Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020724155616.032ea010@pop.east.cox.net>
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20020724051555.GC18580@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <20020723221537.B26815@miranda.org>
 <5.1.0.14.0.20020723025544.032cba90@pop.east.cox.net>
 <4.3.2.7.2.20010730221611.00b10c00@pop.cais.com>
 <acri3c+8mml@eGroups.com>
 <5.1.0.14.0.20020723025544.032cba90@pop.east.cox.net>
 <20020723103956.E28971@miranda.org>
 <5.1.0.14.0.20020723195058.030913c0@pop.east.cox.net>
 <20020723221537.B26815@miranda.org>
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:21:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: New Members, Board of Directors, other
  LogFest results
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
Content-Length: 10830
Lines: 211

At 10:15 PM 7/23/02 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:42:43PM -0600, Jay F Kominek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:27:55PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to get people to accept the idea of working on the dictionary
> > in a sane, community-based fashion, with special tools designed to ease
> > the burden.
>
>I would like to publically state that I think this is an excellent idea,
>and I would be very happy to see the LLG throw some kind of support at
>it, even if it was just, "Yeah, that seems like a good idea, it would be
>great if you did that".

As President of LLG, I approve of almost EVERYTHING that people do with 
Lojban.  I'm not sure what additional  "support" that LLG can provide, 
given that we are without money, and I have no more power or ability to 
recruit volunteers than you guys do (and looking at the wiki, so far, I 
suspect probably LESS power and ability).

>I'm also very happy with what I've seen so far of Jay's work on
>dictionary tools, discouraged though he may be.

I'm happy that he is doing something, even if I have no clear idea on what 
he is doing or has done.  I don't know that there is anything I can do more.

> > (And that would likely make it significantly easier to get donations,
> > if people saw what their donating was going to do.)
>
>No kidding.  Sorry, lojbab, but I'm not going to give money to cover
>expenses incurred by the organization years before I even heard of it.

Umm, which expenses are those?  The cost of publishing CLL ($17,500) is the 
only significant expense incurred that needs to be covered, and not even 
all of that.

At the time we published CLL, we had around $7K in the bank from 
accumulated balances and donations.  I chipped in a $10K loan at 8%, which 
is far cheaper than anything a bank was willing to offer us at the time 
with minimal credit history and almost no income, and Perry Smith gave a 
$1000 no-interest loan.  The loan to me is down to $3000 plus 2 years 
interest, I think, and I think we have slightly more than that in the 
bank.   So LLG needs to cover no old expenses.  I (and the Board) am 
however, legally responsible to the people who contributed that $7000 worth 
of balances to have the organization deliver them goods or refund their 
balances on demand, so I guess you can call that spent balance money (spent 
on CLL) as "old expenses".

>I *will* give money to produce a textbook or dictionary, because that's
>actually *doing* something, even if the money ends up going to those
>same debts.

I presume that at LogFest we will decide to officially publish Nick's 
books, and that will be what we will be asking for donations to finance, 
not any old debts.  With kids approaching college age, Nora and I can't 
afford to tie up a lot of money for years with the next publications, and I 
also think it is healthier if the organization becomes less financially 
dependent on me.  I'm hoping to suggest that we look at an order 
fulfillment service so that we can handle people's money is a legally 
acceptable way, and make the organization less dependent on me for that 
aspect of LLG's service to the community.

> > > BTW, in formatting the file that you did, YOU have "gotten something
> > > done on them" more than anyone else has in the last couple of years;
> > > but since we weren't at that stage yet, it was premature.  The tasks
> > > that are really needed: going through and writing definitions and
> > > place structures for new words that have seen usage, and coming up
> > > with better definitions for cmavo, we haven't actually had any
> > > volunteers that have "demonstrated that they can get something
> > > accomplished on them".
> >
> > Who is really in a position to write all the definitions themselves?
> > For the gismu, OK, that is feasible. But add on the cmavo, and then a
> > scattering of common lujvo and fu'ivla, and no single volunteer can do
> > that.
>
>Especially since I think we should have definitions in both English and
>lojban, at least.

That has been suggested, usually only half-seriously, a few times.  I don't 
think it is anywhere near a priority item yet.  I would rather see the 
gismu list in several other natural languages so that it is not defined 
solely by the English.  If it is only defined by the English and itself, 
then it is only defined by the English, transitively.

Such a set of definitions would be useful only in theory until we have 
people more fluent in Lojban than in the various natlangs that are used to 
support Lojban (currently only English, with some Russian support coming 
along slowly).  In real life, people need the definitions in languages they 
already know.

