From sentto-44114-17283-1038613359-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Nov 29 15:43:16 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.70]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Humr-0006g8-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:43:09 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17283-1038613359-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.97] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2002 23:42:39 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 29 Nov 2002 23:42:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 82048 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2002 23:42:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2002 23:42:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.112) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2002 23:42:38 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-57-14.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.57.14]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C2C5B6C6 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:42:36 +0100 (MET) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127233445.03073ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:44:41 -0000 Subject: [lojban] Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2770 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 Lojbab: > At 03:26 AM 11/28/02 +0000, And wrote: > >Lojbab: > > > At 02:56 PM 11/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > >First, does a vote in favour count as a vote in favour of the general > > > >thrust of the document, or as support (or lack of dissent) for every > > > > detail of it? > > > > > > The reason for the vote is that we are seeking a mandate for the > > > baseline policy as described in the statement, and for the byfy as > > > described, as a means of finalizing the baseline. How much you want > > > to insist on "details" vs "approving of the general thrust" is up to > > > you. A high proportion of yes votes will be taken as such a mandate. > > > There is not likely to be further discussions on the details unless > > > the community votes disapproval > > > >But will you take it as a mandate for the general thrust or also for > >every detail? > > Yes. %^) I will vote against, then. If we were being asked "Do you prefer the new baseline policy to the status quo", I would vote Yes in a flash. But it looks like I'm being asked to give a mandate to quite a complex set of policies which were arrived at without me or most other Lojbanists being consulted. I'm sure that in constructing the policies, the Board members were at pains to take into account the general tenor of the views of the different factions, but that doesn't mean that potential arguments about specific policy points had a chance to get a fair hearing. If the specific points where I disagree with the policy (which I'll detail in a later message; they're not relevant to this message) had had a chance to be discussed openly and were rejected by the majority of open-minded thinking Lojbanists, then I would feel that the policy more truly has a mandate and represents consensus. > >or whether it > >will be allowed that details of the policy will remain open to debate > >after its general thrust has received a mandate > > The policy is not up for a debate - only ratification or rejection. [...] > But the policy is not open to amendment at this point For this very reason, I will vote against it, even though I agree with the great majority of it. I hope other people will vote against for the same reason, even if they support the policy. The Board could perfectly well have circulated a draft and solicited responses and discussion, and then retired to redraft in the light of those responses and discussion. I would like to propose to the Board that it belatedly do just that: cancel the vote, solicit feedback on the policy, with, say, January 1st as a final deadline for commentary. Then the Board can reissue the policy, with revisions if they are called for, in the *informed* belief that the policy truly represents the best consensus. And then we can be asked to vote "Do you agree that this policy best represents the consensus of views and that it should therefore be made official?" --And. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/