Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:24:33 -0800 (PST)
From: sukender1@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <40461bc1-605c-45ab-b2f5-95bc6de34635@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5e21f137-39e4-40e3-8bc1-8eba13103045@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <5e21f137-39e4-40e3-8bc1-8eba13103045@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12875_1615249424.1511429073521"
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_12875_1615249424.1511429073521
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12876_1031477156.1511429073521"

------=_Part_12876_1031477156.1511429073521
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@Wei

Well, the proposal is somewhat based on such ways to do. Unfortunately:

   - There's an issue about *WHO* is/are the "editor(s)" reviewing=20
   proposals.
   - The size of "core" Lojbanists is very small (as pointed out by=20
   Gregorio).
   - And we may not rely on a truly self-organizing community (as pointed=
=20
   out by Gleki) because of long history of internal "conflicts" & such.

So yes, the base idea is very interesting, but it seems it needs to be=20
adapted to the Lojban situation.


Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 04:50:18 UTC+1, Wei Tang a =C3=A9crit :
>
> (Forgive me if I missed some comment above me. This thread is just too=20
> long.)
>
> Why don't we use an RFC-like process for improving Lojban? Putting=20
> everything in a central documentation CLL, IMHO, is not a good idea.
>
> We can have people freely submit new RFCs. Editor accepts them without=20
> subjective judgement (but only ensure that it is of good quality). New RF=
C=20
> starts with "Proposed" status, and once several Lojban text starts to use=
=20
> this derivative, it enters "Draft" status. If we have the majority of the=
=20
> community using it, the RFC becomes a "Standard".
>
> Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2026/
>

--=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_12876_1031477156.1511429073521
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">@Wei<div><br></div><div>Well, the proposal is somewhat bas=
ed on such ways to do. Unfortunately:</div><div><ul><li>There&#39;s an issu=
e about <b>WHO</b> is/are the &quot;editor(s)&quot; reviewing proposals.</l=
i><li>The size of &quot;core&quot; Lojbanists is very small (as pointed out=
 by Gregorio).</li><li>And we may not rely on a truly self-organizing commu=
nity (as pointed out by Gleki) because of long history of internal &quot;co=
nflicts&quot; &amp; such.</li></ul></div><div>So yes, the base idea is very=
 interesting, but it seems it needs to be adapted to the Lojban situation.<=
/div><div><br><br>Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 04:50:18 UTC+1, Wei Tang a =C3=
=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-l=
eft: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
>(Forgive me if I missed some comment above me. This thread is just too lon=
g.)<br><br>Why don&#39;t we use an RFC-like process for improving Lojban? P=
utting everything in a central documentation CLL, IMHO, is not a good idea.=
<br><br>We can have people freely submit new RFCs. Editor accepts them with=
out subjective judgement (but only ensure that it is of good quality). New =
RFC starts with &quot;Proposed&quot; status, and once several Lojban text s=
tarts to use this derivative, it enters &quot;Draft&quot; status. If we hav=
e the majority of the community using it, the RFC becomes a &quot;Standard&=
quot;.<br><br>Reference: <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc202=
6/" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http=
s://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Frfc2=
026%2F\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNHme2pVL4zkehdxPCVE3Zdfh7C-4w=
&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;https://www.google.com/url?=
q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Frfc2026%2F\x26sa\x3dD\x26sn=
tz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNHme2pVL4zkehdxPCVE3Zdfh7C-4w&#39;;return true;">htt=
ps://datatracker.ietf.org/<wbr>doc/rfc2026/</a><br></div></blockquote></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_12876_1031477156.1511429073521--

------=_Part_12875_1615249424.1511429073521--