But if people want to create lojban definitions for the gismu, do you 
really think I would oppose it?

>Let's get stuff *done*, and *then* worry about printing it, if even
>bother.  lojbab seems to want to do it the other way around...

The organization is focused on getting things done.  Lojbab is focused on 
and responsible for keeping the organization solvent and legal until 
something gets done.  That is the first and foremost job of the President.

Perhaps I take the legal obligations more seriously than others think I 
should, but it's my name on all the legal documents, and we have already 
been through one set of legal actions that cost Jeff Prothero and myself 
close to $20K when the totalling was done, and we won (and no organization 
moneys were involved - we ate those costs ourselves, and no one owes us for 
them).  I'm a little gunshy at protecting the organization from the 
possibility of others.

> > > We lose even more on airmail to Australia, which for LLG was around
> > > $25 the last time I sent one.
> >
> > I'd think that people in Australia would be understanding if you made
> > them pay a shipping amount a little bit closer to the actual cost.
>
>No kidding.

The membership will have an opportunity to discuss changing the policy.  I 
can in theory do these kinds of things unilaterally, but I DON'T, because I 
don't want the organization to become even more identified with me 
personally than it is.  The membership set the prices, so I don't like to 
change them without consulting the membership, or at least the Board.

> > You Can Not Get Everything Done Yourself. Even if you worked Lojban as
> > a paid, fulltime job, _and_ your hobby, you *still* wouldn't be able
> > to do everything.
> >
> > Delegation is the most important thing a manager can learn. And as the
> > President/CEO of the LLG, you're the manager.

I reject the title CEO, even if it is effectively true.

> > So Delegate. What on earth have you got to lose?
>
>The above bears repeating.
>
>lojbab, you have been both refusing to delegate and failing to do the
>work for the entire time I've been involved with the project.  It needs
>to stop.

I don't think I have "refused" to delegate *anything*.  What precisely 
haven't I delegated that people want to do?  What, in fact, can I *stop* 
people from doing if they start doing it on their own, which I've more or 
less given blanket permission to do?

The question is what further can be delegated that won't require me to 
spend even more time managing the delegatees than I now (don't spend).  Jay 
says I am a manager.  But management takes time, especially when what is 
being managed is an organization of strongly independent people who are 
entirely volunteers - actively managing LLG would probably be like herding 
cats %^)  If the managing takes more time than doing the work myself, it is 
a waste, unless the teaming itself causes a synergy of greater productivity 
(which is what finally got CLL out - Cowan and I were working together 
perhaps more closely than any two people have worked together on this 
project without being in the same room, and I think each of us bolstered 
the other into greater productivity).

The membership has stripped task after task from me so that about all I 
have left that is *solely* my responsibility is the "business".  In that, I 
am actually doing more than one job, because Nora as Secretary/Treasurer 
has let me do her job other than keeping and writing the minutes.  Most 
suggested approaches to getting the business work done has been to stop 
being a business and do everything ad hoc and informal, and consider that 
to be the business.  I don't think that the state or the IRS would be too 
happy with that, so the ad hoc stuff remains "unofficial", and the official 
stuff remains quasi-businesslike.

Meanwhile I have to admit that being responsible ONLY for business matters, 
while keeping the organization running, quite thoroughly saps my motivation 
to do other stuff that needs to be done and that I want to do.  Contrary to 
your image of me, I've always been a "team" worker, and am far less 
productive when I work totally alone.  Lojban exists largely because Nora, 
Tommy, and I worked as a small team for several months plugging away at the 
gismu making.  The original grammar was a similar effort with me and Jeff 
Taylor, and the later grammars drew John Cowan in pretty much replacing 
Jeff, and adding his own new interests.  I'd like nothing more than to have 
a good language task like the dictionary, and someone who was really going 
to work on it with me over the long haul to get the job done.

I agree that I've been failing to get work done.  Unfortunately, passing 
tasks along to someone else who won't get the work done only means that it 
is harder to recover the pieces when things fall apart.  And every year the 
membership has appointed individuals and committees who have volunteered to 
do this and that, and every single committee has been forgotten within a 
month of LogFest, seldom even communicating once, usually leaving me to 
pick up the pieces when I prepare for LogFest the following year.  But the 
membership has been regularly delegating things to anyone-but-lojbab, and 
will probably do some more of it again this year, and that is fine by 
me.  That is your right and power as the representatives of the Lojban 
community.


-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/7dY7FD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/