ggb2YgYSByb2xlIGkBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.203.696 References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com> <5410B7BF.9030005@lojban.org> <5411FCE9.3090907@lojban.org> <5414B97E.8050502@lojban.org> <1410728470.91224.YahooMailNeo@web181106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1410733473.23327.YahooMailNeo@web181101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:24:33 -0700 From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.115.213 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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: , X-Original-From: John E Clifford Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1013620071-844600867-1410733473=:23327" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --1013620071-844600867-1410733473=:23327 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To the initial question the answer is "Not at all", though with the provis= o that whoever takes on the task shares the goal of producing a monoparsing= grammar. I admit I am not convinced that this is among David's agenda, bu= t then I am not convinced it really plays that much of a role in other peop= le's agenda either. The process you propose is a normalization of the de f= acto process that Lojban has used for a couple decades just now being recog= nized and made effective. No objection to that, again with the proviso tha= t the discussion keeps monoparsing ever in view and that changes that disru= pt this feature are either automatically rejected or are farmed out for a t= horough-going fix to bring them into the fold. If it does away with bureau= cratic inertia, better yet. (Having been around this particular project fo= r nearly forty years, I can reasonably predict ways that this will crash an= d burn, but that doesn't seem a reason to not do it, since the crashing and burning of another sort is already rather far advanced and th= is may slow that down at least for my lifetime.) On Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:51 PM, Dustin Lacewell wrote: =20 John, No doubt you're able to point out this or that that needs to be done. I bet= others can reference in their own words what they suppose is missing from = some baseline or whatever. Great. How is the idea of moving all of that des= cription into version control and giving selpahi the control of merging cha= nges into that repository somehow in conflict with missing cmavo definition= s? There are essentially two things this thread was originally about.=20 1) Moving the process for maintaining the language from a mailing-list/wi= ki mixed with crudely (and often internally inconsistent) processes and by-= laws enforced by elected participants who may or may not even still be inte= rested in Lojban by the next time a meeting requiring their attention and e= xpertise is called... to an open-source version controlled 'consider-the-c= hange-on-the-merits-of-the-change' system where anyone can submit any chang= e against the repository which can then be considered for what it is by the= community at large (or more importantly individuals who are actually motiv= ated to participate in that process). Everybody can contribute and changes = can be openly, and safely merged or not merged in a very controlled and sys= tematic manner. 2) Reviewing the gimste for cohesiveness and regularity. We proposed to do= this review using the process above. Where anyone can comment on any of th= e completely open and explicit individual proposed mutations to any particu= lar word, make their own proposals and argue against those they disagree wi= th. Neither of these things actually conflict with the needs in other areas, li= ke finishing the cmavo definitions or any other arbitrarily prioritized age= nda. All the arguments about relearning, CLL's, are arguments constructed t= o invoke fear of some fantasized destruction of the language. Neither of th= ese proposed motions of actions reduce an existing description either. Ther= e is literally no substantiated argument against what we proposed (an open = democratic process for explicit management of the language as data through = version control and open-source policies for review and integration) other = than 'waa, I don't actually like losing what sense of control I presume to = have over the language'. It amazing going back over the thread just how irrelevant and orthogonal th= e supposed rebuking of this motion turned out to be.=20 The current system for organizing and funneling the fluttering and whimsica= l productivity of Lojbanists for managing the language is bad. It assumes l= ong-term commitment by a few select individuals to stay completely informed= of a largish body of bylaws arbitrarily enforced between completely irregu= lar periods of active governance and pure silence mixed with the demonstrab= le difficulty of actually being in-tune to how the language is changing in = its utilization in various communities. It accumulates and forces processin= g of that work in larger batches instead of continuous review and integrati= on consideration. Nothing about the proposed system violates anything about the needs to keep= the language completely described and actually does a better job than the = system that's being (quite terribly) defended in this thread. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote: Just because nobody want to do it, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.= Similarly, just because somebody(/ies) want to change things based on usa= ge doesn't mean that they (or somebody) doesn't need to write up explicit a= nd detailed reports of what these usages are. Lojban is the most thoroughl= y described human language because it has to keep a check on its monoparsin= g. All usage has be be integrated into the grammar that makes that possibl= e. Right now the problem is (purportedly) that we don't know enough about = some old things (though the monoparsing claim continues) nor anything at al= l about some new things. As for the claim about the old things, I have bee= n trying to find out what is lacking but cannot find a clear statement in t= he morass of items under BPFK., cmavo, and related topics starting from the= homepage. I am sure all the material there somewhere but, after a dozen y= ears any organized list has been lost or dissipated. It is not even clear whether the problem is that there are cmavo that have no definition = (a likelihood, since at one time there seemed to be a new cmavo every week,= most of which then disappeared without a trace -- a good fate for cmavo ge= nerally, by the way), in which case it is not clear in what sense they exis= t at all, or, more likely, there are camavo whose definitions are somehow (= how?) incomplete (again raising the question in what sense they actually e= xist. Toki pona listed a word for several years and people speculated what= it meant until finally it was defined and turned out to be nothing needed = or wanted in the language). So, maybe if the list of needed fixes from the= old language were collected again (or resurrected -- it may actually be th= ere somewhere) and the irc group (and other innovators, of course) came up = with a list of their usages (which may, of course, turn out not to be new a= t all, given the state of lack of information about what is real), we can agree to finish off a description of the language (possibly contrad= ictory for the nonce) and sort back a satisfactory description ("satisfacto= ry" being the operant weasel here). > > > >On Sunday, September 14, 2014 2:47 PM, Dustin Lacewell wrote: >=20 > > >"The selpa'i group..." > > >For what its worth, I don't really 'represent' 'selpahi's group' anymore. = I don't even know why this thread has continued so long. I just couldn't st= and having our community referred to as language destroying tinkerer's any = longer. > > >No one even wants to do the original thing anymore since no one who was of= fering to participate in what was originally proposed could possibly desire= to be seen as destroying the language, but that's what they were made out = to be. We never intended for a coup, because a coup implies there is an exi= sting structure in place. We were simply trying fill what is actually a hug= e glaring lack of one. But I guess the decayed ephemeral existence of one i= s enough for this language. > > > > >--=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 = 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. > > > >--=20 >You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goo= gle Groups "lojban" group. >To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lo= jban/_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. > --=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. --=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. --1013620071-844600867-1410733473=:23327 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To the initial question  the answer is "Not at all", though with the = proviso that whoever takes on the task shares the goal of producing a monop= arsing grammar.  I admit I am not convinced that this is among David's= agenda, but then I am not convinced it really plays that much of a role in= other people's agenda either.  The process you propose is a normaliza= tion of the de facto process that Lojban has used for a couple decades just= now being recognized and made effective.  No objection to that, again= with the proviso that the discussion keeps monoparsing ever in view and that changes that disrupt this feature are either automatically rejected o= r are farmed out for a thorough-going fix to bring them into the fold. &nbs= p;If it does away with bureaucratic inertia, better yet.  (Having been= around this particular project for nearly forty years, I can reasonably pr= edict ways that this will crash and burn, but that doesn't seem a reason to= not do it, since the crashing and burning of another sort is already rathe= r far advanced and this may slow that down at least for my lifetime.)
=



On Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:51 PM, Dustin Lacewe= ll <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:


John= ,

No doubt you're able to point out this = or that that needs to be done. I bet others can reference in their own word= s what they suppose is missing from some baseline or whatever. Great. How i= s the idea of moving all of that description into version control and givin= g selpahi the control of merging changes into that repository somehow in co= nflict with missing cmavo definitions?

<= div>There are essentially two things this thread was originally about. = ;

  1) Moving the process for = maintaining the language from a mailing-list/wiki mixed with crudely (and often intern= ally inconsistent) processes and by-laws enforced by elected participants w= ho may or may not even still be interested in Lojban by the next time a mee= ting requiring their attention and expertise is called...  to an open-= source version controlled 'consider-the-change-on-the-merits-of-the-change'= system where anyone can submit any change against the repository which can= then be considered for what it is by the community at large (or more impor= tantly individuals who are actually motivated to participate in that proces= s). Everybody can contribute and changes can be openly, and safely merged o= r not merged in a very controlled and systematic manner.

 2) Reviewing the gimste for cohesiveness and re= gularity. We proposed to do this review using the process above. Where anyo= ne can comment on any of the completely open and explicit individual proposed mutations to any particular word, make their own proposals and ar= gue against those they disagree with.

Neither of these things actually conflict with the needs in other areas,= like finishing the cmavo definitions or any other arbitrarily prioritized = agenda. All the arguments about relearning, CLL's, are arguments constructe= d to invoke fear of some fantasized destruction of the language. Neither of= these proposed motions of actions reduce an existing description either. T= here is literally no substantiated argument against what we proposed (an op= en democratic process for explicit management of the language as data throu= gh version control and open-source policies for review and integration) oth= er than 'waa, I don't actually like losing what sense of control I presume = to have over the language'.

It amazing= going back over the thread just how irrelevant and orthogonal the supposed rebuking of this motion turned out to be. 

The current system for organizing and funneling the flu= ttering and whimsical productivity of Lojbanists for managing the language = is bad. It assumes long-term commitment by a few select individuals to stay= completely informed of a largish body of bylaws arbitrarily enforced betwe= en completely irregular periods of active governance and pure silence mixed= with the demonstrable difficulty of actually being in-tune to how the lang= uage is changing in its utilization in various communities. It accumulates = and forces processing of that work in larger batches instead of continuous = review and integration consideration.

Nothing about the proposed system violates anything about the needs to k= eep the language completely described and actually does a better job than t= he system that's being (quite terribly) defended in this thread.

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM= , 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
<= div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Ne= ue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; backgr= ound-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Just because nobody want to do = it, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.  Similarly, just because = somebody(/ies) want to change things based on usage doesn't mean that they = (or somebody) doesn't need to write up explicit and detailed reports of what these usages are. &= nbsp;Lojban is the most thoroughly described human language because it has = to keep a check on its monoparsing.  All usage has be be integrated in= to the grammar that makes that possible.  Right now the problem is (pu= rportedly) that we don't know enough about some old things (though the mono= parsing claim continues) nor anything at all about some new things.  A= s for the claim about the old things, I have been trying to find out what i= s lacking but cannot find a clear statement in the morass of items under BPFK., cmavo, and related topics starting from the homepage.  I= am sure all the material there somewhere but, after a dozen years any orga= nized list has been lost or dissipated.  It is not even clear whether = the problem is that there are cmavo that have no definition (a likelihood, = since at one time there seemed to be a new cmavo every week, most of which = then disappeared without a trace -- a good fate for cmavo generally, by the= way), in which case it is not clear in what sense they exist at all, or, m= ore likely, there are camavo whose definitions are somehow (how?)  inc= omplete (again raising the question in what sense they actually exist. &nbs= p;Toki pona listed a word for several years and people speculated what it m= eant until finally it was defined and turned out to be nothing needed or wa= nted in the language).  So, maybe if the list of needed fixes from the= old language were collected again (or resurrected -- it may actually be there somewhere) and the irc group (and other innovators, of c= ourse) came up with a list of their usages (which may, of course, turn out = not to be new at all, given the state of lack of information about what is = real), we can agree to finish off a description of the language (possibly c= ontradictory for the nonce) and sort back a satisfactory description ("sati= sfactory" being the operant weasel here).


On Sunday, September 14, 2014 2:47 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:


"The selpa'i group..."

For what its worth, I don't really 'represent' 'selpahi'= s group' anymore. I don't even know why this thread has continued so long. = I just couldn't stand having our community referred to as language destroyi= ng tinkerer's any longer.

No one even wan= ts to do the original thing anymore since no one who was offering to partic= ipate in what was originally proposed could possibly desire to be seen as d= estroying the language, but that's what they were made out to be. We never = intended for a coup, because a coup implies there is an existing structure = in place. We were simply trying fill what is actually a huge glaring lack of one. But I= guess the decayed ephemeral existence of one is enough for this language.<= /div>


--
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/o= ptout.


--
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.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubsc= ribe.
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/o= ptout.

--
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/o= ptout.


--
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.
--1013620071-844600867-1410733473=:23327--