Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of greg_g@posteo.net designates 185.67.36.141 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.67.36.141;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@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>
 <e3a723d2-8b62-4338-bc8a-147f03d6d3f4@googlegroups.com>
 <4aefe693-e504-4518-09e5-d82a360c333c@posteo.net>
 <322158ae-e6ad-49b0-9dba-0dddf71609f1@googlegroups.com>
 <abedd043-ff39-67a3-c9fc-36fc880b7151@posteo.net>
 <d8876071-b6ee-433f-8856-bd0912d71c48@googlegroups.com>
From: Gregorio Guidi <greg_g@posteo.net>
Message-ID: <c8e388ad-b988-152c-7a0a-e96774e4aa8f@posteo.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:23:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d8876071-b6ee-433f-8856-bd0912d71c48@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------9755E17ECEB735C9539E46F1"
Content-Language: en-US
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -4.2
X-Spam_score_int: -41
X-Spam_bar: ----

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9755E17ECEB735C9539E46F1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/22/2017 09:58 AM, sukender1@gmail.com wrote:
> Alright. Time for my v0.2 proposal about submissions. I integrated=20
> what Gleki and Gregorio=C2=A0said, from the "simplified v0.1" version.
> To avoid having "actual experts" situation or the "anyone is expert"=20
> situation, I'm proposing a balanced way. I thought about algorithms=20
> determining the implication of each one in the Lojban project but=20
> rules ended to be way too complex, not taking all important aspects=20
> into consideration, and unmaintainable. So I changed my mind and I am=20
> now proposing a king of "merit" mechanism:
>
>   * Each user can self-evaluate about the language. This is purely
>     informational. Grades would be (for instance): zero, A1, A2, B1,
>     B2, C1, C2 (as per CERF, with the addition of "zero").
>       o Level is rounded by *default* (so that "A1+" is not A2 but A1).
>       o Ex: I'm pretty sure I'm "zero", because I cannot say I reached
>         the A1 level.
>   * Each user can give "language level" kudos to anyone else,
>     asserting the target is _AT LEAST_ the given level.
>       o Ex: I don't know much aout Gleki, but I'm 100% convinced I can
>         give him B2 level. Maybe much more, but B2 is the highest
>         level I'm 100% confident with.
>       o Given kudos can be changed at any time.
>   * All kudos are gathered to determine the "granting" level. If an
>     user gets at least "X% votes" and at least "N votes", (s)he get
>     that level.
>       o Ex: Gleki has 2 "C1", 5 "B2", and 3 "B1".
>           + If we require "50% / 5 votes", then he would be B2.
>           + For "50% / 6 votes", he would be "B2" too (C1 count, as it
>             is greater, leading to the "70% / 7 votes" B2 score).
>           + For "90% / 5 votes", he would be B1.
>       o That doesn't mean one is really "B2" for instance. That means
>         the community grants the rights associated with B2 level to
>         someone.
>   * Same thing (self-evaluate & kudos) should be applied to "logic
>     knowledge", with grades from 0 to 5 (for instance). This would
>     also be a requirement to validate submissions.
>   * Maybe the system can be extended to other things, such as
>     "technical level", and/or "general community kudos" (maybe
>     others?). The level would grant access to some features, to be
>     determined.
>
> Going from that, the submission protocol can be more precise about the=20
> former "expert" term. In the following diagram:
>
>   * "[B1]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the language
>     level B1 or more".
>   * "[logic 2]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the
>     logical level 2 or more".
>   * Please note that all levels (B1, C1, logic 2, etc...) are purely
>     arbitrary for now, and may be adapted.
>   * "Technical level" kudos are not integrated in the diagram, nor
>     anything about who may tag versions and edit roadmaps. Your ideas
>     are welcome!
>   * The current system *DOESN'T* ensure there is at least one person
>     able to validate or vote. I guess a simple rule taking "N best
>     graded users" may be added.
>
> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZSA1CB26C9g/WhU6u9TCRSI/AAAAAAAAAhg/6=
b0a5hIeXpQiwAy1oSIM6hfnbW__ktRcACLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.png>
>
>
>
> @all: Your thoughts?

Thanks a lot for the proposal! I see you are taking a clear "top-down"=20
approach, imagining an organization to put on top of the existing users=20
and experts within the Lojban community. I like the goal that you have=20
in mind. What I doubt, however, is whether the approach can fit with the=20
limited size of the Lojban community.

