From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Mon Dec 02 19:45:11 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:45:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J3za-00054E-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:45:08 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB33omG9045876 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:50:49 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB33okV7045869 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:50:46 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:50:46 -0600 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: LLG = who? (was: RE: Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Message-ID: <20021203035046.GA45692@allusion.net> References: <20021202210937.GJ1520@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2944 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:28:25AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Robin: [...] > > Ranting on about how the whole community should have been consulted from > > the get-go is just silly=20 >=20 > Apparently so, since nobody else seems to think they should have been > consulted. I'm quite surprised, though. I'd have thought that the > view would be more prevalent that Lojban belongs to the general > membership and that a 'cabal' benignly second-guessing the membership > is still failing to adequately recognize that fact. That's what I > would have thought, but I stand corrected. Just thought I'd weigh in that I strongly support the board for coming up with a decent, written proposal before consulting the community at large. I don't think there'd be any chance of getting anything done without that, as what was being asked of the community would be ambiguous. I believe the members of the board sufficiently reflect (or are at least able to consider) the various opinions of the larger community to be able to come up with a reasonable proposal which most everyone can live with. Also, I think they are quite right to ask for a mandate from the community (or at least the members (which I'm not, btw)) rather than just acting (which they are perfectly entitled to do). --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE97CoVDrrilS51AZ8RApqQAKCwx7vcesOEEpnMevFBsblOMVKJNACfaFKM C+nKC3eiYtAca9SOWK2o7Mg= =yskZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT--