Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c09::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9e82108b-4c96-4641-89bd-0d1d6c503cf3@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> <c8e388ad-b988-152c-7a0a-e96774e4aa8f@posteo.net>
 <075de629-bf47-4736-bc25-ccf4c953d2a8@googlegroups.com> <9e82108b-4c96-4641-89bd-0d1d6c503cf3@googlegroups.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:24:34 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+jyNHbC3fAobewQa4MnB2n8S_kDVv2KJncY64wUT_aPfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0c3a56a82ccb05600d1c6f"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -4.6
X-Spam_score_int: -45
X-Spam_bar: ----

--94eb2c0c3a56a82ccb05600d1c6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2017-12-11 12:06 GMT+03:00 <sukender1@gmail.com>:

> coi
>
> (*I'm making some progress in creating a prototype for a submission
> system (in order to show you all, test, validate, etc.). But I have a few
> pending issues. I'll let you know!*)
> Meanwhile...
>
> *Protection against bashing and other biases*
> I had a discussion with someone and he told me the current system design
> may be subject to a (small) risk of "user bashing". If someone doesn't
> please people (for instance by saying things unrelated to Lojban, about
> religion, politics, etc.) he/she may be unfairly "punished" by other
> people, lowering their grade towards this user. As a result he/she may
> quickly loose permissions even though the contribution from that user was
> important and his/her Lojban level is very high.
> Some other biases of the same kind may exist, such as the opposite
> behavior (a numerous group of people with no knowledge, getting over the
> community with unfair voting), similar to the "51% attack".
>
> Actually the risk is supposedly very low at the beginning (initial people
> are generally fair about each other, because very involved). Then the ris=
k
> grows as newcomers arrive, but decreases with the number of users (the mo=
re
> users, the smaller impact each will have). So this is quite important to
> address this issue now, in my opinion.
>
> However, I'm convinced there is no way to predict all "unfair" behaviors,
> and that even powerful and costly algorithms can't help us much. This is
> why I'm relaying the solution which was proposed to me (with minor
> adaptations):
>
>    - Let N people be "guardians":
>       - They would have the role of fighting unfair behaviors (and only
>       this role).
>       - And they would have administrative privileges (over the system)
>       for this: ban people, restore some permissions, etc.
>       - Hopefully, they would almost never have to do so...
>    - Make sure all their actions (as "guardians") are logged and
>    documented, and publicly accessible. Everyone could then ensure their =
role
>    is respected (=3D that they do not use their permissions to tackle oth=
er
>    topics, such as Lojban-related ones).
>    - One user may have various roles AND a "guardian" role at the same
>    time, of course.
>    - Maybe that would require two distinct user accounts?
>    - Elect those "guardians" periodically (say each 6 months? 1 year?).
>    Election would use common rules:
>    - Everyone can be candidate.
>          - If there are less than N candidates, then missing candidates
>          are algorithmically found (Maybe the ones with most permissions?=
 Or simply
>          randomly?).
>       - Each user can vote.
>          - Can he/she can vote for N candidates? Or maybe just one?
>       - The N users with most votes "win".
>
> What do you think about it?
>

That you are not going to become a guardian anytime soon?


