Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 06:08:55 -0800 (PST)
From: sukender1@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <e3a723d2-8b62-4338-bc8a-147f03d6d3f4@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <7d063690-0550-45d6-9779-3334ac8e17b5@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>
 <7d063690-0550-45d6-9779-3334ac8e17b5@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_8427_168135742.1511273336086"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_8427_168135742.1511273336086
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_8428_251655366.1511273336086"

------=_Part_8428_251655366.1511273336086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


>
> I prefer 3, "putting in common by cooperation". However, the Lojban 
> Coders' 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' Group, they will not be able to reach 
> an agreement of the whole group.
>

Are you saying the Coders' Group is not a group, but rather an "unsorted" 
list of accounts? If so, I understand why preempting would be more probable 
than I thought. However, it could be fair to ask everyone first. But I 
understand inactive accounts are an issue. BTW, I integrated the problem in 
my thinking about how to help organizing all of this (coming soon).

I once tried the similar action as "putting in common by forcing" by 
> posting a motion to the LLG meeting. [...]
> 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 meeting was forcedly 
> closed without any discussion or voting.
>

Why closed?
 

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

Ok. Let us know!


ki'e sai la sykyndyr
>

je'e

***

@all:
Now about submissions to update the CLL... Let's imagine a second we have 
an unique and active board (say "LLGBPFKCoders", or whatever), and adequate 
tools. What would be an efficient submission protocol? Here are two drafts:

<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Qerw5Wz61-Q/WhQxLX86gmI/AAAAAAAAAhE/B2aMRVVg-Rg5Xrudn31X--D6LwHT1ZHhQCLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.png>

Roughly rephrased, it would be:

   1. Anyone authenticated (= registered somewhere) can create a draft and 
   discuss about existing ones.
   2. Once the draft seems okay enough, anyone authenticated can flag it as 
   "okay, let's call the experts to review this".
   3. Only "experts" (to be defined, I guess) can "validate" the proposal.
   4. Once validated, only tiny tweaks can me made. Then anyone 
   authenticated can submit a "validated" document.
   5. The board votes for those submissions.
   6. The tech staff integrates approved submissions.


One of my main concerns was to create something both clear & simple on one 
hand, and structured enough on the other hand. Here the "Reviewed proposal" 
may be a bit useless. I'm not 100% sure actually. But if this sounds burden 
to you, then the simplified protocol would be :

<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V2blUb4HjLA/WhQyk7KG1XI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/5fYIBlDo9sEtATcIQ5_R6WZuJT2sZ8i2wCLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus%2Bsimple.dot.png>

That's even simpler, but removes the ability to make tiny changes once 
validated. What's your opinion?


ki'e ro do
.i la .sykyndyr.

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

------=_Part_8428_251655366.1511273336086
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margi=
n-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><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></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>Are you saying the Coders&#39; Group is not a group, =
but rather an &quot;unsorted&quot; list of accounts? If so, I understand wh=
y preempting would be more probable than I thought. However, it could be fa=
ir to ask everyone first. But I understand inactive accounts are an issue. =
BTW, I integrated the problem in my thinking about how to help organizing a=
ll of this (coming soon).</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I once tried the similar action as &q=
uot;putting in common by forcing&quot; by posting a motion to the LLG meeti=
ng. [...]</div><div>That motion was implicitly seconded by Gleki (he agreed=
 to a method that requires the motion being adopted, but made no comments o=
n the motion itself), and not opposed by Curtis Franks, but the meeting was=
 forcedly closed without any discussion or voting.</div></div></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>Why closed?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The LLG meeting thus died. I =
will try again the similar motion on the current LLG meeting, but it is lik=
ely to be ignored again guessing from their behavior to my past motions. I =
may try the BPFK meeting to discuss your analysis, even though it is also d=
ying.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok. Let us know!</div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><div>ki&#39;e sai la sykyndyr</div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>je&#39;e</div><div><br></div><div>***</div><div><br></div><div=
>@all:</div><div>Now about submissions to update the CLL... Let&#39;s imagi=
ne a second we have an unique and active board (say &quot;LLGBPFKCoders&quo=
t;, or whatever), and adequate tools. What would be an efficient submission=
 protocol? Here are two drafts:</div><div><br></div><p class=3D"separator" =
style=3D"text-align: center; clear: both;"><a imageanchor=3D"1" href=3D"htt=
ps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Qerw5Wz61-Q/WhQxLX86gmI/AAAAAAAAAhE/B2aMRVV=
g-Rg5Xrudn31X--D6LwHT1ZHhQCLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.png" style=
=3D"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img src=3D"https://lh3.googleuse=
rcontent.com/-Qerw5Wz61-Q/WhQxLX86gmI/AAAAAAAAAhE/B2aMRVVg-Rg5Xrudn31X--D6L=
wHT1ZHhQCLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.png" border=3D"0" style=3D""=
></a></p><div><br></div><div>Roughly rephrased, it would be:</div><div><ol>=
<li>Anyone authenticated (=3D registered somewhere) can create a draft and =
discuss about existing ones.</li><li>Once the draft seems okay enough, anyo=
ne authenticated can flag it as &quot;okay, let&#39;s call the experts to r=
eview this&quot;.</li><li>Only &quot;experts&quot; (to be defined, I guess)=
 can &quot;validate&quot; the proposal.</li><li>Once validated, only tiny t=
weaks can me made. Then anyone authenticated can submit a &quot;validated&q=
uot; document.</li><li>The board votes for those submissions.</li><li>The t=
ech staff integrates approved submissions.</li></ol><div><br></div><div>One=
 of my main concerns was to create something both clear &amp; simple on one=
 hand, and structured enough on the other hand. Here the &quot;Reviewed pro=
posal&quot; may be a bit useless. I&#39;m not 100% sure actually. But if th=
is sounds burden to you, then the simplified protocol would be :</div></div=
><div><br></div><p class=3D"separator" style=3D"text-align: center; clear: =
both;"><a imageanchor=3D"1" href=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V2bl=
Ub4HjLA/WhQyk7KG1XI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/5fYIBlDo9sEtATcIQ5_R6WZuJT2sZ8i2wCLcBGAs/s1=
600/Submissions%2Bstatus%2Bsimple.dot.png" style=3D"margin-left: 1em; margi=
n-right: 1em;"><img src=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V2blUb4HjLA/W=
hQyk7KG1XI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/5fYIBlDo9sEtATcIQ5_R6WZuJT2sZ8i2wCLcBGAs/s1600/Submi=
ssions%2Bstatus%2Bsimple.dot.png" border=3D"0" style=3D""></a></p><div><br>=
</div><div>That&#39;s even simpler, but removes the ability to make tiny ch=
anges once validated. What&#39;s your opinion?</div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div><div>ki&#39;e ro do</div><div>.i la .sykyndyr.</div><div><br></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_8428_251655366.1511273336086--

------=_Part_8427_168135742.1511273336086--