I try to explain... In the end, it all comes down to who has control on=20
the main resources of the project (the website, the official pages of=20
the wiki and the associated material, the lojban github account, the=20
mailing lists) and how they decide to develop those resources. How many=20
community members are candidates to fill those key roles?... How many=20
people speak Lojban and are currently actively involved in the project?=20
I don't know... maybe 10? Is it possible to build a complex structure on=20
top of this set of core people that would need to fill all key parts of=20
the workflow? Given the size, perhaps it would be reasonable to just=20
check with them one by one, and see what they would like to do...

Hoping to be constructive, I will try to elaborate more on this=20
"bottom-up" approach (i.e. what can be proposed on the basis of the=20
community as it exists now) and see what comes out of it. As a=20
disclaimer, I note that the following observations come from me as an=20
external observer of the dynamics of the Lojban community, so I=20
apologize in advance for not being completely informed on some of the=20
inner workings.

Let us start with the main actors involved... consider the LLG. It is my=20
impression that in recent years, and in particular after the BPFK=20
Reauthorization <https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization>, the=20
LLG is distancing itself somewhat from the previous role of active=20
driver of the development of the language, essentially leaving future=20
developments in the hands of the BPFK members (while maintaining the=20
power of approval for "official standards"). From what I can see, the=20
LLG has resources for carrying out only the bare minimum of activities:=20
the legal duties to continue existing as a legal entity, managing the=20
finances and the printing and distributions of the physical copies of=20
the CLL.

This situation leaves the focus mostly on the BPFK members=20
<https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_members>. If the wiki is not in error,=20
they are:

  * la selpa'i (Chair of BPFK since March 16, 2015)
  * Pierre Abbat
  * la gleki
  * Durka42
  * Ilmen
  * la .xorxes.
  * Adam D. Lopresto, aka la xalbo
  * la .guskant.
  * la mezohe (Joined November 17, 2015)

It is natural to see them as the best candidates to exert control on the=20
core lojban resources.

Then there is the Lojban Coder's Group. What/who is it in practice? I=20
can see from the github pages that for the cll repository this is mostly=20
Robin Powell. Other members of the organization do not seem very active,=20
at least in comparison. Indeed Robin almost single-handedly managed to=20
produce version 1.1 of the CLL with years of dedicated work, clearly a=20
huge accomplishment, and this was done in addition to maintaining most=20
of the infrastructure (and being the previous BPFK Chair). I have the=20
impression, though, that after 1.1 he expects that someone else will=20
step up to the role (please correct me if I am wrong).

Then there is the maintenance of the semi-official parsers in the=20
ilmentufa repository, mostly by Ilmen. Here I honestly find it difficult=20
to explain the conflicts between BPFK and Coder's Group... (after all=20
Ilmen is also a member of the BPFK, right?). I do not really find=20
anything clearly to blame on all sides, from a superficial perspective=20
it seems natural that community members work on their parsers while an=20
official fully-specified grammar and an associated parser is still not=20
available (and this is due since ~15 years, I believe?). In a sense, the=20
problem will solve itself once the BPFK releases an official final=20
baseline grammar with an associated parser.

So, who should have control of the core lojban resources (wiki, github=20
repositories, ...)? If I had to put down a proposal, I would say all the=20
members of the BPFK plus Robin. They should be empowered to apply=20
bugfixes as they see fit, and set roadmaps for future releases, while=20
continuing the discussions on the more technical points. It is painful=20
to see trivial bugfixes pending in pull requests with no one to pick=20
them up.

What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why=20
not having him have the final word on what goes in and goes out, when=20
consensus cannot be reached?

To complete the proposal, the LLG should just acknowledge the current=20
dire situation. The BPFK should stop being considered as a formal=20
committee (for some reason they always remind me of this sketch=20
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5ixeRWrg0yg>) and just be taken for=20
what it is: a group of volunteers that is given control of some core=20
resources, in the hope that the group will develop them and make the=20
Lojban ecosystem better over time. The BPFK should be free to set its=20
preferred direction for the project, subject to the usual pressures of=20
open source communities: the threat to lose users/contributors if they=20
are too much alienated, or be subject to debilitating forks. A simple=20
way to manage conflicts would be to give one member the power to have=20
the final say on what goes in, as said before. This would also be=20
subject to the usual counterbalancing pressures of open source=20
communities. This role could be seen as a sort of "lead developer"=20
within a group of "core developers", to continue the analogy with=20
software projects. Or a "release manager", as said in another post.

Just my 2 cents...

--=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.

