Received: from mail-vk0-f63.google.com ([209.85.213.63]:49075) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eHnuS-0004oS-Ro for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:35:08 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f63.google.com with SMTP id t3sf10681250vke.15 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:35:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=doVFiFCE35/7om9v9TkEQkW+s4fu7pvXMNc117KkTks=; b=W6mforVutokBQtGJ4yfmsncC3E/QH6jYj/myoazyIz2RL/vWRNTmwGJ2CPfH4oCPkf N7ZcKD2NC5ILqjo4rQm8MQ/lp5AKE1+pjxEX9OW3iUHKlcith/wbcUKRELSNiwKa2A5G 8Z6Rl2EbIMjG93FUwVRulpMNbRgXoSg9nhA2Y7G5AbLp4M6BWZl76aDx5rvSErjMTDka NjRKxh6JCBtctuCm+tQzqfI7MuzXlAlX3aDMVS6Viw2nm+nbtYGun4RRhmrBp8s1kPq8 C1Q3OXdhTXhDI5s1FzpXz65AT55qcqAoQIlItL7J7NkqO40ObY5SUw/Ju4vP9b1sBbo3 6PRA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=doVFiFCE35/7om9v9TkEQkW+s4fu7pvXMNc117KkTks=; b=AXDA+1Mg707rPX4T0VK6kFa7onsAZKcfreCaN9fOxUOsl1OgXW1XcZPuq5++CK28lw kDv20z3bjcvjqJ0teDFm10EsTep4lf89JFX8UoDbS5OWqA51/x+NuWCBR3p8dHG970Ts 0WAcf1ZIRzzocpxWY3XevworDLGXlhqwEZhani1tZQ8ryQdq3pYjAIX7e//8ZzKkR7Vq ESXfNOgjifRk3EttLXCiF8kOIfVvlsDb4gfsEX/AMxlE3dT/6IULC6nllRDYlpIXxRqr RRTKvKgDbnuo9MpF5dTYLk2jbJdldOefPv0dFedtUqgG3bLceC18/ev/Bl0FpVit8qwF hVYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=doVFiFCE35/7om9v9TkEQkW+s4fu7pvXMNc117KkTks=; b=nPzLBB97X81+wPMQGkcmpibJTskT8M7Xp9fWD9PRdtwSRcffgQsco/8Sp2hLXba04D 5wNmU7sRAksJeOohYfyr8w2SP67nPAHTHm5XAT8wNO+agKG71H6VrdQwvYRjkO8ZvQBq RNznFbXzNl5yGg6qxTQL7UlNOvnSR+u85fFy+vf5u2Ya/kN0DbMj+adtBUOZeeXGtHF9 +NP/ltdez782rZ7tQB6HWF0T9hrQkx0+XN5zU4UTpPEAgCHiQrhayMaEmDD/2u2YUA20 hXLki1xy3rBN7XDe8s7J32A+v+0GlaTzIynixz5t60cz5oRFD5d8IfF9l/OhMFXlCarF 16vw== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6J6j7g9vDqxzlyirT/W4SzvL1J4texNbY7bFFYuOkorCxtMC5V r0cX9O7kqT6n79xWxwupj4k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ0jnpOz73/XGrAUcQKQc0yVj+Ie5VEo0HileEE+9TDlXhv1y4CFUuT+/A2mCw9Zdh9c7r9hw== X-Received: by 10.31.201.198 with SMTP id z189mr2148673vkf.0.1511429698555; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:34:58 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.31.208.131 with SMTP id h125ls1485652vkg.12.gmail; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:34:58 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.31.94.198 with SMTP id s189mr2141544vkb.9.1511429697650; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:34:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:34:57 -0800 (PST) From: sukender1@gmail.com To: lojban Message-Id: <075de629-bf47-4736-bc25-ccf4c953d2a8@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> <7d063690-0550-45d6-9779-3334ac8e17b5@googlegroups.com> <4aefe693-e504-4518-09e5-d82a360c333c@posteo.net> <322158ae-e6ad-49b0-9dba-0dddf71609f1@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_5260_1917165775.1511429697450" X-Original-Sender: sukender1@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.1 X-Spam_score_int: -40 X-Spam_bar: ---- ------=_Part_5260_1917165775.1511429697450 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5261_803916807.1511429697451" ------=_Part_5261_803916807.1511429697451 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable @Gregorio, @all First of all, I thank you *A LOT* for having taken time for this detailed= =20 answer and proposal. If I rephrase correctly, the first issue you point out is that the *number*= =20 of Lojbanists is too low for such a workflow. If your numbers are correct,= =20 then I agree. That's unfortunate for the proposal, but this is exactly what= =20 I said when I answered Gleki: I'm "relying on statistics and probability".= =20 That means the result of voting (and such) is less prone to be far away=20 from "the absolute truth" (whatever it is) when there are many people. Said= =20 otherwise, there is higher chance of having a biased result with a limited= =20 amount of users. Question is: what is an "acceptable threshold"? I don't=20 know. I propose to make a very basic implementation of the system, ask for=20 Lojbanists to register, and check about the number of accounts. That would= =20 give us a first idea of the feasibility. *** About current LLG/BPFK/Coders' Group: Well, I'm *TRYING* to propose=20 something transversal, which could be immune/insensitive to the=20 organization the user comes from. Of couse, that sounds quite obvious the= =20 ones in BPFK (for instance) would receive very high "language kudos scores"= =20 from the community. So yes, you're right about it. But the proposed system= =20 would make it possible to exclude one of them (I hope this won't be the=20 case), and include someone from the outside (I hope there will be=20 candidates). Actually, I guess you're right about saying BPFK+Robin will be the core=20 people. Maybe with some LLG guys in addition? Maybe the system would hard-code some roles (see below) in the first=20 months/years of its existence?... To be discussed... Maybe the system is to be administrated by one of the current organization= =20 in the future? I don't know yet. What I feel is that the