>
> la .sykyndyr.
>
>
>
> Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 10:34:59 UTC+1, Benoit Neil a =C3=A9crit :
>>
>> @Gregorio, @all
>>
>> First of all, I thank you *A LOT* for having taken time for this
>> detailed answer and proposal.
>>
>> If I rephrase correctly, the first issue you point out is that the
>> *number* of Lojbanists is too low for such a workflow. If your numbers
>> are correct, then I agree. That's unfortunate for the proposal, but this=
 is
>> exactly what I said when I answered Gleki: I'm "relying on statistics an=
d
>> probability". That means the result of voting (and such) is less prone t=
o
>> be far away from "the absolute truth" (whatever it is) when there are ma=
ny
>> people. Said otherwise, there is higher chance of having a biased result
>> with a limited amount of users. Question is: what is an "acceptable
>> threshold"? I don't know.
>>
>> I propose to make a very basic implementation of the system, ask for
>> Lojbanists to register, and check about the number of accounts. That wou=
ld
>> give us a first idea of the feasibility.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> About current LLG/BPFK/Coders' Group: Well, I'm *TRYING* to propose
>> something transversal, which could be immune/insensitive to the
>> organization the user comes from. Of couse, that sounds quite obvious th=
e
>> ones in BPFK (for instance) would receive very high "language kudos scor=
es"
>> from the community. So yes, you're right about it. But the proposed syst=
em
>> would make 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?
>>
>> 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 submissio=
n
>> & integration workflow (hence the proposal, of course). I hope that if
>> people agree with a "systematic" workflow, then it would help sorting ou=
t
>> 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 rules and definitions, to tackle that:
>>
>>    - Define some "*roles*", which are roughly "jobs" or
>>    "responsibilities".
>>    - Ex: Proposal validator, submission validator (=3D voting member),
>>       GitHub integrator (=3D merge pull requests), release manager, etc.=
 The list
>>       is to be debated.
>>       - Relation is N-N with users: multiple 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" =
vote
>>       if-and-only-if a voting procedure doesn't fulfill the minimum requ=
irements
>>       (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 unassigned.
>>    - 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 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" (regarding to requirements) are chosen.
>>    - As kudos may be added/modified/removed at any time, user is
>>    notified of new available roles, and roles un-assignations.
>>
>> Of course, this is still tied to the community size... That point induce=
s
>> that the system must be worked on at the same time Lojban is promoted
>> (maybe a coordinated "advertising campaign" will be necessary? Ex: all
>> "users" are asked to share/post/relay a unique text to various mediums,
>> 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
>>> Gleki and Gregorio said, from the "simplified v0.1" version.
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>    - 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+" 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 anyone 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 least "N votes", (s)he get that=
 level.
>>>    - 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.
>>>       - That doesn't mean one is really "B2" for instance. That means
>>>       the community grants the rights associated with B2 level to someo=
ne.
>>>       - 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
>>> 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 ar=
e
>>>    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 grade=
d
>>>    users" may be added.
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZSA1CB26C9g/WhU6u9TCRSI/AAAAAAAAAhg=
/6b0a5hIeXpQiwAy1oSIM6hfnbW__ktRcACLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.pn=
g>
>>>
>>>
>>> @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 m=
ind.
>>> 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 t=
he
>>> wiki and the associated material, the lojban github account, the mailin=
g
>>> lists) and how they decide to develop those resources. How many communi=
ty
>>> members are candidates to fill those key roles?... How many people spea=
k
>>> 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 se=
t of
>>> core people that would need to fill all key parts of the workflow? Give=
n
>>> 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 disclaim=
er,
>>> I note that the following observations come from me as an external obse=
rver
>>> 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 m=
y
>>> impression that in recent years, and in particular after the BPFK
>>> Reauthorization <https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization>, the
>>> LLG is distancing itself somewhat from the previous role of active driv=
er
>>> of the development of the language, essentially leaving future developm=
ents
>>> in the hands of the BPFK members (while maintaining the power of approv=
al
>>> for "official standards"). From what I can see, the LLG has resources f=
or
>>> carrying out only the bare minimum of activities: the legal duties to
>>> continue existing as a legal entity, managing the finances and the prin=
ting
>>> and distributions of the physical copies of the CLL.
>>>
>>> This situation leaves the focus mostly on the BPFK members
>>> <https://mw.lojban.org/papri/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 th=
e
>>> 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 mostl=
y
>>> Robin Powell. Other members of the organization do not seem very active=
, at
>>> least in comparison. Indeed Robin almost single-handedly managed to pro=
duce
>>> 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 th=
e
>>> infrastructure (and being the previous BPFK Chair). I have the impressi=
on,
>>> 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 difficul=
t to
>>> explain the conflicts between BPFK and Coder's Group... (after all Ilme=
n is
>>> also a member of the BPFK, right?). I do not really find anything clear=
ly
>>> to blame on all sides, from a superficial perspective it seems natural =
that
>>> community members work on their parsers while an official fully-specifi=
ed
>>> grammar and an associated parser is still not available (and this is du=
e
>>> 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 th=
e
>>> members of the BPFK plus Robin. They should be empowered to apply bugfi=
xes
>>> 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 commi=
ttee
>>> (for some reason they always remind me of this sketch
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5ixeRWrg0yg>) 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 Lo=
jban
>>> ecosystem better over time. The BPFK should be free to set its preferre=
d
>>> direction for the project, subject to the usual pressures of open sourc=
e
>>> 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 o=
n
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents...
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

--=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.

