Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 18:03:57 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <7d063690-0550-45d6-9779-3334ac8e17b5@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ae9b9cae-0420-475b-a0e8-8efb3452ef1e@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com> <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <CACf3dPnmCuGXQtxQOOrP9T9pDthhthx3rnoCdaFoai+fM8M6Wg@mail.gmail.com> <SY3PR01MB08733806D926A36CF1726EB0EB560@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <CACf3dPncGvkjQjbxL4MV_omG0R-e66V1CDcZFrt2hVU8iYWf0w@mail.gmail.com> <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> <e7d4a3d5-4cd9-435d-bd3f-90c011172a10@googlegroups.com>
 <A9240133-B357-4747-941D-BF28F3CCAE8C@free.fr>
 <eb1c7ed2-ec39-476d-b9dc-11f835e9623c@googlegroups.com>
 <ae9b9cae-0420-475b-a0e8-8efb3452ef1e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_4718_1066779999.1511143438120"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.3
X-Spam_score_int: -12
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_4718_1066779999.1511143438120
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_4719_1259282665.1511143438120"

------=_Part_4719_1259282665.1511143438120
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le vendredi 17 novembre 2017 12:56:14 UTC, Benoit Neil a =C3=A9crit :
>
> It seems groups are much fuzzier than expected. Individual may accept to:
>
>    - Improve, *non *backward-compatible way (=3D anything)
>    - Bug-fix, *non *backward-compatible way
>    - Improve, backward-compatible way (including additions)
>    - Do nothing at all
>   =20
> These choices may apply to logic and grammar, leading to 4^2 =3D 16 possi=
ble=20
> combinations, even though some combinations are highly improbable and som=
e=20
> others contain simply very few people (as la .guskant. said about former=
=20
> "group 2"). If we add "semantics" to logic and grammar, we get to 4^3 =3D=
 64.=20
> And if we add "No idea on the topic" as a choice, we got 5^3 =3D 125.
> And inside some combinations, we find people in favor of X or Y=20
> proposition (Zasni Gerna of Xorxes, Solpahi's connectives, Zantufa...).=
=20
> which increases again the number of cases.
> (Please note that I did not add "Bug-fix, backward-compatible" because=20
> from what I read, it seems merely impossible (correct me if I'm wrong).=
=20
> Else we'd have 6^3 =3D 216.)
>
> So better not trying to but people in 3 "labeled compartments", I guess!=
=20
> That leads me to the conclusion that submissions must be *evaluated* on a=
 *per-case=20
> basis*, with a stable and well-known *evaluation grid*.
>
> ***
>
> Now about organizations.
> I feel like the separation between BPFK and the GIT repositories=20
> maintained by the Coders' Group is nonsense (from an pure organizational=
=20
> point of view). I foresee multiple possible outcomes:
>
>    1. Nothing changes: BPFK discusses/votes things that will never be=20
>    included, and the Coders' Group include things that will never be=20
>    discussed/voted. Lojban dies.
>    2. Pure schism: each group "wakes up" (=3Dbecomes more active) and=20
>    decides to build its own language. What will emerge is unclear to me. =
One=20
>    sure thing is that the small community will be split into two (or more=
)=20
>    weaker ones.
>    3. Put in common:
>   =20
>
>    - By cooperation: groups (or some members) agree to work together (or=
=20
>       merge) with proper means, common rules and common tools. That requi=
res=20
>       adhesion and (good) tools.
>          - Cooperation may happen with renewal: groups may agree to=20
>          create a new entity with new (or updated) rules.
>       - By dissolution: one group may simply dissolve, leaving the other=
=20
>       one the only "official". I personally think this is dangerous becau=
se we=20
>       surely need the point of view of everybody.
>       - By forcing: One group may force the other to accept its own way=
=20
>       to work. The most obvious case would be preempting ("pull the rug o=
ut to"):=20
>       BPFK could fork repositories and tag them as "BPFK Official" or wha=
tever.=20
>       This is unfair, but perfectly legal.
>   =20
> Of course, cases may be partial and mixed: some members may join the othe=
r=20
> group, while other create a new entity or a new language, etc. I just hop=
e=20
> people won't be dumb enough to create a worse situation.
> (The terms you were looking for are "compromises" and "trade-off"... ;-) =
)
>
> That leads me to the conclusion that submission protocol/rules are to be=
=20
> *proposed*, discussed and accepted by a wide range of people. I won't=20
> enter pure language discussions, as I don't feel legitimate for this. But=
=20
> I'll try to propose solutions to help about rules and protocols. Any idea=
=20
> is welcome of course.
>
> la .sykyndyr.
>
>

