Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gregorio.guidi@posteo.net designates 185.67.36.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.67.36.65;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com>
 <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <6ab2b9c0-560a-409f-8ec5-c3f8eaa09041@googlegroups.com>
 <SY3PR01MB08735626A69F855470F6FD40EB050@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHiXx=OOb=3R1V9kL0+1HfWzqgUgaQhWRhe_h7uH7=7nfQvYZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <SY3PR01MB0873024206868E1EBE7AA82DEB050@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAKOEKkSo31SPvzwtfDqwpmQyJAx8J+yoS933R3+szxBLoSqzRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <812dfca3-bc7f-40a5-bcb0-8e1a7062e52f@googlegroups.com>
 <22c3fb09-3163-444a-be5e-e650e563a39f@googlegroups.com>
 <cefa7622-9500-114f-953a-323410c667c6@posteo.net>
 <54bcdf8c-2526-47ad-b7db-39d7a67fe8a2@googlegroups.com>
From: Gregorio Guidi <gregorio.guidi@posteo.net>
Message-ID: <249dd71d-8dcb-ce90-11ff-0beec1f23ef8@posteo.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:11:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54bcdf8c-2526-47ad-b7db-39d7a67fe8a2@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------4BF1FE0E99374F215BACB68D"
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: -1.6
X-Spam_score_int: -15
X-Spam_bar: -

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4BF1FE0E99374F215BACB68D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 03/26/2018 06:56 AM, sukender1@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you very much for your feedback. I prefer 'harsh and true'=20
> reviews rather than 'consensual and fake' ones.
>
> I completely agree with you about the fact it supposes an active=20
> community to work. And this is the main issue, I guess. I fear the=20
> non-spreading of Lojban, because people may not be active enough to=20
> maintain it above a "sustainability" threshold (eventually worsening=20
> into fading and decay). I just hope I'm wrong.
> (Side note: Generally speaking, people I know are not much interested=20
> about Lojban because... it's not spread enough.)
>
> About Warnock's dilemma, we may *also* infer that the message is=20
> rather complex (I mean it requires to be active and interested in=20
> multiple topics)... ;) And this goes with what you say about=20
> "complication". Is this really needed? Well, I bet the answer is "yes,=20
> until we find something simpler". Maybe some things are to be=20
> improved, to be more "user friendly"? I personally think that we may=20
> need to add other "tools" in the toolbox. Surely a more general tool=20
> (to be defined), to make more people go there & make it more popular.=20
> But I don't know which. Any idea about a Lojban-related feature that=20
> doesn't exist yet somewhere else?
On the topic of "complication", my philosophy would be more in line with=20
the old quote "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not=20
simpler". Perhaps it is not much different from what you say in=20
practice, there is just more emphasis on the starting point: start with=20
the bare minimum and add more later if there is evidence that it is not=20
enough.

I see simplicity in two ways. One aspect is in limiting the number of=20
different roles and processes codified by the system. One set of roles=20
already exists by default in every project: participants are divided=20
into those with write access to the resources of the project, and those=20
without. Most times, one can reuse this as the basic layer to recognize=20
roles and add only some minimal structures on top of it, if needed. This=20
could be a simple starting point. (It is true that Lojban is a bit=20
peculiar, in that nobody knows for sure which are the resources of the=20
project and who has access to them, but let's put that aside for the=20
moment :) ).

The other aspect of simplicity is to see if we can spare the effort of=20
defining everything from scratch, and try to reuse what already exists=20
in the wild. Here is a link that I think makes a great starting point=20
for pointers and ideas:
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels

Similar, also useful: https://opensource.guide/leadership-and-governance

The links above suggest some basic frameworks for the governance of a=20
shared project. The simplest option is just to have a "benevolent=20
dictator" (it is not so bad as it sounds and works quite well in=20
practice, as explained here=20
<https://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html>). Then=20
there are more nuanced options, including sometimes a "Project=20
Management Committee" and ways to build and formalize consensus by means=20
of policies such as "lazy consensus", commit-then-review,=20
review-then-commit, etc.
https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancemodel=20
<https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html>
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/BasePolicies/CONTRIBUTING.md

Voting can play a role, usually as a last resort. When you say that=20
voting should be a straightforward administrative validation procedure=20
in 95% of the case, then I agree as in my mind that would not be voting=20
in a strict sense but more a second round of review, so your workflow=20
might not be so different from these ideas in the end. Speaking of=20
voting, an interest concept is the one of +1/+0/-0/-1 voting as=20
explained in the links below, which I see as a having potential within=20
your workflow.
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancevoting
https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/consensusBuilding.html

Sorry for the digression... the main takeaway is that there are existing=20
approaches (used by projects with millions of users) that rely on a very=20
limited number of roles and processes, and seem to scale well. Note that=20
these approaches can be put into practice by leveraging simple=20
collaboration tools (mailing lists and some policies on top of shared=20
development platforms). If we can find something similar for Lojban, for=20
me it would save a lot of effort and be a big win! Coming back to=20
possible improvements and new features for the lojban-submissions site,=20
while confirming the quality of the site and its potential to be=20
repackaged for many specific purposes, my point would be that with the=20
right approach to governance, we would not need a special site in=20
addition to a standard shared development platform (the one for putting=20
the code/documents, issue tracking, etc., which would be needed anyway).=20
In fact I think the similarities between the workflow you proposed and=20
the ones mentioned above might be more than the differences, if looking=20
at the big picture.

> About voting: Yes, I also hope that voting should be "a=20
> straightforward administrative validation procedure for 95% of the=20
> cases". This is why the "final" voting is restricted to a reduced=20
> sub-community of "validators". I also intentionally tried to mimic the=20
> "board"-like voting, without the drawback of a mostly-statically=20
> selected sub-community (which may rely on inactive members, even if=20
> people are nice and willing). But I agree that this may look more like=20
> competition than collaboration in some circumstances. Any idea to=20
> improve that is welcome :) Maybe adding helpers ensuring that=20
> decisions are well documented is a good idea?
>
> (BTW, the link you gave makes me think that we will surely have a=20
> peaceful and non-disturbing community (=3D few risks). Anyway, hostile=20
> people should be reported and can be banned!)
>
> About the system itself, I don't think there is a real competition=20
> with other existing ones, since it is (from my point of view)=20
> complementary to the others. Do you really think there are some=20
> duplicates? Which features precisely?
I meant that the process of reviewing a proposal in the=20
lojban-submission site can be seen as being in the same territory of=20
Github "Pull requests" or similar, which are powerful generic solutions=20
that can be leveraged to do any kind of review and approval of changes,=20
including review of design decision. The big advantage of these systems=20
is that they are an integral part of the platform where the=20
code/resources are maintained, so you do not have a system where you=20
discuss the changes and a separate one where you do the implementation,=20
reducing friction.

Again kudos for the website and thanks for the interesting discussion,=20
even if there are not many chances of it becoming something more than a=20
theoretical exercise, with the current status of Lojban, unfortunately :/

