Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020724195628.032f4c80@pop.east.cox.net>
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <018e01c23350$150a6c00$73a1ca3e@oemcomputer>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020723195058.030913c0@pop.east.cox.net>
 <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>
 <5.1.0.14.0.20020724122649.032e7ec0@pop.east.cox.net>
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 21:28:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [lojban] to-do list (was 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: 14118
Lines: 296

At 10:23 PM 7/24/02 +0200, you wrote:
>cu'u la lojbab
> > Alice was a somewhat larger group effort, but from what I gather, most of
> > the work was done by one or two people who almost certainly spent more than
> > 40 hours on what they did over a period of time.
>
>So? It got done, didn't it?

Someone said so, but I haven't looked since I don't have CVS.  I also have 
the impression that Jorge who did a lot of it, considers its status as a 
draft rather than a final product.

>Get everyone at Logfest together and show them how to use Cygwin or their
>OSXTerminal ;-)

I never heard of them.  But we have a couple of people coming to LogFest 
that are still working on getting a computer.

> > >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.
> >
> > That's fine.  But who will write the tools AND GET THEM DONE.  LLG can't
> > rely on promises, and we certainly can't plan to coordinate a big volunteer
> > effort based on software, when we don't even have specs for what they are
> > supposed to do.  I can't write a spec for what we need, because at this
> > point I don't have the imagination to figure out what would work for the
> > activity-level and long-term-consistency of most of our volunteers.
>
>How complicated can a dictionnary spec be?

I dunno.  People seem to think we need something more than is being done, 
but there have been no articulated   specifics.

> >  In that sense, the pretty version you made up IS "the dictionary".
>
>ok then, let's call it "the mini-dictionary" and call it done.

Some of the people who really care won't consider it done until its 
hardbound, with a Library of Congress


> > 1997 minutes specified the "next book" will be a mini-dictionary, and
> > indicated its intended content.  It was put as 8th on my list of
>priorities
> > in 1998.  I think it's moved up a couple of notches, but Nick's work moved
> > his books to higher priority in the publishing stream.  Resuming JL/LK is
> > also higher priority.  The full dictionary will come after the
> > mini-dictionary (which I'll admit you could probably produce for us faster
> > than I could at this point).
>
>
>The minuites between 1995or6 and 2000 are not available anywhere that I've
>looked.

Pointers to 1992-1998 are on
http://www.lojban.org/misc.html

>Re: JL/LK I find that anything I do want to publish in/about lojban, I send
>to the list or put up on the wiki immediately; publishing that on a regular
>basis is a huge task which would be likely to anihilate all others (or end
>up being published yearly)

Actually, I found it was not as time-consuming as it may appear.  The time 
consuming task was maintaining the snail addresses and individual 
balances.  I'm using ancient Dbase scripts, and it probably would be wise 
to convert to a modern simple business accounting package for the sake of 
ongoing time spent, but my wife does a lot of business software conversions 
and I'm worried that a conversion and the associated learning curve would 
take more effort than we'd save afterwards.  (I must be getting old - 
learning new software is much challenging than it used to be)

> > It isn't that high on the list even if it gets done.  Well, actually, if it
> > gets done, it will de facto move up the priority list.  But I don't have
> > time to work on corrections/errata.  I just realized yesterday that Nora
> > was supposed to do indexing for Nick's books, which she never did and I
> > don't think any one else did, though I haven't looked lately.  My own
> > priority after business matters that never get done as it is, is getting
> > our address list up to date so that I can put out a JL/LK that will get to
> > the people who have paid for it; I haven't had time for that either.
>
>What is on your priority list? apart from getting the mailing list sorted?
>And anyway, there is no way that any single person can "ok" the whole
>dictionary in a reasonable amount of time.

Most of the dictionary file ENGDICT.GIS was done with automated tools - 
Cowan did a bunch of PERL scripts to create a KWIC index, and most of what 
I've done has been minor editing.  I've similarly used tools to create 
lists of lujvo that have appeared on Lojban List and in text, but writing 
place structures is difficult, and few have done much.  The fact that place 
structures need to be consistent with Nick's conventions from CLL for 
automated processing doesn't help.

>I posted on that, but I appear to have suffered from cowanitus in that Jay
>is as yet the sole beneficiary of my wisdom
>
>"I don't think CVS _should_ be beyond anyone, wincvs is excessively
>complicated looking.

You have to understand that many people don't want to install ANY software 
downloaded from the net.  there is a certain paranoia that has set in.  In 
my case, my system died hard when Robin downloaded WinCVS last year, though 
it wasn't WINCVS or anything he did, and indeed Robin was of the opinion 
that I had TOO much stuff installed, since my Start Menu was 
overflowing.  I also never uninstall anything.

But for me also it is simply learning curve.  Time spent learning news 
software cuts into the time I can spend doing what I do now, and I don't 
have enough time for THAT.

>  Using Cygwin with xemacs (or whatever is needed for
>editing and viewing or with the cvs directory shortcutted to the desktop) is
>so easy even I figured it out; all you need to know is
>cvs login
>cvs co
>cvs update
>cvs commit
>along with how to get out of vim"
>
>Why is CVS beyond a number of Lojbanists? Apart from the fact that the guys
>who wrote it made it so intuitive that they didn't realize how complicated
>it seems to a beginner?

Also coupled with the problem that most people don't understand what it 
buys them.  I can see things get done, but I don't know what >I< would do 
with it.  I so rarely read Lojban text these days that anything more than 3 
lines gets filed for "someday".

