From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Sep 16 16:24:20 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 63379 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2003 23:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2003 23:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2003 23:24:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19zPB8-0005Yv-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:24:14 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19zPA4-0005XG-00; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:23:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19zP9p-0005Wg-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:22:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:22:53 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Conservative, *active* BPFK commissioners needed. Message-ID: <20030916232253.GF26715@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <001d01c37ca8$ca179940$103c0751@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001d01c37ca8$ca179940$103c0751@oemcomputer> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 6190 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20672 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? > 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. [snip] > Is there an actual impasse? Nick seems to think so. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "but I'm not stupid and people are not stupid who think samely with me" -- from an actual, real, non-spam mail sent to webmaster@lojban.org http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui