Received: from mail-qg0-f63.google.com ([209.85.192.63]:40612) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XTJ5c-00032c-Rd for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:20 -0700 Received: by mail-qg0-f63.google.com with SMTP id z60sf655087qgd.28 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:10 -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=GmMU5tCDLJZLuteELRh3Pj+zlxFVKrImuWo966iO1d4=; b=EuJ4SImUzzS+xKIghOJoeMkyCB2AMAX+mSgzgsZN3inTdo7UuxGpZKgRVHOP7Ugb8D PW9KFczLErawKyuuK+MRu64U5C8Dzf8JOREeLLknkq+chH1JOWM3GX4NzQgJBdC2ZJEN IRLZUeoRra3sh4SlEJW8V2GwPgiUwhukmllQd+u3LfmFpwgcb1TNfABARVcaJrW6d9Ku MvD/k9jCTTJUBn8QXMIb0NX1pU/pFa6Ntk9Nt+jypzaOvizj1WAS+pYT+2UkPLaezhx5 RimEfddpYLdN0oj7s91m1G4AwNG/XcyrsWVvfuM3418FQzWu7S4Qet704x1eZ4Lc9Kfs t9uw== X-Received: by 10.140.19.213 with SMTP id 79mr426606qgh.5.1410736810416; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.39.69 with SMTP id u63ls1305395qgu.64.gmail; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.36.197 with SMTP id s5mr13322829vdj.5.1410736809941; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm26-vm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm26-vm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com. [216.109.115.212]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k7si549313qcm.2.2014.09.14.16.20.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.115.212 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.115.212; Received: from [66.196.81.160] by nm26.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2014 23:20:09 -0000 Received: from [66.196.81.140] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2014 23:20:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2014 23:20:09 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 550605.15703.bm@omp1016.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 6228 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Sep 2014 23:20:08 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: v9H9jLIVM1mH3ZkmYr1KDJ9Dknr0FoPkHHAHp41Ta__ZmbO goG5eBelvA3_y5Eu2Mm9wSNV4fd2vHf3.OSTVQMgz1Btpz3DHccEXlM4bW_T oX1.cdkGsr4JMndd_9aIqVL2y0uRX_ZpsVtQF8SeVDeBjz5zzHCgBlaoDoI3 bYG3hXSE9uGrS3Opl4iTiFSpyhA.524MIZhlxbgpo97CZfOEvytjRkQbSLQD K5Oa7UgE9QX5i7O8qucsuQoIOTyw7hozknxGR8RghaaDuhi_ARYWaVrDhlA9 wn0GaGkcfujY80EQwjaaKC0ub_t9gKNFCZzQl_O9FDvvf8BmIvsR_5VxTcww Ow8.mYTzk5WU3s8kzcL4wVabaGI2srFfj0bupsOJnvdgarnP0MVgItKBaz15 iJlav73RyKBxwNSyKem.qv.HhyS9_.0_XMthpJF3zdsP3Br0XeV3SNG376FX v3XWuy5HLyDr0IBqFIgvjZ0HQZPKWtIS2hhkwCCJu.QKwO0w6O0LcxC8OgDp mZ4kY4HH7t4ZAr.29xk3QfKMuKBVu5Jy9YliYTsKcRWCRw2MxRG3bQQd.Ty_ zA6535078bBMQEgrMT.XXfbO6z4Arn.ssDqxR3jJOvbon9ImwdzQqB95zpNc AcxgJoLLd.t0ZB2G_X.09c6o.L444EVPUUtQR1u5MknVvu6rYhT_HKBYS9go 3hpdd9ZtYOaVV.aUhN8Hn7n6msFyNi5fYLb1fQfp.ewzA5Q-- Received: from [99.92.109.82] by web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:08 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,QnR3LCBuaWNlIHRvIHNlZSBEYXZpZCdzIGJvbmEgZmlkZXMgc3BlbGxlZCBvdXQuICBUaGV5IGhhdmUgbm90IGFsd2F5cyBiZWVuIG9idmlvdXMgKG9yIGV2ZW4gcGxhdXNpYmxlKS4gIEEgY29tbWl0bWVudCB0byBiYWNrd2FyZCBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IChhcyBtdWNoIGFzIGZlYXNpYmxlIGJ1dCBoaWdoIG9uIHRoZSBwcmlvcml0aWVzKSB3b3VsZCBoZWxwLCB0b28uCgoKT24gU3VuZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMTQsIDIwMTQgNjoxMyBQTSwgJ0pvaG4gRSBDbGlmZm9yZCcgdmlhIGxvamJhbiA8bG9qYmFuQGcBMAEBAQE- 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> <1410733473.23327.YahooMailNeo@web181101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1410736438.81568.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1410736808.3395.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20:08 -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: <1410736438.81568.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> 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 216.109.115.212 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="-482694697-1138239464-1410736808=:3395" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - ---482694697-1138239464-1410736808=:3395 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Btw, nice to see David's bona fides spelled out. They have not always been= obvious (or even plausible). A commitment to backward compatibility (as m= uch as feasible but high on the priorities) would help, too. On Sunday, September 14, 2014 6:13 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote: =20 Well, as one of the mossier mossback, I have reciprocate by wishing you wou= ld stop attacking people with years (decades!) invested in Lojban, who fear= that you are coming to destroy their painfully acquired capital of vocabul= ary, grammar and usage, without any compensation or regard for what has gon= e before. This is