> > > > We could talk about publishing a set of materials on CD-ROM, but my
> > > > understanding is that CD-ROM dictionaries are already becoming passe
> > > > because on-line lookup is more convenient for those who need 
> convenience,
> > > > and the download time for the current file is quite short.
>
>Then we should publish a program which makes lookup of words simple, the
>equivalent of searching a flat text file with a text editor, but beautified

I have the impression that several people have done that already.  Since I 
can't imagine using the computer to look up individual words, I've never 
seen much use in it.

> > >And if they don't follow through, what happens?
> >
> > The mild semblance of order in this disjoint organization, that I have
> > maintained with difficulty, ceases.
>
>I'm sorry, but calling "not doing anything 'cos we probably won't get it
>done" is no more "semblance of order" than having 50 half-done projects

What I'm saying is that my time for Lojban has been so inconsistent and 
limited, that my efforts seem to go to maintaining LLG as an operating 
organization.  To "manage projects", I have to have time to "manage", which 
I don't  and my own experience as a manager has mostly been as a team 
leader rather than as an executive.

> > >Right now, you're signed up for everything on the list, and you're not
> > >getting any of it done. How can things get any worse?
> >
> > At least now I know what is and is not getting done.  And since I'm legally
> > responsible, that is something I find necessary.
>
>I'd like to know whether all this legal-shmegal business is really
>important, this is a problem that obviously exists, but I can't get my head
>around the why of it.

American laws may opaque to those in other countries, but I'm sure you have 
similar laws.

Selling Lojban materials is a business, even if it is more of a hobby.  If 
people pay you money, you pay taxes, and you give them what they pay 
for.  If I sold books without the legal setup for LLG, I'd have to count 
the money as income, pay income tax, and do a bunch of personal bookkeeping 
of the expenses.  With the legal setup, I do the same thing, but it becomes 
business taxes, and I am somewhat shielded from being sued.  For books sold 
here in Virginia, I also have to collect sales tax (like VAT) for the 
state, and pay it, though I'm not very prompt in doing so - the amounts 
we're talking about being under $10 per year.

In addition to the normal business, we have a special status from the US 
tax collectors (the IRS) that allows people to donate money to us and we 
don't pay taxes on it, and they can sometimes reduce their tax 
payments.  But we have to follow extra rules to keep this status.

But the bulk of the paperwork is just keeping track of our snail mail 
accounts.  When someone sends us $50 for the book, I technically have to 
record that they paid us $39 + $5 shipping and the remaining $6 is a 
balance in their favor that they can get refunded, unless they explicitly 
say it is a donation.  I have to do this because for the first several 
years of LLG's existence, we were financed by people sending us $10 or $50 
or $100 and asking us to send them materials like JL or LK as they were 
produced, subtracting the cost.  The balances that they sent us financed 
our operating costs.

There is some other garbage that even I don't understand involving credit 
card processing.  We pay a variable fee for every credit card order as well 
as a monthly fee for having the service.  We pay more for international 
orders, more when we don't have the US Zip Codes entered correctly on the 
form, and we aren't allowed to pass these charges on to the customer (even 
if I knew what they would be until I get the notice.)

> > >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 manager with no dependable resources has nothing to manage.
>
>If you like, we'll cludge-up a program which reminds everyone that we should
>try to be dependable ressources once a week ;-)))))

I need one for myself.  I'm the most undependable resource of all, when I 
can go a month without even having time to read Lojban List traffic.

> > >So Delegate. What on earth have you got to lose?
> >
> > I've tried with less important tasks, and been bitten.  But ultimately it
> > is up to the voting membership, if they think I can delegate more than I
> > am.  That is one reason they are there.
>
>Such as?

I don't understand the question, but I may have given answers in some of my 
other posts today.  If you read the minutes for various years, you'll find 
that the committees appointed one year seldom do anything before the next 
year's meeting. I've tried to delegate really small stuff like making sure 
that we get a proper notice out to members of the annual meeting a couple 
months before the meeting rather than less than a week as I just did.  It 
never gets done.

> > What do I stand to lose? 16 years of time and emotional investment in this
> > project if it falls apart.  I think the language will survive my personal
> > involvement now.  I'm not sure the organization is so solid.
>
>Hey, we *are* all behind you,

I know that.  Logfest is a time when people show their frustrations, and I 
listen (maybe I listen too much, which may paralyze me from taking risks - 
or maybe that is just me getting old).

>It seems that you intend to "personnally" review anything before it becomes
>official. The only problem will be that stuff can be done quicker than you
>can ever review it.

I don't know where that has ever been stated, and it shouldn't be 
assumed.  CLL did not require my apporval in order to be official - Cowan 
probably has as much credibility than me to make such a pronouncement on 
technical matters.  Indeed, I have to say that I have never read either of 
Nick's books, which have quasi-official status, and probably will become 
official by next week.

Stuff that is official has to have the approval of the voting members, or 
the elected Board (or me as President or Cowan as Vice President acting 
executively).  Anything important, I put to the Board or the members 
depending on how important.

I think that anything that is official needs to have been reviewed heavily 
by SOMEONE, preferably more than one "someones", who have established 
credibility for technical knowledge of the language.  If it is to be part 
of the baseline, then it has to be under our *control* once it becomes 
official or it can't really be baselined.  In any even, once it is 
official, the master copy has to be on our Web site, or it won't be seen by 
the world as being "official".

Whether it matters what is "official" is also a good question.  The wiki 
probably has as almost as much credibility as the LLG web page on many 
technical matters, even though it is the antithesis of "official".  On the 
other hand, it mattered a lot to Hartmut to have "official" support for his 
efforts to get Lojban used in the European Patent Office, even though LLG 
with its American-heavy membership would seem to have little reason to be 
listened to by the EPO.

lojbab

-- 
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/