Gregorio

> Finally, thank you for compliments about the site and the underlying=20
> system. Yes, I did that on my spare time. But don't be fooled: I=20
> reused a lot of components, and wrote very few "low-level" things by=20
> myself. Technically speaking, I used Drupal, many modules, and a=20
> little bit of PHP & Bash. Time I spent was mostly configuring the=20
> whole (server, site, modules...), integrate database schema into the=20
> pre-defined tools (somewhat difficult sometimes!), prepare "good"=20
> queries, fill pages, etc. The only pages I really coded in PHP was=20
> admin ones, where I query for invalid or duplicate kudos, and the one=20
> that lists inactive accounts and emails them (not automated yet). So=20
> if kudos for me on that product, then maybe more on "adapting to the=20
> needs" than on programming/web! ;) But thanks anyway.
> If you think this should be extended to some other communities, please=20
> tell & "advertise". That may be possible to generalize the system.
>
> la .sykynder.
>
> Le samedi 24 mars 2018 02:37:01 UTC+1, Gregorio Guidi a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>
>     On 02/06/2018 03:22 PM, suke...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
>>     coi ro do
>>
>>     OPEN ALPHA: A first (public) version of the submission tool is
>>     online. Anyone wanting to be a tester can register at
>>     lojban-submission.sukender.net
>>     <https://lojban-submission.sukender.net> . I will welcome any
>>     feedback to help improving it: content, features, issues, etc...
>>
>>     Notes:
>>
>>       * For now, registering requires administrator approval; this
>>         restriction should be removed later. Please be patient after
>>         registration! I'll answer as soon as possible.
>>       * Site has multi-language support (3 languages for now...) and
>>         will try to satisfy your browser's language list. You may
>>         change the language whenever you want (there's a language
>>         switcher on pages). Please prefer registering your account
>>         details in English (switch language for that, if required) so
>>         that everyone can understand. Else, you should think about
>>         translating your account details in English _*after*_
>>         registration.
>>
>>
>>     Thanks for your help!
>
>     coi
>
>     Since the initial announcement, I didn't see any comments on the
>     mailing list on the proposal. Looking for possible explanations
>     according to Warnock's dilemma
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma>, I can only
>     infer that there is not much interest on the topic, unfortunately.
>
>     I am at fault myself because I registered but did not experiment
>     very much with the system until now, by I think a few comments are
>     in order...
>
>     First, I am really impressed at what you have created based on the
>     original discussion and ideas. I can imagine the amount of work
>     you did to get the site to the current level... If you have done
>     it all by yourself in your spare time, I really envy your
>     programming/web skills. Kudos!
>
>     About the role that the site can have for the Lojban community, it
>     is difficult to make a fair assessment because a tool to organize
>     a community is something that presupposes an active, lively
>     community that needs to be organized. Sadly, I observe that there
>     is no such community at the moment, and there is not much that a
>     tool can do to correct the situation.
>
>     In the hypothetical case that an active community will spring to
>     life, I would say that such a tool would work well and provide a
>     lot of value _if_ the community had a strong commitment to the
>     organizational rules that are encoded in the tool. On the other
>     hand, I am pessimistic that such commitment could be achieved in
>     practice, and I have also some reservations on whether it would be
>     actually desirable.
>
>     To explain better, let's say the site provides these fundamental
>     services (simplifying):
>     1. A submission/review/commenting system.
>     2. Management of roles and competences for the users of the system.
>     3. A workflow and approval system based on voting.
>
>     My biggest concern is on point 3: in my experience I have never
>     encountered a volunteer-based community that put such a strong
>     emphasis on voting as a way to direct the project (I am comparing
>     mainly to the innumerable small and large communities about
>     open-source software and similar projects, which have the most
>     similarities with Lojban). In fact, I consider it a sign of poor
>     health if a community routinely resorts to voting. A healthy
>     community should rarely need to vote
>     <https://www.slideshare.net/vishnu/how-to-protect-yourhow-to-protect-=
your-open-source-project-from-poisonous-people>.
>     In my view voting stimulates competitive (as opposed to
>     collaborative) behavior and usually obscures the need of having a
>     well-defined vision, a limited scope and a coherent design around
>     which consensus-based solutions can be found when issues arise.
>
>     I see point 2 above (roles and competences) also as being somewhat
>     dependent on point 3. It is in a sense a way to mitigate the
>     possible shortcomings and manipulation opportunities of the voting
>     system, while keeping the voting system itself in place. Is all
>     this complication really needed?
>
>     About point 1 (submission/review/comment), the system you built is
>     very good. Taken by itself, though, it suffers from the
>     competition of solutions that have been around a long time and
>     that have explored this problem domain (think Github code reviews).
>
>     Sorry if my assessment sounds a bit harsh, I might be biased from
>     my past experiences. In any case, I hope Lojban can find a way to
>     be better organized, whatever the organization will be...
>
>     And in the end, you managed to give concrete form to the vision
>     you had and build something useful basically from scratch,
>     something that I would never have been able to do. So all respect
>     is for you!
>
>     TL;DR: The site is extremely well-done and could support a
>     community that values voting and user roles as the basis of its
>     organization, but I don't believe that Lojban should be such a
>     community.
>
>     Gregorio
>
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20
> Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send=20
> an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com=20
> <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com=20
> <mailto: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.

