Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:50:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Wei Tang <sorpaas@gmail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <5e21f137-39e4-40e3-8bc1-8eba13103045@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12258_75581227.1511409018765"
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_12258_75581227.1511409018765
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12259_322417012.1511409018765"

------=_Part_12259_322417012.1511409018765
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

(Forgive me if I missed some comment above me. This thread is just too 
long.)

Why don't we use an RFC-like process for improving Lojban? Putting 
everything in a central documentation CLL, IMHO, is not a good idea.

We can have people freely submit new RFCs. Editor accepts them without 
subjective judgement (but only ensure that it is of good quality). New RFC 
starts with "Proposed" status, and once several Lojban text starts to use 
this derivative, it enters "Draft" status. If we have the majority of the 
community using it, the RFC becomes a "Standard".

Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2026/

-- 
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_12259_322417012.1511409018765
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">(Forgive me if I missed some comment above me. This thread=
 is just too long.)<br><br>Why don&#39;t we use an RFC-like process for imp=
roving Lojban? Putting everything in a central documentation CLL, IMHO, is =
not a good idea.<br><br>We can have people freely submit new RFCs. Editor a=
ccepts them without subjective judgement (but only ensure that it is of goo=
d quality). New RFC starts with &quot;Proposed&quot; status, and once sever=
al Lojban text starts to use this derivative, it enters &quot;Draft&quot; s=
tatus. If we have the majority of the community using it, the RFC becomes a=
 &quot;Standard&quot;.<br><br>Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/r=
fc2026/<br></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_12259_322417012.1511409018765--

------=_Part_12258_75581227.1511409018765--