currently missing mechanism is a clear submission &= =20 integration workflow (hence the proposal, of course). I hope that if people= =20 agree with a "systematic" workflow, then it would help sorting out the=20 "semi-official" things and start a new "era". *** You also raised an interesting issue in your answer: *roles*. I propose to= =20 add some more rules and definitions, to tackle that: - Define some "*roles*", which are roughly "jobs" or "responsibilities". - Ex: Proposal validator, submission validator (=3D voting member), GitH= ub=20 integrator (=3D merge pull requests), release manager, etc. The list = is to be=20 debated. - Relation is N-N with users: multiple users can be assigned to a=20 role, and each user may have multiple roles. - As you proposed, maybe a "chair/root/super-admin/lead" role would= =20 be to be added, with the ability to have a "super-weighted" vote=20 if-and-only-if a voting procedure doesn't fulfill the minimum require= ments=20 (ex: 50% / 66.7% / N% of "yes", and a minimum of M votes). - System would check periodically for accounts activity, to=20 automatically un-assign inactive users. - Ex: Each month/year/whatever, an email with a link is sent. The user= =20 must then update its roles assignations within days/weeks, or else (s= )he is=20 automatically unassigned. - Each role has some requirements (language level, logic knowledge,=20 etc.), as defined before. - Ex: Proposal validator needs to be at least "B1". - Each role is assigned a minimum number of people, to ensure the tasks= =20 are executed (point I mentioned in a previous post). - Ex: There should be at least 10 "proposal validators". - If there are not enough people to fill a role, then the "closest"= =20 (regarding to requirements) are chosen. - As kudos may be added/modified/removed at any time, user is notified= =20 of new available roles, and roles un-assignations. Of course, this is still tied to the community size... That point induces= =20 that the system must be worked on at the same time Lojban is promoted=20 (maybe a coordinated "advertising campaign" will be necessary? Ex: all=20 "users" are asked to share/post/relay a unique text to various mediums,=20 such as social networks?). la .sykyndyr. Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 01:23:36 UTC+1, Gregorio Guidi a =C3=A9crit : > > On 11/22/2017 09:58 AM, suke...@gmail.com wrote: > > Alright. Time for my v0.2 proposal about submissions. I integrated what= =20 > Gleki and Gregorio said, from the "simplified v0.1" version.=20 > 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 rules= =20 > ended to be way too complex, not taking all important aspects into=20 > consideration, and unmaintainable. So I changed my mind and I am now=20 > proposing a king of "merit" mechanism: > > - Each user can self-evaluate about the language. This is purely=20 > informational. Grades would be (for instance): zero, A1, A2, B1, B2, C= 1, C2=20 > (as per CERF, with the addition of "zero"). > - Level is rounded by *default* (so that "A1+" is not A2 but A1). > - Ex: I'm pretty sure I'm "zero", because I cannot say I reached=20 > the A1 level.=20 > - Each user can give "language level" kudos to anyone else, asserting= =20 > the target is *AT LEAST* the given level. > - Ex: I don't know much aout Gleki, but I'm 100% convinced I can give= =20 > him B2 level. Maybe much more, but B2 is the highest level I'm 100%= =20 > confident with.=20 > - Given kudos can be changed at any time.=20 > - All kudos are gathered to determine the "granting" level. If an user= =20 > gets at least "X% votes" and at least "N votes", (s)he get that level. > - Ex: Gleki has 2 "C1", 5 "B2", and 3 "B1".=20 > - If we require "50% / 5 votes", then he would be B2.=20 > - For "50% / 6 votes", he would be "B2" too (C1 count, as it is= =20 > greater, leading to the "70% / 7 votes" B2 score).=20 > - For "90% / 5 votes", he would be B1.=20 > - That doesn't mean one is really "B2" for instance. That means the= =20 > community grants the rights associated with B2 level to someone. > - Same thing (self-evaluate & kudos) should be applied to "logic=20 > knowledge", with grades from 0 to 5 (for instance). This would also be= a=20 > requirement to validate submissions. > - Maybe the system can be extended to other things, such as "technical= =20 > level", and/or "general community kudos" (maybe others?). The level wo= uld=20 > grant access to some features, to be determined. > =20 > 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=20 > level B1 or more". > - "[logic 2]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the=20 > logical level 2 or more".=20 > - Please note that all levels (B1, C1, logic 2, etc...) are purely=20 > arbitrary for now, and may be adapted. > - "Technical level" kudos are not integrated in the diagram, nor=20 > anything about who may tag versions and edit roadmaps. Your ideas are= =20 > welcome!