--------------9755E17ECEB735C9539E46F1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8=
">
  </head>
  <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 11/22/2017 09:58 AM,
      <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:sukender1@gmail.=
com">sukender1@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"
      cite=3D"mid:d8876071-b6ee-433f-8856-bd0912d71c48@googlegroups.com">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">Alright. Time for my v0.2 proposal about
        submissions. I integrated what Gleki and=C2=A0<span
          style=3D"white-space: nowrap;">Gregorio</span><span
          style=3D"white-space: nowrap;">=C2=A0said, from the "simplified v=
0.1"
          version.</span>
        <div>To avoid having "actual experts" situation or the "anyone
          is expert" situation, I'm proposing a balanced way. I thought
          about algorithms determining the implication of each one in
          the Lojban project but rules ended to be way too complex, not
          taking all important aspects into consideration, and
          unmaintainable. So I changed my mind and I am now proposing a
          king of "merit" mechanism:</div>
        <div>
          <ul>
            <li>Each user can self-evaluate about the language. This is
              purely informational. Grades would be (for instance):
              zero, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 (as per CERF, with the
              addition of "zero").<br>
            </li>
            <ul>
              <li>Level is rounded by <b>default</b> (so that "A1+" is
                not A2 but A1).<br>
              </li>
              <li>Ex: I'm pretty sure I'm "zero", because I cannot say I
                reached the A1 level.</li>
            </ul>
            <li>Each user can give "language level" kudos to anyone
              else, asserting the target is <u>AT LEAST</u> the given
              level.<br>
            </li>
            <ul>
              <li>Ex: I don't know much aout Gleki, but I'm 100%
                convinced I can give him B2 level. Maybe much more, but
                B2 is the highest level I'm 100% confident with.</li>
              <li>Given kudos can be changed at any time.</li>
            </ul>
            <li>All kudos are gathered to determine the "granting"
              level. If an user gets at least "X% votes" and at least "N
              votes", (s)he get that level.<br>
            </li>
            <ul>
              <li>Ex: Gleki has 2 "C1", 5 "B2", and 3 "B1".</li>
              <ul>
                <li>If we require "50% / 5 votes", then he would be B2.</li=
>
                <li>For "50% / 6 votes", he would be "B2" too (C1 count,
                  as it is greater, leading to the "70% / 7 votes" B2
                  score).</li>
                <li>For "90% / 5 votes", he would be B1.</li>
              </ul>
              <li>That doesn't mean one is really "B2" for instance.
                That means the community grants the rights associated
                with B2 level to someone.<br>
              </li>
            </ul>
            <li>Same thing (self-evaluate &amp; kudos) should be applied
              to "logic knowledge", with grades from 0 to 5 (for
              instance). This would also be a requirement to validate
              submissions.<br>
            </li>
            <li>Maybe the system can be extended to other things, such
              as "technical level", and/or "general community kudos"
              (maybe others?). The level would grant access to some
              features, to be determined.<br>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </div>
        <div>Going from that, the submission protocol can be more
          precise about the former "expert" term. In the following
          diagram:</div>
        <div>
          <ul>
            <li>"[B1]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the
              language level B1 or more".<br>
            </li>
            <li>"[logic 2]" means "the authenticated user must be
              granted the logical level 2 or more".</li>
            <li>Please note that all levels (B1, C1, logic 2, etc...)
              are purely arbitrary for now, and may be adapted.<br>
            </li>
            <li>"Technical level" kudos are not integrated in the
              diagram, nor anything about who may tag versions and edit
              roadmaps. Your ideas are welcome!</li>
            <li>The current system <b>DOESN'T</b> ensure there is at
              least one person able to validate or vote. I guess a
              simple rule taking "N best graded users" may be added.<br>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <p class=3D"separator" style=3D"text-align: center; clear: both;"=
><a
              imageanchor=3D"1"
href=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZSA1CB26C9g/WhU6u9TCRSI/AAAAAAAA=
Ahg/6b0a5hIeXpQiwAy1oSIM6hfnbW__ktRcACLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot=
.png"
              style=3D"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"
              moz-do-not-send=3D"true"><img
src=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZSA1CB26C9g/WhU6u9TCRSI/AAAAAAAAA=
hg/6b0a5hIeXpQiwAy1oSIM6hfnbW__ktRcACLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.=
png"
                style=3D"" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" border=3D"0"></a></p>
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>@all: Your thoughts?</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Thanks a lot for the proposal! I see you are taking a clear
    "top-down" approach, imagining an organization to put on top of the
    existing users and experts within the Lojban community. I like the
    goal that you have in mind. What I doubt, however, is whether the
    approach can fit with the limited size of the Lojban community.<br>
    <br>
    I try to explain... In the end, it all comes down to who has control
    on the main resources of the project (the website, the official
    pages of the wiki and the associated material, the lojban github
    account, the mailing lists) and how they decide to develop those
    resources. How many community members are candidates to fill those
    key roles?... How many people speak Lojban and are currently
    actively involved in the project? I don't know... maybe 10? Is it
    possible to build a complex structure on top of this set of core
    people that would need to fill all key parts of the workflow? Given
    the size, perhaps it would be reasonable to just check with them one
    by one, and see what they would like to do...<br>
    <br>
    Hoping to be constructive, I will try to elaborate more on this
    "bottom-up" approach (i.e. what can be proposed on the basis of the
    community as it exists now) and see what comes out of it. As a
    disclaimer, I note that the following observations come from me as
    an external observer of the dynamics of the Lojban community, so I
    apologize in advance for not being completely informed on some of
    the inner workings.<br>
    <br>
    Let us start with the main actors involved... consider the LLG. It
    is my impression that in recent years, and in particular after the <a
      moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
      href=3D"https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization">BPFK
      Reauthorization</a>, the LLG is distancing itself somewhat from
    the previous role of active driver of the development of the
    language, essentially leaving future developments in the hands of
    the BPFK members (while maintaining the power of approval for
    "official standards"). From what I can see, the LLG has resources
    for carrying out only the bare minimum of activities: the legal
    duties to continue existing as a legal entity, managing the finances
    and the printing and distributions of the physical copies of the
    CLL.<br>
    <br>
    This situation leaves the focus mostly on the <a
      moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
      href=3D"https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_members">BPFK members</a>.
    If the wiki is not in error, they are:<br>
    <ul>
      <li>la selpa'i (Chair of BPFK since March 16, 2015)</li>
      <li>Pierre Abbat</li>
      <li>la gleki</li>
      <li> Durka42</li>
      <li> Ilmen</li>
      <li>la .xorxes.<br>
      </li>
      <li> Adam D. Lopresto, aka la xalbo</li>
      <li> la .guskant.</li>
      <li> la mezohe (Joined November 17, 2015)</li>
    </ul>
    It is natural to see them as the best candidates to exert control on
    the core lojban resources.<br>
    <br>
    Then there is the Lojban Coder's Group. What/who is it in practice?
    I can see from the github pages that for the cll repository this is
    mostly Robin Powell. Other members of the organization do not seem
    very active, at least in comparison. Indeed Robin almost
    single-handedly managed to produce version 1.1 of the CLL with years
    of dedicated work, clearly a huge accomplishment, and this was done
    in addition to maintaining most of the infrastructure (and being the
    previous BPFK Chair). I have the impression, though, that after 1.1
    he expects that someone else will step up to the role (please
    correct me if I am wrong).<br>
    <br>
    Then there is the maintenance of the semi-official parsers in the
    ilmentufa repository, mostly by Ilmen. Here I honestly find it
    difficult to explain the conflicts between BPFK and Coder's Group...
    (after all Ilmen is also a member of the BPFK, right?). I do not
    really find anything clearly to blame on all sides, from a
    superficial perspective it seems natural that community members work
    on their parsers while an official fully-specified grammar and an
    associated parser is still not available (and this is due since ~15
    years, I believe?). In a sense, the problem will solve itself once
    the BPFK releases an official final baseline grammar with an
    associated parser.<br>
    <br>
    So, who should have control of the core lojban resources (wiki,
    github repositories, ...)? If I had to put down a proposal, I would
    say all the members of the BPFK plus Robin. They should be empowered
    to apply bugfixes as they see fit, and set roadmaps for future
    releases, while continuing the discussions on the more technical
    points. It is painful to see trivial bugfixes pending in pull
    requests with no one to pick them up.<br>
    <br>
    What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair.
    Why not having him have the final word on what goes in and goes out,
    when consensus cannot be reached?<br>
    <br>
    To complete the proposal, the LLG should just acknowledge the
    current dire situation. The BPFK should stop being considered as a
    formal committee (for some reason they always remind me of <a
      moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
      href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5ixeRWrg0yg">this sketch</a=
>)
    and just be taken for what it is: a group of volunteers that is
    given control of some core resources, in the hope that the group
    will develop them and make the Lojban ecosystem better over time.
    The BPFK should be free to set its preferred direction for the
    project, subject to the usual pressures of open source communities:
    the threat to lose users/contributors if they are too much
    alienated, or be subject to debilitating forks. A simple way to
    manage conflicts would be to give one member the power to have the
    final say on what goes in, as said before. This would also be
    subject to the usual counterbalancing pressures of open source
    communities. This role could be seen as a sort of "lead developer"
    within a group of "core developers", to continue the analogy with
    software projects. Or a "release manager", as said in another post.<br>
    <br>
    Just my 2 cents...<br>
  </body>
</html>

<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 />

--------------9755E17ECEB735C9539E46F1--