Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <176af484-a73a-4d7f-adad-751141f45442@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <541A3543.5080109@lojban.org>
References: <5ebfd7de-df4d-4bac-90e9-08d182557c8c@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fS+WaE5_P-Lx=ALcsNYe8zSQQuk-S9X8orSaWKJCda-A@mail.gmail.com> <863e6344-9008-44be-8546-eed800c0a630@googlegroups.com> <1410966712.92433.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <sNtx1o00P56Cr6M01NtydE>
 <541A3543.5080109@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Growth and decline in lojbanistan
MIME-Version: 1.0
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="----=_Part_1248_1471169553.1411020738356"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_1248_1471169553.1411020738356
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:28:39 PM UTC-3, lojbab wrote:
>
> The problem is that "interesting problems" of the sort mentioned=20
> indicate a lot of activity by a very few people, but the activity itself=
=20
> drives other people away, especially when it a) look esoteric and B)=20
> seems to imply incompleteness of design.=20
>

Perhaps too much is being made of the fact that pc and xorxes were the most=
=20
expressive users in 2001: There were almost 6,000 messages in the mailing=
=20
lists that year that were written by other people. In any case, the=20
record-setting email volume in 2001 was followed by another record year in=
=20
2002, while LLG membership climbed to its highest historical level in 2003.=
=20
This sustained growth seems at odds with the idea that the discussions were=
=20
especially harmful to the community.

I've been meaning to return to the question of the (in)completeness of=20
lojban's design since our exchange in the "Revitalizing LLG" thread last=20
month <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/k7hIqBcTsXI/zge7y-72_HcJ>.

The January 10, 1997 declaration of the baseline=20
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/1997+Baseline+Announcement> read, "THE=20
LOGLAN/LOJBAN LANGUAGE DESIGN is considered COMPLETE". You offered the=20
opinion that this is "still official policy". I have a couple of follow-up=
=20
questions.


   1. *How could the declaration of "completeness of design" have survived=
=20
   the adoption of the 2002 Baseline Statement?* The text of the 2002 polic=
y=20
   <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement> states that it=
=20
   "specifically supplants the official statement on the baseline", adding,=
=20
   "our statement, that the language design was 'complete', was =E2=80=A6 p=
remature."=20
   It proposes a specific path to restoring "completeness", setting a goal =
of=20
   "having the LLG membership declare the language baseline to be complete =
at=20
   the annual meeting of the LLG in the summer of 2003. Upon that completio=
n,=20
   the language design (baseline) will be frozen."
   2. Alternately, supposing that the 2002 Baseline Statement did have the=
=20
   force to supplant the 1997 declaration, and given that the 2003 Annual=
=20
   meeting made no declaration of completeness: *When was a recognition of=
=20
   "completeness of design" restored to the language, and how was that proc=
ess=20
   recorded?*
  =20
Perhaps there is no way to reconcile "completeness of design" with the=20
Baseline Statement and everything that has happened (and not happened)=20
since. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. "Lojban: You're Doing It Wrong=
=20
<http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=3DLojban%3A+You%27re+Doing+It+=
Wrong>"=20
seems to have envisioned a lojban where "completeness" is not a baseline=20
assumption, but a guiding principle, however unattainable:

the job of the BPFK is to formalize Lojban in perfect detail, with the=20
> understanding that this is to occur in response to the language uses and=
=20
> its users, and thus will never actually be finished


mi'e la mukti mu'o

--=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.

------=_Part_1248_1471169553.1411020738356
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:28:39 PM UTC-3, lojbab=
 wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.=
8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">The problem is that "in=
teresting problems" of the sort mentioned=20
<br>indicate a lot of activity by a very few people, but the activity itsel=
f=20
<br>drives other people away, especially when it a) look esoteric and B)=20
<br>seems to imply incompleteness of design.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div>


<p class=3D"p1">Perhaps too much is being made of the fact that pc and xorx=
es were the most expressive users in 2001: There were almost 6,000 messages=
 in the mailing lists that year that were written by other people. In any c=
ase, the record-setting email volume in 2001 was followed by another record=
 year in 2002, while LLG membership climbed to its highest historical level=
 in 2003. This sustained growth seems at odds with the idea that the discus=
sions were especially harmful to the community.</p><p class=3D"p1">I've bee=
n meaning to return to the question of the (in)completeness of lojban's des=
ign since <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/k7hIqBcTsXI/zge=
7y-72_HcJ">our exchange in the "Revitalizing LLG" thread last month</a>.</p=
><p class=3D"p2"><a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/1997+Baseline+Announ=
cement">The January 10, 1997 declaration of the baseline</a> read, "THE LOG=
LAN/LOJBAN LANGUAGE DESIGN is considered COMPLETE". You offered the opinion=
 that this is "still official policy". I have a couple of follow-up questio=
ns.</p><p class=3D"p2"></p><ol><li><span style=3D"line-height: 18px;"><b>Ho=
w could the declaration of "completeness of design" have survived the adopt=
ion of the 2002 Baseline Statement?</b> <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/ti=
ki/Official+Baseline+Statement">The text of the 2002 policy</a> states that=
 it "specifically supplants the official statement on the baseline", adding=
, "our statement, that the language design was 'complete', was =E2=80=A6 pr=
emature." It proposes a specific path to restoring "completeness", setting =
a goal of "having the LLG membership declare the language baseline to be co=
mplete at the annual meeting of the LLG in the summer of 2003. Upon that co=
mpletion, the language design (baseline) will be frozen."</span><br></li><l=
i><span style=3D"line-height: 18px;">Alternately, supposing that the 2002 B=
aseline Statement did have the force to supplant the 1997 declaration, and =
given that the 2003 Annual meeting made no declaration of completeness: <b>=
When was a recognition of "completeness of design" restored to the language=
, and how was that process recorded?</b></span><br></li></ol><div>Perhaps t=
here is no way to reconcile "completeness of design" with the Baseline Stat=
ement and everything that has happened (and not happened) since. I'm not co=
nvinced that's a bad thing. "<a href=3D"http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.=
php?page=3DLojban%3A+You%27re+Doing+It+Wrong">Lojban: You're Doing It Wrong=
</a>" seems to have envisioned a lojban where "completeness" is not a basel=
ine assumption, but a guiding principle, however unattainable:</div><div><b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-le=
ft-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">the job of the BPFK is to formalize Lo=
jban in perfect detail, with the understanding that this is to occur in res=
ponse to the language uses and its users, and thus will never actually be f=
inished</blockquote><div><br></div><div>mi'e la mukti mu'o</div><p></p></di=
v>

<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 />

------=_Part_1248_1471169553.1411020738356--