Received: from localhost ([::1]:56702 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLIlQ-0005pM-4E; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:54:36 -0800 Received: from static.217.217.251.148.clients.your-server.de ([148.251.217.217]:45073 helo=cracksucht.de) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLIlN-0005pF-GV for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:54:34 -0800 Message-ID: <54DA7E11.7090009@selpahi.de> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:54:25 +0100 From: selpahi To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> 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: la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e > On 2/10/2015 9:16 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: >> On the other hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assume >> (as I wrongly did) that the chair is authorized to appoint or remove >> members of the committee. The default assumption is that committee >> members are appointed by the president, adding that it is "often >> advisable" to consult the committee chair. In light of this oversight, >> and in response to the questions that lojbab raised about >> membership, I'd like to propose an amendment to correct that oversight. >> I have not drafted one yet and am sending this message without one in >> order to keep the discussion moving. > > Alas, no one but you and I seem to be discussing anything. [...] 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 selpahi.de.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] 0.0 T_FRT_PROFILE2 BODY: ReplaceTags: Profile (2) -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e > On 2/10/2015 9:16 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: >> On the other hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assume >> (as I wrongly did) that the chair is authorized to appoint or remove >> members of the committee. The default assumption is that committee >> members are appointed by the president, adding that it is "often >> advisable" to consult the committee chair. In light of this oversight, >> and in response to the questions that lojbab raised about >> membership, I'd like to propose an amendment to correct that oversight. >> I have not drafted one yet and am sending this message without one in >> order to keep the discussion moving. > > Alas, no one but you and I seem to be discussing anything. I have been discussing a few topics, like the membership question, informally off-list, because I haven't yet entirely made up my mind whether or not I think there should be a list of qualifications that a new potential BPFK member should have to meet, and if so, what those qualifications should be. > Since BPFK does exist, and is being renewed rather than newly created, > it has a set of members, even if it isn't entirely clear who is in the > set. It even nominally still has Robin as chair, since he has not yet > formally resigned. For this I would like to suggest that upon formation of the new BPFK, all previous/current members are removed, so the BPFK starts with an empty set of members. Then, everyone who is interested in becoming a member can speak up and will be able to become a member (with or without having to meet certain criteria, depending on what we are going to decide). This has the advantage of knowing who is actually a member, which might come in handy if there are going to be votes, for instance. > 2) the sense that I've seen among several quasi-members that BPFK people > should have significant expertise in the language and/or linguistics > (where "significant" remains ill-defined). I've discussed this with a few people, and it is clear that certain jobs require proficiency or a high familiarity with Lojban, while other jobs require technical ability in programming. Fortunately, we have capable people from both camps, and of course there is overlap as well. > (In point of fact, I don't think that the BPFK chair needs to be > extremely skilled in the language UNLESS the BPFK members are going to > grant the chair particular power in making decisions about the language; > otherwise the essential qualifications for chair are leadership ability > in "herding cats", ability and willingness to commit the needed time to > do the job, and a good sense of mission that allows the chair to build > and keep a sense of mission.) I feel it would be bad if the chair had no skill in the language - how are they going to know what needs to be done, what needs to be documented, what questions still need to be answered - how are they going to know that a solution is sound, etc. The chair, if they are to steer the BPFK in any language-related way, should generally have a good sense of is and has been going on in Lojbanistan (e.g. usage-wise) and should be familiar with the problems and proposed solutions that have been accumulated over the years. At least that's what I would want to see. >> Finally, regarding the question of the initial chair, there are a few >> people whom I personally think could do very well in the position. But I >> do not know if any of them are in fact inclined to take it up. > > My fear is that there will be no one who is willing, who can do the job > except under the role of "dictator-for-the-duration", had who can > sustain the needed time long enough to get something done. Given that there are several people who spend a considerable amount of their freetime on Lojban activities, I'm hopeful that we'll find someone, not only for chair, but also BPFK members who are going to move things forward. We have seen evidence of that in recent months when a group of people went ahead and (almost) finished all the BPFK cmavo pages. (and a lot of people do a lot of amazing non-BPFK related work as well!) I also think that the new policy will motivate more people to do such (BPFK) work, because those people can be confident that their work is actually going to have an impact on things (I know of a few people who have felt this way, myself included). Knowing that you are making a difference is a good way to reassure yourself that you aren't wasting your time. > We've always > had a shortage of people in LLG who could commit the time over a long > interval. I myself did fine until I had kids, and then my time dropped > to the point where even keeping up with the mailing lists was more than > I had time for. Cowan managed to produce CLL, but mostly working on his > own, while in a job with copious spare time. Nick as chair, essentially > had Lojban take over his entire spare time, and that was one reason he > dropped out. Robin has kept things going for years by having a very > strong ability to delegate, but now even he has reached a limit because > there are too few others who are willing to make Lojban more than an > occasional recreational avocation. We apparently need a few people who > are more sustained in their commitment if we want to get anything done. I believe that people are committed but that their commitment wasn't canalized sufficiently, as well as that a lot of people were simply very confused about what they could and could not do. I see a lot of people who are passionate - about the language, about linguistic work - maybe not so much about politics and parliamentary procedures. Denying that those passionate people exist would do them injustice. mi'e la selpa'i mu'o _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members