--94eb2c0c3a56a82ccb05600d1c6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2017-12-11 12:06 GMT+03:00  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:suk=
ender1@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">sukender1@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>coi</div><div><br></di=
v><div>(<i>I&#39;m making some progress in creating a prototype for a submi=
ssion system (in order to show you all, test, validate, etc.). But I have a=
 few pending issues. I&#39;ll let you know!</i>)</div><div>Meanwhile...<br>=
</div><div><br></div><div><b><u>Protection against bashing and other biases=
</u></b><br></div><div>I had a discussion with someone and he told me the c=
urrent system design may be subject to a (small) risk of &quot;user bashing=
&quot;. If someone doesn&#39;t please people (for instance by saying things=
 unrelated to Lojban, about religion, politics, etc.) he/she may be unfairl=
y &quot;punished&quot; by other people, lowering their grade towards this u=
ser. As a result he/she may quickly loose permissions even though the contr=
ibution from that user was important and his/her Lojban level is very high.=
</div><div>Some other biases of the same kind may exist, such as the opposi=
te behavior (a numerous group of people with no knowledge, getting over the=
 community with unfair voting), similar to the &quot;51% attack&quot;.</div=
><div><br></div><div>Actually the risk is supposedly very low at the beginn=
ing (initial people are generally fair about each other, because very invol=
ved). Then the risk grows as newcomers arrive, but decreases with the numbe=
r of users (the more users, the smaller impact each will have). So this is =
quite important to address this issue now, in my opinion.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>However, I&#39;m convinced there is no way to predict all &quot;unf=
air&quot; behaviors, and that even powerful and costly algorithms can&#39;t=
 help us much. This is why I&#39;m relaying the solution which was proposed=
 to me (with minor adaptations):</div><div><ul><li>Let N people be &quot;gu=
ardians&quot;:</li><ul><li>They would have the role of fighting unfair beha=
viors (and only this role).<br></li><li>And they would have administrative =
privileges (over the system) for this: ban people, restore some permissions=
, etc.</li><li>Hopefully, they would almost never have to do so...</li></ul=
><li>Make sure all their actions (as &quot;guardians&quot;) are logged and =
documented, and publicly accessible. Everyone could then ensure their role =
is respected (=3D that they do not use their permissions to tackle other to=
pics, such as Lojban-related ones).<br></li><li>One user may have various r=
oles AND a &quot;guardian&quot; role at the same time, of course.<br></li><=
ul><li>Maybe that would require two distinct user accounts?</li></ul><li>El=
ect those &quot;guardians&quot; periodically (say each 6 months? 1 year?). =
Election would use common rules:<br></li><ul><li>Everyone can be candidate.=
</li><ul><li>If there are less than N candidates, then missing candidates a=
re algorithmically found (Maybe the ones with most permissions? Or simply r=
andomly?).</li></ul><li>Each user can vote.</li><ul><li>Can he/she can vote=
 for N candidates? Or maybe just one?</li></ul><li>The N users with most vo=
tes &quot;win&quot;.</li></ul></ul></div><div>What do you think about it?</=
div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That you are not going to become=
 a guardian anytime soon?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>la .sykyndyr.</div><div><div class=
=3D"h5"><div><br></div><div><br></div><br>Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 10:34:5=
9 UTC+1, Benoit Neil a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@Gregorio, @all</div><div><br></div><div>First o=
f all, I thank you <b>A LOT</b> for having taken time for this detailed ans=
wer and proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>If I rephrase correctly, the fir=
st issue you point out is that the <b>number</b> of Lojbanists is too low f=
or such a workflow. If your numbers are correct, then I agree. That&#39;s u=
nfortunate for the proposal, but this is exactly what I said when I answere=
d Gleki: I&#39;m &quot;relying on statistics and probability&quot;. That me=
ans the result of voting (and such) is less prone to be far away from &quot=
;the absolute truth&quot; (whatever it is) when there are many people. Said=
 otherwise, there is higher chance of having a biased result with a limited=
 amount of users. Question is: what is an &quot;acceptable threshold&quot;?=
 I don&#39;t know.</div><div><br></div><div>I propose to make a very basic =