I prefer 3, "putting in common by cooperation". However, the Lojban Coders'=
=20
Group seems to have no rule, and each member of the group behaves as he=20
likes. Some of them are already inactive. Even if the BPFK decides to make=
=20
contact with the Lojban Coders' Group, they will not be able to reach an=20
agreement of the whole group.

I once tried the similar action as "putting in common by forcing" by=20
posting a motion to the LLG meeting. My motion was to rescue the official=
=20
information from lojban.org, and to manage them by a new organisation on=20
github consisting of all members of LLG and no other persons. The new LLG=
=20
page on the github should declare that the official body has no=20
responsibility for the contents on lojban.org, lojban.github.io,=20
la-lojban.github.io and any other websites. Any voluntary groups will thus=
=20
be liberated from any requirements for maintaining the official contents,=
=20
and will not be blamed for the false or inaccurate contents. Any learners=
=20
of Lojban will thus have easy access to the official contents without=20
searching deeply into the chaotic lojban.org or comparing the parser=20
sources with Chapter 21 of the CLL.

That motion was implicitly seconded by Gleki (he agreed to a method that=20
requires the motion being adopted, but made no comments on the motion=20
itself), and not opposed by Curtis Franks, but the meeting was forcedly=20
closed without any discussion or voting.

The LLG meeting thus died. I will try again the similar motion on the=20
current LLG meeting, but it is likely to be ignored again guessing from=20
their behavior to my past motions. I may try the BPFK meeting to discuss=20
your analysis, even though it is also dying.