probably a misunderstanding of what you are about, but y= our attitude -- and the virtual complete absence of either concrete example= s of what you are about or statement of principles on which you will judge = suggestions -- gives them a not unreasonable fear (there is a history in Lo= glan/Lojban and in conlanging generally to be considered). Both sides here= could stand to be a bit more concrete, then, perhaps, much of the emotiona= l fog would dissipate and some progress would be possible. A little tit fo= r tat wouldn't be out of place either, except that I'm afraid that falls mo= st heavily on th innovators at the moment: you can do some of the cmavo work because it is public (somewhere), the LLG can not do much about= innovations until they see them spelled out. On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:48 PM, Dustin Lacewell wrote: =20 John Well that doesn't seem to be disagreeable at all. I mean a large implied fa= llacy in the thread has seemed to be that selpahi doesn't also want the bes= t for lojban and for it to reflect its foundations in first order predicate= logic, be monoparsable, be completely described, be useful as a spoken lan= guage and so on. I mean, I can say he really does but it is pretty clear fr= om talking to him for 5 minutes if one were to ask him. That goes the same = with all the jbocre in the IRC community like durka and tsani and xalbo and= others. I think you know that's true, as you've been around during lots of= their debates. They're hardly casuals, right John? I think that's a quality of the community that people outside it are missin= g. That its not like the thoughts surrounding how we go about this or the c= hanges are inspiring the need for an actually workable system of governance= are not well thought out and dragged through several on-going reoccurring = internal debates. I'm not saying 'we have the best community'. I'm saying l= ook, we have a non-trivial community with, sure call it a dialect, as the r= esult of lots of usage and consideration and there is no non-ethereal mecha= nism for actually moving such evolutions in usage back to the wider communi= ty. That isn't 'we have something's we'd like to force everyone else to do'= . We objectively went out of our way to prompt a community that is otherwis= e *not* providing a realistic (and in my opinon not patently absurd) mechan= ism and process for doing that. One that you at least seem to view as passa= ble if not potentially advantageous. Seriously, everyone else, when you remove the pretext fetish of making us out to want to destroy the lang= uage and insulting holders of CLLs and somehow undoing the very fabric of t= he community, what is so bad about what was -actually- proposed? I guess its a rhetorical question and I'm not actually expressing hope that we can some how actually move forward. Hope = was lost long ago. If certain people can stop insulting and trivializing my= friends with a smile of implied virtue, then I wont have to keep defendin= g them (though I'm sure they wish I'd stop anyway). On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote: > >To the initial question the answer is "Not at all", though with the provi= so that whoever takes on the task shares the goal of producing a monoparsin= g grammar. I admit I am not convinced that this is among David's agenda, b= ut then I am not convinced it really plays that much of a role in other peo= ple's agenda either. The process you propose is a normalization of the de = facto process that Lojban has used for a couple decades just now being reco= gnized and made effective. No objection to that, again with the proviso th= at the discussion keeps monoparsing ever in view and that changes that disr= upt this feature are either automatically rejected or are farmed out for a = thorough-going fix to bring them into the fold. If it does away with burea= ucratic inertia, better yet. (Having been around this particular project f= or nearly forty years, I can reasonably predict ways that this will crash a= nd 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 be= t 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 de= scription into version control and giving selpahi the control of merging ch= anges into that repository somehow in conflict with missing cmavo definitio= ns? > > >There are essentially two things this thread was originally about.=20 > > > 1) Moving the process for maintaining the language from a mailing-list/w= iki mixed with crudely (and often internally inconsistent) processes and by= -laws enforced by elected participants who may or may not even still be int= erested in Lojban by the next time a meeting 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 chan= ge against the repository which can then be considered for what it is by th= e community at large (or more importantly individuals who are actually moti= vated to participate in that process). Everybody can contribute and changes= can be openly, and safely merged or not merged in a very controlled and sy= stematic manner. > > > 2) Reviewing the gimste for cohesiveness and regularity. We proposed to d= o this review using the process above. Where anyone can comment on any of t= he completely open and explicit individual proposed mutations to any partic= ular word, make their own proposals and argue against those they disagree w= ith. > > >Neither of these things actually conflict with the needs in other areas, l= ike finishing the cmavo definitions or any other arbitrarily prioritized ag= enda. All the arguments about relearning, CLL's, are arguments constructed = to invoke fear of some fantasized destruction of the language. Neither of t= hese proposed motions of actions reduce an existing description either. The= re 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 t= he supposed rebuking of this motion turned out to be.=20 > >The current system for organizing and funneling the fluttering and whimsic= al productivity of Lojbanists for managing the language is bad. It assumes = long-term commitment by a few select individuals to stay completely informe= d of a largish body of bylaws arbitrarily enforced between completely irreg= ular periods of active governance and pure silence mixed with the demonstra= ble difficulty of actually being in-tune to how the language is changing in= its utilization in various communities. It accumulates and forces processi= ng of that work in larger batches instead of continuous review and integrat= ion consideration. > > >Nothing about the proposed system violates anything about the needs to kee= p 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 us= age doesn't mean that they (or somebody) doesn't need to write up explicit = and detailed reports of what these usages are. Lojban is the most thorough= ly described human language because it has to keep a check on its monoparsi= ng. All usage has be be integrated into the grammar that makes that possib= le. Right now the problem is (purportedly) that we don't know enough about= some old things (though the monoparsing claim continues) nor anything at a= ll about some new things. As for the claim about the old things, I have be= en trying to find out what is lacking but cannot find a clear statement in = the morass of items under BPFK., cmavo, and related topics starting from th= e homepage. I am sure all the material there somewhere but, after a dozen = years any organized list has been lost or dissipated. It is not even clear whether the problem is that there are cmavo that have no defini= tion (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 cma= vo generally, by the way), in which case it is not clear in what sense they= exist at all, or, more likely, there are camavo whose definitions are some= how (how?) incomplete (again raising the question in what sense they actua= lly exist. 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 ne= eded or wanted in the language). So, maybe if the list of needed fixes fro= m the old language were collected again (or resurrected -- it may actually = be there somewhere) and the irc group (and other innovators, of course) cam= e 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 = contradictory for the nonce) and sort back a satisfactory description ("sat= isfactory" 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 s= tand 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 o= ffering to participate in what was originally proposed could possibly desir= e 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 ex= isting structure in place. We were simply trying fill what is actually a hu= ge glaring lack of one. But I guess the decayed ephemeral existence of one = is 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 Go= ogle Groups "lojban" group. >>To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/l= ojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe. >>To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojba= n+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 = 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. --=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. ---482694697-1138239464-1410736808=:3395 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Btw, nice to see David's bona fides spelled out. &= nbsp;They have not always been obvious (or even plausible).  A commitm= ent to backward compatibility (as much as feasible but high on the prioriti= es) would help, too.


