From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Sep 16 16:48:51 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 93690 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2003 23:48:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2003 23:48:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2003 23:48:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19zPYv-00069f-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:48:49 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19zPY6-000681-00; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:47:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19zPXq-00065q-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:47:42 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-48.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.48]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C702347E90 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:47:08 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <003001c37cac$d3ef4b80$103c0751@oemcomputer> To: References: <001d01c37ca8$ca179940$103c0751@oemcomputer> <20030916232253.GF26715@digitalkingdom.org> Subject: [lojban] Re: Conservative, *active* BPFK commissioners needed. Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:46:53 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 6192 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 X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20674 Robin: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:18:02AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > I imagine Robin chose his words carefully, > > You must be thinking of a different Robin. > > I am many things, but someone who usually chooses his words > carefully is, without question, not one of them. > > > but, as you say, he does seem to be overstating the amount of > > conservatism required. But the fact is that the design of the BF > > relies on a reasonable amount of participation from 'both camps' > > but the change-averse camp has been rather silent. If the BF were > > constitutionally able to start making resolutions today, > > I'm sorry, umm, who says we're not able to do so, exactly? I don't know. Are we able to? I never got my head round the -- to me -- complicated rules governing the BF. I defer to your judgement here, since you have more of an aptitude for understanding these things. > > then those resolutions would be rather conspicuously > > unconservative, it seems. I'd have thought that it would have been > > enough for Robin to ask for active commissioners with an avowed > > aversion to tinkering, > > That would be fine, yes. Or more generally anybody who wants to have a counterbalancing input to an enterprise that by its very nature is going to attract those with tinkering tendencies. > [snip] > > Is there an actual impasse? > > Nick seems to think so. I didn't ever fully understand why, but here's not the place for an inquest. --And.