ki'e sai la sykyndyr
mi'e la guskant
=20

--=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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_4719_1259282665.1511143438120
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le vendredi 17 novembre 2017 12:56:14 UTC, Benoit =
Neil a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: =
0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div>It seems groups are much fuzzier than expected. Individual =
may accept to:</div><div><ul><li>Improve, <b>non </b>backward-compatible wa=
y (=3D anything)<br></li><li>Bug-fix, <b>non </b>backward-compatible way<br=
></li><li>Improve, backward-compatible way (including additions)<br></li><l=
i>Do nothing at all<br></li></ul></div><div>These choices may apply to logi=
c and grammar, leading to 4^2 =3D 16 possible combinations, even though som=
e combinations are highly improbable and some others contain simply very fe=
w people (as la .guskant. said about former &quot;group 2&quot;). If we add=
 &quot;semantics&quot; to logic and grammar, we get to 4^3 =3D 64. And if w=
e add &quot;No idea on the topic&quot; as a choice, we got 5^3 =3D 125.<br>=
</div><div>And inside some combinations, we find people in favor of X or Y =
proposition (Zasni Gerna of Xorxes, Solpahi&#39;s connectives, Zantufa...).=
 which increases again the number of cases.</div><div>(Please note that I d=
id not add &quot;Bug-fix, backward-compatible&quot; because from what I rea=
d, it seems merely impossible (correct me if I&#39;m wrong). Else we&#39;d =
have 6^3 =3D 216.)</div><div><br></div><div>So better not trying to but peo=
ple in 3 &quot;labeled compartments&quot;, I guess! That leads me to the co=
nclusion that submissions must be <b>evaluated</b> on a <b>per-case basis</=
b>, with a stable and well-known <b>evaluation grid</b>.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>***</div><div><br></div><div>Now about organizations.</div><div>I fe=
el like the separation between BPFK and the GIT repositories maintained by =
the Coders&#39; Group is nonsense (from an pure organizational point of vie=
w). I foresee multiple possible outcomes:</div><div><ol><li>Nothing changes=
: BPFK discusses/votes things that will never be included, and the Coders&#=
39; Group include things that will never be discussed/voted. Lojban dies.<b=
r></li><li>Pure schism: each group &quot;wakes up&quot; (=3Dbecomes more ac=
tive) and decides to build its own language. What will emerge is unclear to=
 me. One sure thing is that the small community will be split into two (or =
more) weaker ones.<br></li><li>Put in common:<br></li></ol></div><div><ul><=
ul><li>By cooperation: groups (or some members) agree to work together (or =
merge) with proper means, common rules and common tools. That requires adhe=
sion and (good) tools.</li><ul><li>Cooperation may happen with renewal: gro=
ups may agree to create a new entity with new (or updated) rules.</li></ul>=
<li>By dissolution: one group may simply dissolve, leaving the other one th=
e only &quot;official&quot;. I personally think this is dangerous because w=
e surely need the point of view of everybody.</li><li>By forcing: One group=
 may force the other to accept its own way to work. The most obvious case w=
ould be preempting (&quot;pull the rug out to&quot;): BPFK could fork repos=
itories and tag them as &quot;BPFK Official&quot; or whatever. This is unfa=
ir, but perfectly legal.</li></ul></ul></div><div>Of course, cases may be p=
artial and mixed: some members may join the other group, while other create=
 a new entity or a new language, etc. I just hope people won&#39;t be dumb =
enough to create a worse situation.</div><div>(The terms you were looking f=
or are &quot;compromises&quot; and &quot;trade-off&quot;... ;-) )</div><div=
><br></div><div>That leads me to the conclusion that submission protocol/ru=
les are to be <b>proposed</b>, discussed and accepted by a wide range of pe=
ople. I won&#39;t enter pure language discussions, as I don&#39;t feel legi=
timate for this. But I&#39;ll try to propose solutions to help about rules =
and protocols. Any idea is welcome of course.</div><div><br></div><div>la .=
sykyndyr.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></=
div><div>I prefer 3, &quot;putting in common by cooperation&quot;. However,=
 the Lojban Coders&#39; Group seems to have no rule, and each member of the=
 group behaves as he likes. Some of them are already inactive. Even if the =
BPFK decides to make contact with the Lojban Coders&#39; Group, they will n=
ot be able to reach an agreement of the whole group.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>I once tried the similar action as &quot;putting in common by forcing&qu=
ot; by posting a motion to the LLG meeting. My motion was to rescue the off=
icial information from lojban.org, and to manage them by a new organisation=
 on github consisting of all members of LLG and no other persons. The new L=
LG page on the github should declare that the official body has no responsi=
bility for the contents on lojban.org, lojban.github.io, la-lojban.github.i=
o and any other websites. Any voluntary groups will thus be liberated from =
any requirements for maintaining the official contents, and will not be bla=
med for the false or inaccurate contents. Any learners of Lojban will thus =
have easy access to the official contents without searching deeply into the=
 chaotic lojban.org or comparing the parser sources with Chapter 21 of the =
CLL.</div><div><br></div><div>That motion was implicitly seconded by Gleki =
(he agreed to a method that requires the motion being adopted, but made no =
comments on the motion itself), and not opposed by Curtis Franks, but the m=
eeting was forcedly closed without any discussion or voting.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>The LLG meeting thus died. I will try again the similar motion o=
n the current LLG meeting, but it is likely to be ignored again guessing fr=
om their behavior to my past motions. I may try the BPFK meeting to discuss=
 your analysis, even though it is also dying.</div><div><br></div><div><br>=
</div><div>ki&#39;e sai la sykyndyr</div><div>mi&#39;e la guskant</div><div=
>=C2=A0</div></div>

<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"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://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_4719_1259282665.1511143438120--

------=_Part_4718_1066779999.1511143438120--