=20 > - The current system *DOESN'T* ensure there is at least one person=20 > able to validate or vote. I guess a simple rule taking "N best graded= =20 > users" may be added. > =20 > > > > > @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 a= nd=20 > experts within the Lojban community. I like the goal that you have in min= d.=20 > What I doubt, however, is whether the approach can fit with the limited= =20 > 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 the= =20 > wiki and the associated material, the lojban github account, the mailing= =20 > lists) and how they decide to develop those resources. How many community= =20 > members are candidates to fill those key roles?... How many people speak= =20 > Lojban and are currently actively involved in the project? I don't know..= .=20 > maybe 10? Is it possible to build a complex structure on top of this set = of=20 > core people that would need to fill all key parts of the workflow? Given= =20 > the size, perhaps it would be reasonable to just check with them one by= =20 > 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 disclaimer= ,=20 > I note that the following observations come from me as an external observ= er=20 > of the dynamics of the Lojban community, so I apologize in advance for no= t=20 > being completely informed on some of the 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 , the= =20 > LLG is distancing itself somewhat from the previous role of active driver= =20 > of the development of the language, essentially leaving future developmen= ts=20 > in the hands of the BPFK members (while maintaining the power of approval= =20 > for "official standards"). From what I can see, the LLG has resources for= =20 > carrying out only the bare minimum of activities: the legal duties to=20 > continue existing as a legal entity, managing the finances and the printi= ng=20 > and distributions of the physical copies of the CLL. > > This situation leaves the focus mostly on the BPFK members=20 > . If the wiki is not in error,= =20 > they are: > > - la selpa'i (Chair of BPFK since March 16, 2015)=20 > - Pierre Abbat=20 > - la gleki=20 > - Durka42=20 > - Ilmen=20 > - la .xorxes. > - Adam D. Lopresto, aka la xalbo=20 > - la .guskant.=20 > - la mezohe (Joined November 17, 2015)=20 > > 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 can= =20 > see from the github pages that for the cll repository this is mostly Robi= n=20 > Powell. Other members of the organization do not seem very active, at lea= st=20 > in comparison. Indeed Robin almost single-handedly managed to produce=20 > version 1.1 of the CLL with years of dedicated work, clearly a huge=20 > accomplishment, and this was done in addition to maintaining most of the= =20 > infrastructure (and being the previous BPFK Chair). I have the impression= ,=20 > though, that after 1.1 he expects that someone else will step up to the= =20 > 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 = to=20 > explain the conflicts between BPFK and Coder's Group... (after all Ilmen = is=20 > also a member of the BPFK, right?). I do not really find anything clearly= =20 > to blame on all sides, from a superficial perspective it seems natural th= at=20 > community members work on their parsers while an official fully-specified= =20 > grammar and an associated parser is still not available (and this is due= =20 > since ~15 years, I believe?). In a sense, the problem will solve itself= =20 > once the BPFK releases an official final baseline grammar with an=20 > 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 bugfixe= s=20 > as they see fit, and set roadmaps for future releases, while continuing t= he=20 > discussions on the more technical points. It is painful to see trivial=20 > bugfixes pending in pull requests with no one to pick them up. > > What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why not= =20 > having him have the final word on what goes in and goes out, when consens= us=20 > cannot be reached? > > To complete the proposal, the LLG should just acknowledge the current dir= e=20 > situation. The BPFK should stop being considered as a formal committee (f= or=20 > some reason they always remind me of this sketch=20 > ) and just be taken for wh= at=20 > it is: a group of volunteers that is given control of some core resources= ,=20 > in the hope that the group will develop them and make the Lojban ecosyste= m=20 > better over time. The BPFK should be free to set its preferred direction= =20 > for the project, subject to the usual pressures of open source communitie= s:=20 > the threat to lose users/contributors if they are too much alienated, or = be=20 > subject to debilitating forks. A simple way to manage conflicts would be = to=20 > give one member the power to have the final say on what goes in, as said= =20 > before. This would also be subject to the usual counterbalancing pressure= s=20 > of open source communities. This role could be seen as a sort of "lead=20 > developer" within a group of "core developers", to continue the analogy= =20 > with 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. ------=_Part_5261_803916807.1511429697451 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
@Gregorio, @all

