From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 09 07:04:07 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LPRp-0006fW-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:03:53 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-8.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.8]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E735B6A3 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:03:29 +0100 (MET) From: "And Rosta" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Baseline policy voting - semiofficial results Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:03:18 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20021208233918.GG26904@digitalkingdom.org> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3339 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Robin: > > > > Check, but arguably slightly unclear. What he *actually* says is: > "I support the idea of a baseline. Having a stable dictionary and > learning materials should help Lojban increase its user base. I'm far > from proficient in the language." > > And some other stuff that is irrelevant > > As the apparent official ratifier, I accept this as a yes vote > > > > > Check, but slightly arguable. To wit, he says: "My vote will remain nay > until the lojban-Loglan schism is addressed explicitly in some fashion > in the baseline policy statement.". Given that a draft is being worked > on to address this issue, I wonder is Steve wouldn't like to reconsider If you're recording people's views & reasons, then mine is that I was in favour of almost all of the policy, agreeable to all of it if it represented consensus, and opposed to a policy containing so many specifics being put forward for a vote without opinion on the specifics having first been canvassed. Since the subsequent debate did in fact provide an opportunity for opinion to be heard, and since the policy in all specifics does seem to command consensus, I count myself as supporting the policy qua policy. --And.