From 3qfW9SwsJBqgTcSMIJMZOMVOUIQT.KWUTWRJIVOWWOTMOZWcXa.KWU@groups.bounces.google.com Thu Apr 08 08:27:01 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f166.google.com ([209.85.221.166]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3qfW9SwsJBqgTcSMIJMZOMVOUIQT.KWUTWRJIVOWWOTMOZWcXa.KWU@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1Nztd8-0005r3-1X for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:27:00 -0700 Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38sf1123306qyk.1 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:47 -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-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=7w9UEYA2Rf9tDsoQHgy55QqjVdWiP+n/N6T7Weu1f5o=; b=vcxCHg0FV7+6A5TRpkbPEbyMIyPHYW4CVx0fzB69eDqY45YOnCmPAUz40i66SJPwDR v2kA2e+Ttfb/6wHX14wCzMCs7LLXKYZJ5YCobcPggdCqaCyR99XVimZuYt5I4wiRGi5a joa9SzfdifKMfhDl3dGVESnOMMH/9eymleQq4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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; b=YwadgKr/tWOlYhUn58qpmZijpmxnzo2DdjelhTqMr1oZTFUIkJFlwJdkrgRitbsAsM pK/DduMny7QyC//ybe77aT6X0OtKwa+vEcukxgUo7VomBTj2ScCpz7TZxST8hbKAHDVa sRG27Xdqm4bawpvXbrWp95bXpmeROh9w6HJFk= Received: by 10.229.43.91 with SMTP id v27mr11964qce.24.1270740393039; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.34.9 with SMTP id j9ls2364802qcd.3.p; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.191.138 with SMTP id dm10mr27183qcb.11.1270740391419; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.191.138 with SMTP id dm10mr27182qcb.11.1270740391328; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si33868qyk.4.2010.04.08.08.26.30; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.54; Received: by vws17 with SMTP id 17so1202172vws.13 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.167.140 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BBDECA2.5000500@lojban.org> References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BBC3CE4.6080803@lojban.org> <4BBDECA2.5000500@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:26:29 -0400 Received: by 10.220.127.5 with SMTP id e5mr164371vcs.109.1270740389709; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-announcements] Essay on the future of Lojban, with a simple poll for the community. From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com 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/54a2b32cc5b3fda7 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636d33c9b87c73c0483bb4d17 --001636d33c9b87c73c0483bb4d17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > And what specifically do you want to *do* to change that pattern? From my perspective, Bob, one really significant change comes from the first bullet point: The BPFK should be open to anyone who is seriously working on learning the language That proposal alone seems like it could have a huge effect on the potential future success of the BPFK. I can think of a few people off the top of my head who are extremely interested in lojban and seem to have some good ideas about it that aren't on the BPFK official. Please correct me if I'm wrong Robin, but I think one of your hopes for this proposal is that the community actually take more of an active role in defining the language. Where "community" does NOT mean "noobs who come to the list and complain that x, y, and z don't make sense" but rather "people who know the language and have real ideas about how to improve/fix it". On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > I have a separate response to Robin's essay in draft form. I think the > following makes sense on its own, so I am posting it first, but it exists > within the context of the other posting that I am not quite ready to post. > > > Matt Arnold wrote: > >> 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. >> > > I still have those grand dreams. > > > 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. >> > > And it shouldn't have been, because until the byfy work is done, > centralized planning is required. > > > > In a community this size, usage is a statistically insignificant sample. > > On most of the issues remaining undecided, I would probably agree. > > > We have no known means to measure or prove anything about usage. >> > > I'm not sure about this. Jorge, for example, argued that xorlo is pretty > much transparent in terms of actual usage, a claim that could not be made if > your statement were true. > > > It is also a self-contradicting authority. >> > > The point is that it isn't an "authority". Most natural languages do quite > well without any sort of "authority" deciding correctness. In the one > noteworthy exception, French, the attempts to exercise that authority are > largely ignored by actual speakers of the language. > > "Let usage decide" was a recognition of this inevitability. It was a > desired LONG TERM state. The byfy work of formalizing the baseline was > understood as a PRECONDITION to building the usage base to the level where > it becomes possible for "usage to decide". > > Somehow or another, it got turned around so that people think that byfy > cannot decide anything UNLESS usage exists sufficient to decide. > > That certainly was not *my* intent. I wanted byfy to document the status > quo, whatever it is, with any conflict resolved in favor of what people call > the "conservative" prescription, UNLESS there is significant usage (or > unless something was demonstrably "broken", such as the typos in CLL that > are up for correction). > > If there isn't usage enough, and the prescription is vague, then of course > byfy was to be deciding things by fiat, in order to eliminate that vagueness > where possible. > > The bias for conservatism is intended as a bulwark against arbitrary > change, and especially that based on aesthetics which is both transient and > heavily English-biased, so long as there is more talking *about* Lojban than > there is talking *in* Lojban. > > Of course, for some issues, the best way to demonstrate the need for change > is through usage. But Cowan and I had for several years demonstrated how > you can have controlled change under the baseline system. For 4 years or > so, every change to the formal grammar was documented in a change proposal > which stated the status quo and the reason for change, and the resulting > formal change to the documentation. > > I had intended that byfy do the same, documenting the status quo, and > accumulating formal proposals to be decided (separately from the > documentation effort). But not one change proposal, even xorlo, has ever > stated what would change in CLL or the "cmavo list" as a result of that > proposal, even though those are the only two manifestations of the baseline > that seem relevant. (The byfy product will presumably become a third, but we > cannot formally change what hasn't yet been written). > > > > Usage in the wild has no mechanism with > >> which to resolve disputes with other usage. >> > > In real life, it does, obviously, because you and I and others (including > several non-native speakers) are communicating in English and making > ourselves understood, and yet we are not speaking the same way Chaucer or > Shakespeare did. The language has evolved, slowly, because "usage has > decided". > > But I agree that Lojban isn't at that point yet, and cannot reach that > point without byfy completing its work. > > > >No wonder we were in a permanent bottleneck. > > And we will remain so, unless we can complete the byfy project in some sort > of mutually acceptable way, because people demand a prescription as a > starting point. > > (It is NOT clear that people will demand a later re-prescription after > usage of the baselined language is well-established. I have tried to have > us wait until then to decide and then have the decision made by the people > actually using the language.) > > > We let talented people go to waste for nearly a decade. This has been >> a disaster. >> > > I don't think it has been a disaster. The community has continued to grow, > and maybe now we finally have enough people to get the job done (I hope). > > > I do not accept it. > > But you *have* accepted it up until now, and you are wearing one of the key > hats in the organization. I stepped aside several years ago because people > perceived that I was in the way of getting things done. Robin took over > some of my hats, and has gotten an immense amount done. You've taken over > order fulfillment and turned that around, for which I have much > appreciation. > > But if you don't accept the status quo in the byfy work, and think that > talent is going to waste, what are *you* doing about it? > > > The "let usage decide" policy was put in place to prevent a recurrance >> of the James Cooke Brown failure mode-- >> > > No. "letting usage decide", had nothing to do with JCB. > > The policy of having a formal baseline, and being resistant to change > imposed from on high was a response to one aspect of JCB's failure - the > inability to get people to stop talking about the language (and endlessly > proposing changes) and start using it. We've largely accomplished that > much. People use the language, and ask "how to say it" questions. > > > > a failure mode which is no longer possible in the current environment. > > I wish. > > I can easily imagine a huge number of people deserting the project if, for > example, a sufficiently radical orthography change was proposed by someone > and adopted by the byfy. Whether that would kill the project is hard to > say, but any mass exodus in response to an official change from 'on high' > would be precisely "the James Cooke Brown failure mode". > > > > 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. >> > > .oicai > > Until byfy gets its job done, "let usage decide" is NOT the policy, so you > and others should stop blaming it. byfy HAS the authority to *totally* > decide. > > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement > > is the policy. > > The reference to "let usage decide" incorporated from the 1997 baseline > statement is preceded by these words: > >> The following material from the 1997 baseline declaration is reiterated in >> the current statement, with a couple of notes as indicated. These statements >> apply after the language baseline is declared complete and the freeze is >> again imposed. >> > > Note that second sentence. "Let usage decide" applies ONLY after byfy > finishes. > > > Robin's plan is now well underway and it will succeed. >> > > Which plan is that? He wrote an essay which is being debated. There is a > proposal at the end that doesn't in fact deal with the current byfy > paralysis, so far as I can tell, but rather talks about what will happen at > some future time when byfy has actually gotten its original job done. > > If Robin's essay needs a formal change to the policy, it will be up to the > member's meeting to approve it, since they approved the current policy. > > > > I have confidence that the tide is overwhelmingly on our side. > > On whose side? What other side is there? > > In consensus politics, there shouldn't be "sides" in the sense you seem to > be using the term. The goal is agreement, not winning a battle. > > > > That will > >> prevent me going away. But I will not remain in a project that is >> committed to an indefinite holding pattern. >> > > Why are we in an indefinite holding pattern? And what specifically do you > want to *do* to change that pattern? > > Redefining byfy's long-term role in the language community doesn't seem > likely to change anything NOW. It won't get a cmavo dictionary done. It > won't get CLL revised to incorporate xorlo and other decisions that have > been made, etc. > > And if we can't get people to do the necessary work, then stagnation will > continue no matter how much the policy is fiddled with. > > > lojbab > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --001636d33c9b87c73c0483bb4d17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=A0And what specifically do you want to *do* to change that pa= ttern?

