From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Dec 02 13:09:42 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:09:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Ixov-0002Pf-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:09:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:09:37 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Message-ID: <20021202210937.GJ1520@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210709.03153ec0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021201140117.03122170@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021201140117.03122170@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 2901 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:53:51PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > The seeking of a mandate was, IMHO, a sign of respect to the greater > community. Nothing in the LLG Bylaws requires us to seek a mandate. The above bears repeating. We're talking about an *LLG* policy here. Not an official statement of the whole lojban community or something. As such, the most that the bylaws, or even basic politeness IMO, could *possibly* require is that the entire membership ratify it. Ranting on about how the whole community should have been consulted from the get-go is just silly. > (And I daresay that you are guilty of doing precisely what you object > to from us - at one point recently taking a jboske debate and > apparently presuming that everyone who did not explicitly object > supported your "consensus" written up on the wiki, when jboske itself > is only a subset of the community.) Oh, And did that long before the Wiki post. The whole reason that I brought the issue to the main list was his post to the effect of, "This is a boring old issue that has been solved. There's no point talking about it. We just didn't bother to document it". > So the bottom line is whether the community is willing to follow > Nick's lead. I am. I'd prefer to be on the byfy group, but even if I wasn't, I'd accept Nick's decisions, assuming there were at least a few other people I consider competent lojbanists involved. > I have not looked at the poll to see intermediate results, and do not > think that I should do so, so I don't even know how many have voted. I > know that if Robin is sending copies to me of the > baselinevote@lojban.org submissions (which I asked him to collect so > that there would be an independent verification of those votes), then > no one is using that means to vote, since my filters haven't picked up > any such submissions. I know only that opponents of the policy have > been vociferous, and supporters relatively silent. That was an error on my part, and has been rectified. > We'll know the results shortly after the poll ends. I allowed 10 days > for the vote, since I know that people may easily be off line for a > week. Please post seperately when there are only a few days left, to warn people. > The Board's job is to act on matters in between members' meetings. > Thus it is our JOB to not wait for consultation with the membership. *DAMN* *STRAIGHT*. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi