From 3Wsa8SwgSBikFQFSUTXYXZSKQTbJWWNaJW.TWLQTOGFSLTTLQJLWTZUX.HTR@groups.bounces.google.com Wed Apr 07 10:52:54 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3Wsa8SwgSBikFQFSUTXYXZSKQTbJWWNaJW.TWLQTOGFSLTTLQJLWTZUX.HTR@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NzZQm-0000uF-4p for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:52:53 -0700 Received: by pvb32 with SMTP id 32sf263051pvb.16 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:received:received:date:from :to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m91LdJHMZs+WxW7hpzqHuvT92DHuRotZUtJMDhAfKWE=; b=t5HVquwSBO7tlY9L90XXKrmxu4JYDcAEcnXLL9eUrQrKbdc32KSxouLMapvt1d2lsj e4EmaYgpddbdD/KOY9vC65Ag7Rwy6saj6Cv4HFYEi/tm2dGDIbFm2G3IKvcLTy4H6k/1 yft8b2rWtXvjE9T+G4/VQRRqMPh1vGfDYlUMg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding; b=UDninwon9Py+niTm5+q6FLvKQA/WTkTqvR9CnLlTxmlyYykjv2apY16AdxAw4JVBO9 bhCnpJ1qhSbDCRCC70rlYxry5DNsvacz06muP+ogSSlPzoqY+9eOO2KCE+GV87ttm8t1 O6xbOvmFnYk2mdaU8Pqv1FLlo50qvwmwEqRT0= Received: by 10.141.22.14 with SMTP id z14mr601666rvi.20.1270662746813; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.141.187.12 with SMTP id o12ls2665512rvp.0.p; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.91.10 with SMTP id t10mr1449506rvl.13.1270662745563; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.124.13 with SMTP id b13mr1451294rvn.8.1270662593973; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.124.13 with SMTP id b13mr1451293rvn.8.1270662593946; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f41.google.com (mail-pw0-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si3084978pzk.8.2010.04.07.10.49.53; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.160.41 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=209.85.160.41; Received: by mail-pw0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 2so1521885pwi.0 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.250.29 with SMTP id x29mr9310043wah.78.1270662591955; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (173-10-243-253-Albuquerque.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.10.243.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c21sm11313951ibr.16.2010.04.07.10.49.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:49:45 -0600 From: Alan Post To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-announcements] Essay on the future of Lojban, with a simple poll for the community. Message-ID: <20100407174945.GB597@alice.local> References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BBC3CE4.6080803@lojban.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.160.41 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) smtp.mail=alanpost@sunflowerriver.org X-Original-Sender: alanpost@sunflowerriver.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/c67f210addc06a0c X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/71e7288556e3de84 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1. And, "disagree," by way of answering the assertion Robin posed to Lojban announce: I would like Lojban to remain as close as it possibly can to its current state, regardless of whether I or a group of experienced Lojbanists see that improvements could be made. I disagree because I think that Lojban remaining as close as it possibly can to its current state will eventually render it obsolete by a language that doesn't adhere to that policy. -Alan On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:42:50PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > Bob, >=20 > I have been drifting out of the community for the past couple of years > through discouragement. I used to have such grand dreams for the > project, but most of those plans turned out to be dependent on the > BPFK finishing Lojban. >=20 > I thought work was proceeding apace, behind the scenes, and that the > only problem was generating enough work. It now turns out to have been > actively held back by a dispute between description of usage, and > prescription through centralized planning. In a community this size, > usage is a statistically insignificant sample. We have no known means > to measure or prove anything about usage. It is also a > self-contradicting authority. Usage in the wild has no mechanism with > which to resolve disputes with other usage. No wonder we were in a > permanent bottleneck. >=20 > We let talented people go to waste for nearly a decade. This has been > a disaster. I do not accept it. >=20 > The "let usage decide" policy was put in place to prevent a recurrance > of the James Cooke Brown failure mode-- a failure mode which is no > longer possible in the current environment. We need a policy that > mitigates the failure mode we're seeing, not the one that threatened > us decades ago. Now our failure mode is lack of decisiveness. It is > the responsibility of centralized authority to break the impasse that > happens when you let usage *totally* decide, rather than influence. >=20 > Robin's plan is now well underway and it will succeed. I have > confidence that the tide is overwhelmingly on our side. That will > prevent me going away. But I will not remain in a project that is > committed to an indefinite holding pattern. >=20 > -Eppcott >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote= : > >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Robin Lee Powell > >> wrote: > >> > >>> FOLLOWUPS TO: The main list. > >>> > >>> OK, been promising it for a while; here it is. > >>> > >>> > >>> http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=3DLojban%3A+You're+Doing+= It+Wrong > >>> > >>> There are all *sorts* of finicky details we could discuss, but right > >>> now I and others would very much just like to get a sense of where > >>> the community stands on these sorts of issues, so, if we could > >>> *please* keep the discussion for now (1) on the main list and (2) > >>> agree/disagree answer to the following question, after you've read > >>> (as much as you wish to) of the essay: > >>> > >>> I would like Lojban to remain as close as it possibly can to its > >>> current state, regardless of whether I or a group of experienced > >>> Lojbanists see that improvements could be made. > >>> > >>> Agree or disagree? > > > > Both, depending on timeframe and definitions of terms. > > > > Lojban needs to remain stable and resistant to change, especially in th= e > > near term. =A0When numbers of Lojbanists and formal documentation are b= oth > > strong enough, then "improvements" will generally be made by usage, not= by > > fiat, with skilled Lojbanists being the only ones having the capability= to > > demonstrate and explain their variant usages in-language, and other ski= lled > > Lojbanists voting-with-their-usage to adopt the variation. > > > > That is what the phrase "let usage decide" was supposed to refer to - t= he > > asymptotic reduction of change-by-fiat to nil, in favor of natural evol= ution > > through usage. =A0Shakespeare introduced considerable new vocabulary an= d usage > > to the English language, and needed no byfy to approve his efforts. > > > > Thus in the near term, I agree. =A0In the longer term, I disagree, but = require > > that "improvements" are introduced through usage, and explanation > > in-language when necessary, and not by fiat. > > > > Of course, by "current state", I mean the language that the byfy is > > attempting to document, and not the state of half-documented-ness that > > persists. > > > > lojbab > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou= ps > > "lojban" group. > > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > > > >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. >=20 --=20 te djuno lo do sevzi --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.