--------------4BF1FE0E99374F215BACB68D
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 03/26/2018 06:56 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:54bcdf8c-2526-47ad-b7db-39d7a67fe8a2@googlegroups.com">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>Thank you very much for your feedback. I prefer 'harsh and
          true' reviews rather than 'consensual and fake' ones.<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I completely agree with you about the fact it supposes an
          active community to work. And this is the main issue, I guess.
          I fear the non-spreading of Lojban, because people may not be
          active enough to maintain it above a "sustainability"
          threshold (eventually worsening into fading and decay). I just
          hope I'm wrong.</div>
        <div>(Side note: Generally speaking, people I know are not much
          interested about Lojban because... it's not spread enough.)</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>About Warnock's dilemma, we may *also* infer that the
          message is rather complex (I mean it requires to be active and
          interested in multiple topics)... ;) And this goes with what
          you say about "complication". Is this really needed? Well, I
          bet the answer is "yes, until we find something simpler".
          Maybe some things are to be improved, to be more "user
          friendly"? I personally think that we may need to add other
          "tools" in the toolbox. Surely a more general tool (to be
          defined), to make more people go there &amp; make it more
          popular. But I don't know which. Any idea about a
          Lojban-related feature that doesn't exist yet somewhere else?</di=
v>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    On the topic of "complication", my philosophy would be more in line
    with the old quote "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
    but not simpler". Perhaps it is not much different from what you say
    in practice, there is just more emphasis on the starting point:
    start with the bare minimum and add more later if there is evidence
    that it is not enough.<br>
    <br>
    I see simplicity in two ways. One aspect is in limiting the number
    of different roles and processes codified by the system. One set of
    roles already exists by default in every project: participants are
    divided into those with write access to the resources of the
    project, and those without. Most times, one can reuse this as the
    basic layer to recognize roles and add only some minimal structures
    on top of it, if needed. This could be a simple starting point. (It
    is true that Lojban is a bit peculiar, in that nobody knows for sure
    which are the resources of the project and who has access to them,
    but let's put that aside for the moment :) ).<br>
    <br>
    The other aspect of simplicity is to see if we can spare the effort
    of defining everything from scratch, and try to reuse what already
    exists in the wild. Here is a link that I think makes a great
    starting point for pointers and ideas:<br>
    <a href=3D"http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels"
      moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancem=
odels</a><br>
    <br>
    Similar, also useful: <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
      href=3D"https://opensource.guide/leadership-and-governance">https://o=
pensource.guide/leadership-and-governance</a><br>
    <br>
    The links above suggest some basic frameworks for the governance of
    a shared project. The simplest option is just to have a "benevolent
    dictator" (it is not so bad as it sounds and works quite well in
    practice, as explained <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
      href=3D"https://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.htm=
l">here</a>).
    Then there are more nuanced options, including sometimes a "Project
    Management Committee" and ways to build and formalize consensus by
    means of policies such as "lazy consensus", commit-then-review,
    review-then-commit, etc.<br>
    <a
      href=3D"https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.h=
tml">https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html</a><b=
r>
    <a
      href=3D"https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.h=
tml">http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancemodel</a><br>
    <a
href=3D"https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/BasePolicies/CONTRIBUTING=
.md">https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/BasePolicies/CONTRIBUTING.md=
</a><br>
    <br>
    Voting can play a role, usually as a last resort. When you say that
    voting should be a straightforward administrative validation
    procedure in 95% of the case, then I agree as in my mind that would
    not be voting in a strict sense but more a second round of review,
    so your workflow might not be so different from these ideas in the
    end. Speaking of voting, an interest concept is the one of
    +1/+0/-0/-1 voting as explained in the links below, which I see as a
    having potential within your workflow.<br>
    <a href=3D"https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html">https://www.a=
pache.org/foundation/voting.html</a><br>
    <a
      href=3D"http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancevoting=
">http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancevoting</a><br>
    <a
href=3D"https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/consensusBuilding.htm=
l">https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/consensusBuilding.html</a>=
<br>
    <br>
    Sorry for the digression... the main takeaway is that there are
    existing approaches (used by projects with millions of users) that
    rely on a very limited number of roles and processes, and seem to
    scale well. Note that these approaches can be put into practice by
    leveraging simple collaboration tools (mailing lists and some
    policies on top of shared development platforms). If we can find
    something similar for Lojban, for me it would save a lot of effort
    and be a big win! Coming back to possible improvements and new
    features for the lojban-submissions site, while confirming the
    quality of the site and its potential to be repackaged for many
    specific purposes, my point would be that with the right approach to
    governance, we would not need a special site in addition to a
    standard shared development platform (the one for putting the
    code/documents, issue tracking, etc., which would be needed anyway).
    In fact I think the similarities between the workflow you proposed
    and the ones mentioned above might be more than the differences, if
    looking at the big picture.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"
