Received: from localhost ([::1]:45684 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJdeG-0007x8-Q8; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 23:48:20 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo102.cox.net ([68.230.241.214]:45078) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJdeE-0007wu-9i for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 23:48:19 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo210 ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20150206074811.DTGK14650.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo210> for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 02:48:11 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.248.61]) by eastrmimpo210 with cox id ovoB1p0031LDWBL01voB1G; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:48:11 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.54D471BB.00B1,ss=1,re=0.001,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=aZC/a2Ut c=1 sm=1 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:17 a=4Y1Az08UtVsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=J8FSSorue6MFMHTQka4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:48:11 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Thanks to Riley and others for keeping this moving the past week. On 2/5/2015 2:37 PM, Adam Lopresto wrote: > If this needs to be seconded again with the proposed amendments, then I > second it. If it does not, then I vote "Aye". [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in lojban.org.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [68.230.241.214 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Motion: BPFK Reauthorization X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org Thanks to Riley and others for keeping this moving the past week. On 2/5/2015 2:37 PM, Adam Lopresto wrote: > If this needs to be seconded again with the proposed amendments, then I > second it. If it does not, then I vote "Aye". > On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Craig Daniel > wrote: > >> Would you be open to a friendly amendment further granting the >> BPFK and/or its chair the ability to alter the details of the >> interim baseline protocol? Technically by parliamentary procedure rules, I think the original mover and seconder have to approve friendly amendments, but unless someone objects, I'll accept a different seconder. So the motion has been moved and seconded as amended. I would like Riley to post a clean version of the amended motion. I then will allow at least until Monday for discussion, and it would be nice to hear from more of those members who have not spoken on the topic of the future of BPFK at the IRC discussion sections. If there is active discussion, I will let it continue, otherwise the matter will be put to a vote early next week. This is going to be an actual vote - I think that BPFK policy is important enough a member question that simply relying on non-objection is not good. But please hold your votes until I call for them. If there are other motions arising from the IRC discussions, they should be posted and seconded, although we won't vote on them until after this motion is decided. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members