From my = perspective, Bob, one really significant change comes from the first bullet= point:
The BPFK s= hould be open to anyone who is seriously working on learning the language

That proposal alone seems like it could have a huge effect= on the potential future success of the BPFK. =A0I can think of a few peopl= e off the top of my head who are extremely interested in lojban and seem to= have some good ideas about it that aren't on the BPFK official.=

Please correct me if I'm wrong Robin, but I think one = of your hopes for this proposal is that the community actually take more of= an active role in defining the language. =A0Where "community" do= es NOT mean "noobs who come to the list and complain that x, y, and z = don't make sense" but rather "people who know the language an= d have real ideas about how to improve/fix it".

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Bob LeChevalier <<= a href=3D"mailto:lojbab@lojban.org">lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:=
I have a separate response to Robin's e= ssay in draft form. =A0I think the following makes sense on its own, so I a= m posting it first, but it exists within the context of the other posting t= hat I am not quite ready to post.


Matt Arnold wrote:
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.

I still have those grand dreams.


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.

And it shouldn't have been, because until the byfy work is done, centra= lized planning is required.


> In a community this size, usage is a statistically insignificant sampl= e.

On most of the issues remaining undecided, I would probably agree.


We have no known means to measure or prove anything about usage.

I'm not sure about this. =A0Jorge, for example, argued that xorlo is pr= etty much transparent in terms of actual usage, a claim that could not be m= ade if your statement were true.


It is also a self-contradicting authority.

The point is that it isn't an "authority". =A0Most natural la= nguages do quite well without any sort of "authority" deciding co= rrectness. In the one noteworthy exception, French, the attempts to exercis= e that authority are largely ignored by actual speakers of the language.
"Let usage decide" was a recognition of this inevitability. =A0It= was a desired LONG TERM state. The byfy work of formalizing the baseline w= as understood as a PRECONDITION to building the usage base to the level whe= re it becomes possible for "usage to decide".

Somehow or another, it got turned around so that people think that byfy can= not decide anything UNLESS usage exists sufficient to decide.

That certainly was not *my* intent. =A0I wanted byfy to document the status= quo, whatever it is, with any conflict resolved in favor of what people ca= ll the "conservative" prescription, UNLESS there is significant u= sage (or unless something was demonstrably "broken", such as the = typos in CLL that are up for correction).

If there isn't usage enough, and the prescription is vague, then of cou= rse byfy was to be deciding things by fiat, in order to eliminate that vagu= eness where possible.

The bias for conservatism is intended as a bulwark against arbitrary change= , and especially that based on aesthetics which is both transient and heavi= ly English-biased, so long as there is more talking *about* Lojban than the= re is talking *in* Lojban.

Of course, for some issues, the best way to demonstrate the need for change= is through usage. =A0But Cowan and I had for several years demonstrated ho= w you can have controlled change under the baseline system. =A0For 4 years = or so, every change to the formal grammar was documented in a change propos= al which stated the status quo and the reason for change, and the resulting= formal change to the documentation.