      cite=3D"mid:54bcdf8c-2526-47ad-b7db-39d7a67fe8a2@googlegroups.com">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>About voting: Yes, I also hope that voting should be "a
          straightforward administrative validation procedure for 95% of
          the cases". This is why the "final" voting is restricted to a
          reduced sub-community of "validators". I also intentionally
          tried to mimic the "board"-like voting, without the drawback
          of a mostly-statically selected sub-community (which may rely
          on inactive members, even if people are nice and willing). But
          I agree that this may look more like competition than
          collaboration in some circumstances. Any idea to improve that
          is welcome :) Maybe adding helpers ensuring that decisions are
          well documented is a good idea?</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>(BTW, the link you gave makes me think that we will surely
          have a peaceful and non-disturbing community (=3D few risks).
          Anyway, hostile people should be reported and can be banned!)</di=
v>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>About the system itself, I don't think there is a real
          competition with other existing ones, since it is (from my
          point of view) complementary to the others. Do you really
          think there are some duplicates? Which features precisely?</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    I meant that the process of reviewing a proposal in the
    lojban-submission site can be seen as being in the same territory of
    Github "Pull requests" or similar, which are powerful generic
    solutions that can be leveraged to do any kind of review and
    approval of changes, including review of design decision. The big
    advantage of these systems is that they are an integral part of the
    platform where the code/resources are maintained, so you do not have
    a system where you discuss the changes and a separate one where you
    do the implementation, reducing friction.<br>
    <br>
    Again kudos for the website and thanks for the interesting
    discussion, even if there are not many chances of it becoming
    something more than a theoretical exercise, with the current status
    of Lojban, unfortunately :/<br>
    <br>
    Gregorio<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"
      cite=3D"mid:54bcdf8c-2526-47ad-b7db-39d7a67fe8a2@googlegroups.com">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>Finally, thank you for compliments about the site and the
          underlying system. Yes, I did that on my spare time. But don't
          be fooled: I reused a lot of components, and wrote very few
          "low-level" things by myself. Technically speaking, I used
          Drupal, many modules, and a little bit of PHP &amp; Bash. Time
          I spent was mostly configuring the whole (server, site,
          modules...), integrate database schema into the pre-defined
          tools (somewhat difficult sometimes!), prepare "good" queries,
          fill pages, etc. The only pages I really coded in PHP was
          admin ones, where I query for invalid or duplicate kudos, and
          the one that lists inactive accounts and emails them (not
          automated yet). So if kudos for me on that product, then maybe
          more on "adapting to the needs" than on programming/web! ;)
          But thanks anyway.</div>
        <div>If you think this should be extended to some other
          communities, please tell &amp; "advertise". That may be
          possible to generalize the system.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>la .sykynder.</div>
        <br>
        Le samedi 24 mars 2018 02:37:01 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;">
          <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
            <div>On 02/06/2018 03:22 PM, <a href=3D"javascript:"
                target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"j31Rc5YcCAAJ"
                rel=3D"nofollow"
                onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;"
                onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;"
                moz-do-not-send=3D"true">suke...@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote type=3D"cite">
              <div dir=3D"ltr">coi ro do
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>OPEN ALPHA: A first (public) version of the
                  submission tool is online. Anyone wanting to be a
                  tester can register at <a
                    href=3D"https://lojban-submission.sukender.net"
                    target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow"
onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fl=
ojban-submission.sukender.net\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGIdCx=
QhR8Nrzirs-z7Umtd16_hMw';return
                    true;"
onclick=3D"this.href=3D'https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Flojba=
n-submission.sukender.net\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGIdCxQhR8=
Nrzirs-z7Umtd16_hMw';return
                    true;" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">lojban-submission.suken=
der.net</a>
                  . I will welcome any feedback to help improving it:
                  content, features, issues, etc...</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Notes:</div>
                <div>
                  <ul>
                    <li>For now, registering requires administrator
                      approval; this restriction should be removed
                      later. Please be patient after registration! I'll
                      answer as soon as possible.<br>
                    </li>
                    <li>Site has multi-language support (3 languages for
                      now...) and will try to satisfy your browser's
                      language list. You may change the language
                      whenever you want (there's a language switcher on
                      pages). Please prefer registering your account
                      details in English (switch language for that, if
                      required) so that everyone can understand. Else,
                      you should think about translating your account
                      details in English <u><b>after</b></u>
                      registration.</li>
                  </ul>
                </div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Thanks for your help!</div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
            coi<br>
            <br>
            Since the initial announcement, I didn't see any comments on
            the mailing list on the proposal. Looking for possible
            explanations according to <a
              href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma"
              target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow"
onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fe=
n.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWarnock%2527s_dilemma\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26u=
sg\x3dAFQjCNF0kc-6SDTycwZazAvZ9SnlZ2L8mg';return
              true;"
onclick=3D"this.href=3D'https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fen.wi=
kipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWarnock%2527s_dilemma\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x=
3dAFQjCNF0kc-6SDTycwZazAvZ9SnlZ2L8mg';return
              true;" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">Warnock's dilemma</a>, I can
            only infer that there is not much interest on the topic,
            unfortunately.<br>
            <br>
            I am at fault myself because I registered but did not
            experiment very much with the system until now, by I think a
            few comments are in order...<br>
            <br>
            First, I am really impressed at what you have created based
            on the original discussion and ideas. I can imagine the
            amount of work you did to get the site to the current
            level... If you have done it all by yourself in your spare
            time, I really envy your programming/web skills. Kudos!<br>
            <br>
            About the role that the site can have for the Lojban
            community, it is difficult to make a fair assessment because
            a tool to organize a community is something that presupposes
            an active, lively community that needs to be organized.
            Sadly, I observe that there is no such community at the
            moment, and there is not much that a tool can do to correct
            the situation.<br>
            <br>
            In the hypothetical case that an active community will
            spring to life, I would say that such a tool would work well
            and provide a lot of value <u>if</u> the community had a
            strong commitment to the organizational rules that are
            encoded in the tool. On the other hand, I am pessimistic
            that such commitment could be achieved in practice, and I
            have also some reservations on whether it would be actually
            desirable.<br>
            <br>
            To explain better, let's say the site provides these
            fundamental services (simplifying):<br>
            1. A submission/review/commenting system.<br>
            2. Management of roles and competences for the users of the
            system.<br>
            3. A workflow and approval system based on voting.<br>
            <br>
            My biggest concern is on point 3: in my experience I have
            never encountered a volunteer-based community that put such
            a strong emphasis on voting as a way to direct the project
            (I am comparing mainly to the innumerable small and large
            communities about open-source software and similar projects,
            which have the most similarities with Lojban). In fact, I
            consider it a sign of poor health if a community routinely
            resorts to voting. <a
href=3D"https://www.slideshare.net/vishnu/how-to-protect-yourhow-to-protect=
-your-open-source-project-from-poisonous-people"
              target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow"
onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fw=
ww.slideshare.net%2Fvishnu%2Fhow-to-protect-yourhow-to-protect-your-open-so=
urce-project-from-poisonous-people\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCN=
GzM_4R8sVtEEXG5hdbH9T9hIMSGw';return
              true;"
onclick=3D"this.href=3D'https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.s=
lideshare.net%2Fvishnu%2Fhow-to-protect-yourhow-to-protect-your-open-source=
-project-from-poisonous-people\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGzM_=
4R8sVtEEXG5hdbH9T9hIMSGw';return
              true;" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">A healthy community should
              rarely need to vote</a>. In my view voting stimulates
            competitive (as opposed to collaborative) behavior and
            usually obscures the need of having a well-defined vision, a
            limited scope and a coherent design around which
            consensus-based solutions can be found when issues arise.<br>
            <br>
            I see point 2 above (roles and competences) also as being
            somewhat dependent on point 3. It is in a sense a way to
            mitigate the possible shortcomings and manipulation
            opportunities of the voting system, while keeping the voting
            system itself in place. Is all this complication really
            needed?<br>
            <br>
            About point 1 (submission/review/comment), the system you
            built is very good. Taken by itself, though, it suffers from
            the competition of solutions that have been around a long
            time and that have explored this problem domain (think
            Github code reviews).<br>
            <br>
            Sorry if my assessment sounds a bit harsh, I might be biased
            from my past experiences. In any case, I hope Lojban can
            find a way to be better organized, whatever the organization
            will be...<br>
            <br>
            And in the end, you managed to give concrete form to the
            vision you had and build something useful basically from
            scratch, something that I would never have been able to do.
            So all respect is for you!<br>
            <br>
            TL;DR: The site is extremely well-done and could support a
            community that values voting and user roles as the basis of
            its organization, but I don't believe that Lojban should be
            such a community.<br>
            <br>
            Gregorio<br>
            <br>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      -- <br>
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
      Groups "lojban" group.<br>
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
      send an email to <a
        href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com"
        moz-do-not-send=3D"true">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<b=
r>
      To post to this group, send email to <a
        href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">lo=
jban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
      Visit this group at <a
        href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban"
        moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>=
.<br>
      For more options, visit <a
        href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" moz-do-not-send=3D"true=
">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </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 />

--------------4BF1FE0E99374F215BACB68D--