First of all= , I thank you A LOT for having taken time for this detailed answer a= nd proposal.

If I rephrase correctly, the first is= sue you point out is that the number of Lojbanists is too low for su= ch a workflow. If your numbers are correct, then I agree. That's unfort= unate for the proposal, but this is exactly what I said when I answered Gle= ki: I'm "relying on statistics and probability". That means t= he result of voting (and such) is less prone to be far away from "the = absolute truth" (whatever it is) when there are many people. Said othe= rwise, there is higher chance of having a biased result with a limited amou= nt of users. Question is: what is an "acceptable threshold"? I do= n't know.

I propose to make a very basic imple= mentation of the system, ask for Lojbanists to register, and check about th= e number of accounts. That would give us a first idea of the feasibility.

***

About current LLG/BPFK= /Coders' Group: Well, I'm TRYING=C2=A0to propose something t= ransversal, which could be immune/insensitive to the organization the user = comes from. Of couse, that sounds quite obvious the ones in BPFK (for insta= nce) would receive very high "language kudos scores" from the com= munity. So yes, you're right about it. But the proposed system would ma= ke it possible to exclude one of them (I hope this won't be the case), = and include someone from the outside (I hope there will be candidates).

Actually, I guess you're right about saying BPFK+= Robin will be the core people. Maybe with some LLG guys in addition?
<= div>
Maybe the system would hard-code some roles (see below) = in the first months/years of its existence?... To be discussed...
Maybe the system is to be administrated by one of the current organization= in the future? I don't know yet.

