Message-Id: <199602181247.HAA13694@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 18 Feb 1996 07:12:35 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: GEN: *please* read: PROPOSAL: intervals
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length: 1643

>If no further changes are made officially for the time being, then
>pressure may build up so that LLG may start to realize that a veto
>on change is not really a good or viable idea.

Hunh?  that is JCB's policy - not ours.  HE has an academy with veto power
on everything, and each academy member has veto power on changes proposed
to the academy, which means that JCB himself has veto power.

After the baseline, NO ONE will have veto power over changes.

As for pressure for change - that will come about through use.  And if people
buy a change, we will hope that it is a valid Lojbanic one - else the
language fails to maintain its integrity.  But that will be the choice of
the users, not me.

I try in general not to give special treatment to "people", but to their
ideas.  Of course, one of the best ideas is that which Goran has had to
USE the language rather than propose changes to it.  This means that when
he actually DOES propose something, it is really his usage that speaks
for the proposal, not Goran himself.  Goran has expressed a need in Zipfean
terms, and he has the experience of usage to back his statement of need.

Hopefully after the baseline, MANY people will have such experience, at which
point the experience of no one person will have particularly strong effect.

But we will see.

But if people take a divide and conquer attitude on getting their pet change
into the language, the language community will fragment into unintelligible
dialects.  That would be failure in my book, and it will put no pressure on
LLG to do anything, because it will mean that LLG is dead.  I will NOT fight
the community.

lojbab