Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.217;
Message-ID: <54163E26.3070709@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:17:26 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com>	<540B374A.9040409@lojban.org>	<CAO7bV+gQQtt4qtnrj6LUWpj5rv5Qpkoy3GaKsg+CewG3-Mw+OA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMDmBpHS_h8ui41oZnKO4kt13KdVCodTa+crWzo3E9hyyBummg@mail.gmail.com>	<540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com>	<540F391F.5050002@lojban.org>	<540F6802.3070709@gmail.com>	<5410B7BF.9030005@lojban.org>	<5411FCE9.3090907@lojban.org>	<5414B97E.8050502@lojban.org>	<CAO7bV+gQ1=J2GBUVmQ=7PSmQ2PtVgL4XxF7FbwQzSf1wsei5Hw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMDmBpHQTV=0nbXoB8zLoHsp7d6o=UPZefW8wcRnMJScUmt_SQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAO7bV+gzDCNGbdYskABLtdXs3VbOe0j2tEbaySmAJ2pNRXQsqw@mail.gmail.com>	<CACf3dPmxsfSYFHm1J+MRGhrFtPfeE_Xd3OM=4xNGsQZ-FFfrnQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMDmBpGK6yRb33k5ywHbRy_=uheZVFDAG4_tSBXtj-vKP+PzJQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMDmBpE9X1iU-nw4sD=dbFTnGL+UQz89-Muhyks28mL21CZ_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <qylr1o00p56Cr6M01ylsza>
In-Reply-To: <qylr1o00p56Cr6M01ylsza>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 9/14/2014 6:45 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I've been completely ignoring this topic pretty much since I got the
> answer to my question. I personally have no interest in leadership, all
> I care about is that whatever needs to be done, is done. As far as the
> specific changes desired by what I'm going to arbitrarily call "the
> selpa'i group", I haven't paid enough attention to know what they are,
> so I can't give my opinion to them. If and when they are put into a
> formal proposal to the BPFK, I'll review them and give them my vote(s),
> as I'm sure the other BPFK members will.
>
> The reason for this missive is simple. Be respectful or shut up. I am
> not directing that statement at any one person specifically, so if you
> think I might be directing it at you, the reader, you're probably right.
> Petite bickering and insults will accomplish nothing.
>
> Lojbab has himself admitted that he doesn't really keep up with Lojban's
> changes, he's even said he still doesn't understand what xorlo does.
> This does not mean he is not deserving of respect. He is one of if not
> the founding father of Lojban, and has been involved to some extent
> since before its inception. He therefore has years of experience under
> his belt. At the very least, he knows better than probably anybody else
> what has been tried in the past, what failed, and why. Regardless of
> your personal feelings to the man's attitudes or mode of speech, he
> deserves respect at the very least for those facts alone. I'm my opinion
> he's pretty set in his ways and a bit crotchety, but I don't consider
> either of those things to be negative. His is the force of historical
> imperative, for Lojban at least practically the embodiment of knowing
> history so as not to be doomed to repeat it.
>
> The selpa'i group obviously wants to make changes, and my passing
> glimpse leads me to believe that there's either a lot of them, or
> they're pretty big, or both. They say, and I have no evidence to the
> contrary, that the changes they desire are based on problems and
> optimizations they've uncovered due to continued, daily use of the
> language. The fact that this group has collectively strived to use
> Lojban, conversationally, in itself is deserving of respect. This is not
> obviously a Bad Thing. After all, change is inevitable, regardless of
> the forces that act to prevent it, and stagnation equals death, in all
> things. Theirs is the force of change, dynamism.
>
> Neither of these things is bad, nor are they good, but both are
> necessary. Change for the sake of change is purposeless, but so is
> resistance to any change regardless of what it is. Neither stagnation
> nor chaos is a desired outcome, as the former will kill the language,
> and the latter will make it shatter into what amounts to unintelligible
> gibberish by any outside the group of users.
>
> Lojban is currently a prescribed language, and at least until some point
> as it becomes the common language of at least one culture, as in the
> first and possibly only language this group learns, I think it should
> remain as such. That means that every change in the language that isn't
> formally approved by the maintaining body- the BPFK- is "experimental".
> There's no way around it. There's nothing keeping people from using
> experimental valsi, but those who do use it have to accept the fact that
> because they are, they stand a large chance getting the response "ki'a
> [experimental valsi]". This was set up specifically to prevent language
> schisms. That doesn't mean that changes to the language can not happen
> and never will, it means that there is a system in place for formally
> making changes.
>
> Last I checked, the reason why no changes are allowed is because the
> cmavo have yet to be finished documented, or in other words, the
> baseline isn't complete, which is the only requirement preventing change
> proposals from being looked at and voted for approval. And, just as
> obviously, this barrier can be circumvented given good enough reason, as
> happened with xorlo, and to a lesser extent dotside, which as far as I'm
> aware is actually still officially an experimental change that just
> happens to be a simple and good enough idea that everyone does it
> anyway. I personally wouldn't have a problem with doing away with that
> barrier altogether, except that it seems to be the only impetus anyone
> has for finishing the documentation, which, I should add, is pretty
> damned near finished. I would wager that if everyone who is in the
> Lojban Google Group took one cmavo and documented it, we'd be finished
> before everyone had a turn, and then the serious business of looking at
> and voting on approval of change proposals could commence.
>
> I don't personally have a problem with selpa'i taking on a leadership
> role in the community. If he wants it, he can have it, as far as I'm
> concerned. It's not like Robin couldn't do with having some of the
> weight shifted to someone else's shoulders. I would willing to go so far
> as to allow selpa'i, should he wish it, to have all the, for lack of a
> better word, political power Robin currently has, not including the veto
> or the power to select the BPFK membership, which I would prefer
> remained in Robin's hands. I also wouldn't have a problem with selpa'i
> having BPFK membership and the powers/duties that come with that. I do,
> however, have to say that what I see proposed as far as this is
> concerned, looks more like a coup or a mutiny, and I certainly don't
> approve of that. I don't agree that the current system needs to be
> changed. The problems aren't being caused by the members not caring, or
> being tyrannical, but simply by the fact that there are things that must
> be done before the things that all of us - and I use "all" loosely- want
> to happen, can happen.
>
> Okay, this has gotten very ranty. In conclusion, I think everyone needs
> to step back, calm down, and be civil. If you want change, do it by
> working with the current system, not by trying to overthrow it. If you
> want some usage that is currently experimental to become official, write
> up a proposal and submit it to the BPFK. More than likely it'll be put
> on the backburner until the documentation is complete, but there's a
> simple fix for that, too- help finish the documentation. But no matter
> where you stand, please at least try to keep personal attacks, insults,
> assumptions, and the like out of your position. A debate is a reasoned
> discourse wherein two or more sides attempt to show the other(s) the
> benefits of their positions, an argument is a bunch of monkeys throw poo
> at each other. Stop being monkeys, put your poo in the toilet where it
> belongs.

Thanks.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, except that I would rather 
have selpa'i speak as to what selpa'i wants and/or intends.

I will note that selpa'i HAS been working on BPFK stuff lately, so he 
apparently understands what is needed.

lojbab


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.