implementation of the system, ask for Lojbanists to register, and check abo=
ut the number of accounts. That would give us a first idea of the feasibili=
ty.</div><div><br></div><div>***</div><div><br></div><div>About current LLG=
/BPFK/Coders&#39; Group: Well, I&#39;m <b>TRYING</b>=C2=A0to propose someth=
ing transversal, which could be immune/insensitive to the organization the =
user comes from. Of couse, that sounds quite obvious the ones in BPFK (for =
instance) would receive very high &quot;language kudos scores&quot; from th=
e community. So yes, you&#39;re right about it. But the proposed system wou=
ld make it possible to exclude one of them (I hope this won&#39;t be the ca=
se), and include someone from the outside (I hope there will be candidates)=
.</div><div><br></div><div>Actually, I guess you&#39;re right about saying =
BPFK+Robin will be the core people. Maybe with some LLG guys in addition?</=
div><div><br></div><div>Maybe the system would hard-code some roles (see be=
low) in the first months/years of its existence?... To be discussed...</div=
><div>Maybe the system is to be administrated by one of the current organiz=
ation in the future? I don&#39;t know yet.</div><div><br></div><div>What I =
feel is that the currently missing mechanism is a clear submission &amp; in=
tegration workflow (hence the proposal, of course). I hope that if people a=
gree with a &quot;systematic&quot; workflow, then it would help sorting out=
 the &quot;semi-official&quot; things and start a new &quot;era&quot;.</div=
><div><br></div><div>***</div><div><br></div><div>You also raised an intere=
sting issue in your answer: <b><u>roles</u></b>. I propose to add some more=
 rules and definitions, to tackle that:</div><div><ul><li>Define some &quot=
;<b>roles</b>&quot;, which are roughly &quot;jobs&quot; or &quot;responsibi=
lities&quot;.<br></li><ul><li>Ex: Proposal validator, submission validator =
(=3D voting member), GitHub integrator (=3D merge pull requests), release m=
anager, etc. The list is to be debated.</li><li>Relation is N-N with users:=
 multiple users can be assigned to a role, and each user may have multiple =
roles.</li><li>As you proposed, maybe a &quot;chair/root/super-admin/lead&q=
uot; role would be to be added, with the ability to have a &quot;super-weig=
hted&quot; vote if-and-only-if a voting procedure doesn&#39;t fulfill the m=
inimum requirements (ex: 50% / 66.7% / N% of &quot;yes&quot;, and a minimum=
 of M votes).</li></ul><li>System would check periodically for accounts act=
ivity, to automatically un-assign inactive users.<br></li><ul><li>Ex: Each =
month/year/whatever, an email with a link is sent. The user must then updat=
e its roles assignations within days/weeks, or else (s)he is automatically =
unassigned.</li></ul><li>Each role has some requirements (language level, l=
ogic knowledge, etc.), as defined before.<br></li><ul><li>Ex: Proposal vali=
dator needs to be at least &quot;B1&quot;.</li></ul><li>Each role is assign=
ed a minimum number of people, to ensure the tasks are executed (point I me=
ntioned in a previous post).<br></li><ul><li>Ex: There should be at least 1=
0 &quot;proposal validators&quot;.</li><li>If there are not enough people t=
o fill a role, then the &quot;closest&quot; (regarding to requirements) are=
 chosen.</li></ul><li>As kudos may be added/modified/removed at any time, u=
ser is notified of new available roles, and roles un-assignations.</li></ul=
></div><div>Of course, this is still tied to the community size... That poi=
nt induces that the system must be worked on at the same time Lojban is pro=
moted (maybe a coordinated &quot;advertising campaign&quot; will be necessa=
ry? Ex: all &quot;users&quot; are asked to share/post/relay a unique text t=
o various mediums, such as social networks?).</div><div><br></div><div>la .=
sykyndyr.</div><div><br></div><br>Le jeudi 23 novembre 2017 01:23:36 UTC+1,=
 Gregorio Guidi a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    <div>On 11/22/2017 09:58 AM,
      <a rel=3D"nofollow">suke...@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <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 &quot;simplified v0.1&quot;
          version.</span>
        <div>To avoid having &quot;actual experts&quot; situation or the &q=
uot;anyone
          is expert&quot; situation, I&#39;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 &quot;merit&quot; 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 &quot;zero&quot;).<br>
            </li>
            <ul>
              <li>Level is rounded by <b>default</b> (so that &quot;A1+&quo=
t; is
                not A2 but A1).<br>
              </li>
              <li>Ex: I&#39;m pretty sure I&#39;m &quot;zero&quot;, because=
 I cannot say I
                reached the A1 level.</li>
            </ul>
            <li>Each user can give &quot;language level&quot; kudos to anyo=
ne
              else, asserting the target is <u>AT LEAST</u> the given
              level.<br>
            </li>
            <ul>
              <li>Ex: I don&#39;t know much aout Gleki, but I&#39;m 100%
                convinced I can give him B2 level. Maybe much more, but
                B2 is the highest level I&#39;m 100% confident with.</li>
              <li>Given kudos can be changed at any time.</li>
            </ul>
            <li>All kudos are gathered to determine the &quot;granting&quot=
;
              level. If an user gets at least &quot;X% votes&quot; and at l=
east &quot;N
              votes&quot;, (s)he get that level.<br>
            </li>
            <ul>
              <li>Ex: Gleki has 2 &quot;C1&quot;, 5 &quot;B2&quot;, and 3 &=
quot;B1&quot;.</li>
              <ul>
                <li>If we require &quot;50% / 5 votes&quot;, then he would =
be B2.</li>
                <li>For &quot;50% / 6 votes&quot;, he would be &quot;B2&quo=
t; too (C1 count,
                  as it is greater, leading to the &quot;70% / 7 votes&quot=
; B2
                  score).</li>
                <li>For &quot;90% / 5 votes&quot;, he would be B1.</li>
              </ul>
              <li>That doesn&#39;t mean one is really &quot;B2&quot; for in=
stance.
                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 &quot;logic knowledge&quot;, 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 &quot;technical level&quot;, and/or &quot;general communit=
y kudos&quot;
              (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 &quot;expert&quot; term. In the followin=
g
          diagram:</div>
        <div>
          <ul>
            <li>&quot;[B1]&quot; means &quot;the authenticated user must be=
 granted the
              language level B1 or more&quot;.<br>
            </li>
            <li>&quot;[logic 2]&quot; means &quot;the authenticated user mu=
st be
              granted the logical level 2 or more&quot;.</li>
            <li>Please note that all levels (B1, C1, logic 2, etc...)
              are purely arbitrary for now, and may be adapted.<br>
            </li>
            <li>&quot;Technical level&quot; 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&#39;T</b> ensure there is at
              least one person able to validate or vote. I guess a
              simple rule taking &quot;N best graded users&quot; may be add=
ed.<br>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <p style=3D"text-align:center;clear:both"><a href=3D"https://lh3.=
googleusercontent.com/-ZSA1CB26C9g/WhU6u9TCRSI/AAAAAAAAAhg/6b0a5hIeXpQiwAy1=
oSIM6hfnbW__ktRcACLcBGAs/s1600/Submissions%2Bstatus.dot.png" style=3D"margi=
n-left:1em;margin-right:1em" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank"><img 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
    &quot;top-down&quot; 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&#39;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
    &quot;bottom-up&quot; 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 h=
ref=3D"https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization" rel=3D"nofollow" t=
arget=3D"_blank">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
    &quot;official standards&quot;). 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.<br>
    <br>
    This situation leaves the focus mostly on the <a href=3D"https://mw.loj=
ban.org/papri/BPFK_members" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank">BPFK members=
</a>.
    If the wiki is not in error, they are:<br>
    <ul>
      <li>la selpa&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 href=3D"h=
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5ixeRWrg0yg" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_b=
lank">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 &quot;lead developer&=
quot;
    within a group of &quot;core developers&quot;, to continue the analogy =
with
    software projects. Or a &quot;release manager&quot;, as said in another=
 post.<br>
    <br>
    Just my 2 cents...<br>
  </div>

</blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><di=
v class=3D"h5">

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.go=
ogle.com/d/<wbr>topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/<wbr>unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+un=
subscribe@<wbr>googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/<wbr>optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></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 />

--94eb2c0c3a56a82ccb05600d1c6f--