I had intended that byfy do the same, documenting the status quo, and accum= ulating formal proposals to be decided (separately from the documentation e= ffort). =A0But not one change proposal, even xorlo, has ever stated what wo= uld change in CLL or the "cmavo list" as a result of that proposa= l, even though those are the only two manifestations of the baseline that s= eem relevant. (The byfy product will presumably become a third, but we cann= ot formally change what hasn't yet been written).


> Usage in the wild has no mechanism with
which to resolve disputes with other usage.

In real life, it does, obviously, because you and I and others (including s= everal non-native speakers) are communicating in English and making ourselv= es understood, and yet we are not speaking the same way Chaucer or Shakespe= are did. =A0The language has evolved, slowly, because "usage has decid= ed".

But I agree that Lojban isn't at that point yet, and cannot reach that = point without byfy completing its work.


>No wonder we were in a permanent bottleneck.

And we will remain so, unless we can complete the byfy project in some sort= of mutually acceptable way, because people demand a prescription as a star= ting point.

(It is NOT clear that people will demand a later re-prescription after usag= e of the baselined language is well-established. =A0I have tried to have us= wait until then to decide and then have the decision made by the people ac= tually using the language.)


We let talented people go to waste for nearly a decade. This has been
a disaster.

I don't think it has been a disaster. =A0The community has continued to= grow, and maybe now we finally have enough people to get the job done (I h= ope).


I do not accept it.

But you *have* accepted it up until now, and you are wearing one of the key= hats in the organization. =A0I stepped aside several years ago because peo= ple perceived that I was in the way of getting things done. =A0Robin took o= ver some of my hats, and has gotten an immense amount done. You've take= n over order fulfillment and turned that around, for which I have much appr= eciation.

But if you don't accept the status quo in the byfy work, and think that= talent is going to waste, what are *you* doing about it?
=

The "let usage decide" policy was put in place to prevent a recur= rance
of the James Cooke Brown failure mode--

No. =A0"letting usage decide", had nothing to do with JCB.

The policy of having a formal baseline, and being resistant to change impos= ed from on high was a response to one aspect of JCB's failure - the ina= bility to get people to stop talking about the language (and endlessly prop= osing changes) and start using it. =A0We've largely accomplished that m= uch. =A0People use the language, and ask "how to say it" question= s.


> a failure mode which is no longer possible in the current environment.=

I wish.

I can easily imagine a huge number of people deserting the project if, for = example, a sufficiently radical orthography change was proposed by someone = and adopted by the byfy. =A0Whether that would kill the project is hard to = say, but any mass exodus in response to an official change from 'on hig= h' would be precisely "the James Cooke Brown failure mode".

> 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.

.oicai

Until byfy gets its job done, "let usage decide" is NOT the polic= y, so you and others should stop blaming it. =A0byfy HAS the authority to *= totally* decide.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement

is the policy.

The reference to "let usage decide" incorporated from the 1997 ba= seline statement is preceded by these words:
The following material from the 1997 baseline declaration is reiterated in = the current statement, with a couple of notes as indicated. These statement= s apply after the language baseline is declared complete and the freeze is = again imposed.

Note that second sentence. "Let usage decide" applies ONLY after = byfy finishes.


Robin's plan is now well underway and it will succeed.

Which plan is that? =A0He wrote an essay which is being debated. =A0There i= s a proposal at the end that doesn't in fact deal with the current byfy= paralysis, so far as I can tell, but rather talks about what will happen = =A0at some future time when byfy has actually gotten its original job done.=

If Robin's essay needs a formal change to the policy, it will be up to = the member's meeting to approve it, since they approved the current pol= icy.


> I have confidence that the tide is overwhelmingly on our side.

On whose side? =A0What other side is there?

In consensus politics, there shouldn't be "sides" in the sens= e you seem to be using the term. =A0The goal is agreement, not winning a ba= ttle.


> That will
prevent me going away. But I will not remain in a project that is
committed to an indefinite holding pattern.

Why are we in an indefinite holding pattern? =A0And what specifically do yo= u want to *do* to change that pattern?

Redefining byfy's long-term role in the language community doesn't = seem likely to change anything NOW. =A0It won't get a cmavo dictionary = done. It won't get CLL revised to incorporate xorlo and other decisions= that have been made, etc.

And if we can't get people to do the necessary work, then stagnation wi= ll continue no matter how much the policy is fiddled with.
<= div class=3D"h5">

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--001636d33c9b87c73c0483bb4d17--