What I feel = is that the currently missing mechanism is a clear submission & integra= tion workflow (hence the proposal, of course). I hope that if people agree = with a "systematic" workflow, then it would help sorting out the = "semi-official" things and start a new "era".

***

You also raised an interesting= issue in your answer: roles. I propose to add some more rule= s and definitions, to tackle that:
  • Define some "r= oles", which are roughly "jobs" or "responsibilitie= s".
    • Ex: Proposal validator, submission validator (=3D = voting member), GitHub integrator (=3D merge pull requests), release manage= r, etc. The list is to be debated.
    • Relation is N-N with users: mult= iple users can be assigned to a role, and each user may have multiple roles= .
    • As you proposed, maybe a "chair/root/super-admin/lead" = role would be to be added, with the ability to have a "super-weighted&= quot; vote if-and-only-if a voting procedure doesn't fulfill the minimu= m requirements (ex: 50% / 66.7% / N% of "yes", and a minimum of M= votes).
  • System would check periodically for accounts activity= , to automatically un-assign inactive users.
    • Ex: Each month= /year/whatever, an email with a link is sent. The user must then update its= roles assignations within days/weeks, or else (s)he is automatically unass= igned.
  • Each role has some requirements (language level, logic = knowledge, etc.), as defined before.
    • Ex: Proposal validator= needs to be at least "B1".
  • Each role is assigned a = minimum number of people, to ensure the tasks are executed (point I mention= ed in a previous post).
    • Ex: There should be at least 10 &qu= ot;proposal validators".
    • If there are not enough people to fil= l a role, then the "closest" (regarding to requirements) are chos= en.
  • As kudos may be added/modified/removed at any time, user i= s notified of new available roles, and roles un-assignations.
Of course, this is still tied to the community size... That point in= duces that the system must be worked on at the same time Lojban is promoted= (maybe a coordinated "advertising campaign" will be necessary? E= x: all "users" are asked to share/post/relay a unique text to var= ious mediums, such as social networks?).

la .sykyn= dyr.


Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 01:23:36 UTC+1, Greg= orio Guidi a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
=20 =20 =20
On 11/22/2017 09:58 AM, suke...@gmail.com wrote:
Alright. Time for my v0.2 proposal about submissions. I integrated what Gleki and=C2=A0Gregorio=C2=A0said,= from the "simplified v0.1" version.
To avoid having "actual experts" situation or the &q= uot;anyone is expert" situation, I'm proposing a balanced way. I th= ought 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:
  • 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").
    • Level is rounded by default (so that "A1+&quo= t; is not A2 but A1).
    • 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 anyo= ne else, asserting the target is AT LEAST the given level.
    • 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.
    • 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 l= east "N votes", (s)he get that level.
    • Ex: Gleki has 2 "C1", 5 "B2", and 3 &= quot;B1".
      • If we require "50% / 5 votes", then he would = be B2.
      • For "50% / 6 votes", he would be "B2&quo= t; too (C1 count, as it is greater, leading to the "70% / 7 votes"= ; B2 score).
      • For "90% / 5 votes", he would be B1.
    • That doesn't mean one is really "B2" for in= stance. 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 communit= y 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 former "expert" term. In the followin= g diagram:
  • "[B1]" means "the authenticated user must be= granted the language level B1 or more".
  • "[logic 2]" means "the authenticated user mu= st 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 add= ed.



@all: Your thoughts?

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.

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...

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.

Let us start with the main actors involved... consider the LLG. It is my impression that in recent years, and in particular after the BPFK Reauthorization, 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 resou= rces 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.

This situation leaves the focus mostly on the BPFK members. If the wiki is not in error, 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 core lojban resources.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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 this sketch) 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&= quot; within a group of "core developers", to continue the analogy = with software projects. Or a "release manager", as said in another= post.

Just my 2 cents...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_5261_803916807.1511429697451-- ------=_Part_5260_1917165775.1511429697450--