On Sunday, Sept= ember 14, 2014 6:13 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroup= s.com> wrote:


Wel= l, as one of the mossier mossback, I have reciprocate by wishing you would = stop attacking people with years (decades!) invested in Lojban, who fear th= at you are coming to destroy their painfully acquired capital of vocabulary= , grammar and usage, without any compensation or regard for what has gone b= efore.  This is probably a misunderstanding of what you are about, but= your attitude -- and the virtual complete absence of either concrete examp= les of what you are about or statement of principles on which you will judg= e suggestions -- gives them a not unreasonable fear (there is a history in = Loglan/Lojban and in conlanging generally to be considered).  Both sid= es here could stand to be a bit more concrete, then, perhaps, much of the emotional fog would dissipate and some progress would be possible.  A little tit for tat wouldn't be out of = place either, except that I'm afraid that falls most heavily on th innovato= rs at the moment: you can do some of the cmavo work because it is public (s= omewhere), the LLG can not do much about innovations until they see them sp= elled out.


=
On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:48 PM, Dustin La= cewell <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:
=

John

Well that doesn't seem to be disagreeable at all. I mean a large implied fallacy in the thread has seem= ed to be that selpahi doesn't also want the best for lojban and for it to r= eflect its foundations in first order predicate logic, be monoparsable, be = completely described, be useful as a spoken language and so on. I mean, I c= an say he really does but it is pretty clear from talking to him for 5 minu= tes if one were to ask him. That goes the same with all the jbocre in the I= RC community like durka and tsani and xalbo and others. I think you know th= at's true, as you've been around during lots of their debates. They're hard= ly casuals, right John?

I think tha= t's a quality of the community that people outside it are missing. That its= not like the thoughts surrounding how we go about this or the changes are = inspiring the need for an actually workable system of governance are not we= ll thought out and dragged through several on-going reoccurring internal debates. I'm not saying 'we have the best community'. I'm saying = look, we have a non-trivial community with, sure call it a dialect, as the = result of lots of usage and consideration and there is no non-ethereal mech= anism for actually moving such evolutions in usage back to the wider commun= ity. That isn't 'we have something's we'd like to force everyone else to do= '. We objectively went out of our way to prompt a community that is otherwi= se *not* providing a realistic (and in my opinon not patently absurd) mecha= nism and process for doing that. One that you at least seem to view as pass= able if not potentially advantageous. Seriously, everyone else, when you re= move the pretext fetish of making us out to want to destroy the language an= d insulting holders of CLLs and somehow undoing the very fabric of the comm= unity, what is so bad about what was -actually- proposed?

I guess its a rhetorical question and I'm not actually expressing hope that we can some how actually move forward. Hope = was lost long ago. If certain people can stop insulting and trivializing my= friends with a smile  of implied virtue, then I wont have to keep def= ending them (though I'm sure they wish I'd stop anyway).



On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <l= ojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To the initial question &n= bsp;the answer is "Not at all", though with the proviso that whoever takes = on the task shares the goal of producing a monoparsing grammar.  I adm= it 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 eith= er.  The process you propose is a normalization of the de facto proces= s that Lojban has used for a couple decades just now being recognized and m= ade 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 Lace= well <dlacewell@gma= il.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 words what they suppos= e is missing from some baseline or whatever. Great. How is the idea of movi= ng all of that description into version control and giving selpahi the cont= rol of merging changes into that repository somehow in conflict with missin= g cmavo definitions?

There are esse= ntially 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:
Just because nobody want to do it, doesn't mean it d= oesn't need to be done.  Similarly, just because somebody(/ies) want t= o 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, Se= ptember 14, 2014 2:47 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:


"The selpa'i gro= up..."

For wha= t 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 havi= ng our community referred to as language destroying tinkerer's any longer.<= div>
No one even wants to do the original thin= g anymore since no one who was offering to participate in what was original= ly proposed could possibly desire to be seen as destroying the language, bu= t that's what they were made out to be. We never intended for a coup, becau= se 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 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 "= 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.
---482694697-1138239464-1410736808=:3395--