Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:29 -0500
Message-Id: <4E24C299-83E4-456A-90FD-EEB052A9206D@gmail.com>
References: <C37220F2-F066-4DED-9C2C-473F6BEF4968@gmail.com>
 <CAO7tK2fUviuhSZT_QpD-JPW1QtxPuhws340Q95AUxjcT3wEn+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP=UV6pN8iZVPk9bpPz6_28PDQddWyc2rrqzLHE6k831_G3bjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3E69666-53DE-4B92-BB81-4363668E4CDB@gmail.com> <ojeN1p00C56Cr6M01jePMf>
 <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <p1P41p01a56Cr6M011P5R3>
 <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org>
 <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com>
 <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
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:  lojbab: > I don't think that we are bound to limit BPFK by
 parliamentary procedure; in fact, we haven't yet done so. That's an important
 point,
 and I want to be clear that I do not intend to propose anything different.
 [...] Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
 [209.85.216.45 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 (shunpiker[at]gmail.com)
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders
Subject: [Llg-members] BPFK and process
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

lojbab:

> I don't think that we are bound to limit BPFK by parliamentary procedure; in fact, we haven't yet done so.


That's an important point, and I want to be clear that I do not intend to propose anything different. 

I see BPFK's relationship with parliamentary procedure to be limited to the fact that BPFK is defined as a committee of LLG, which is an organization governed by parliamentary procedure. One of the major reasons for forming a committee is to create the conditions for work to be done without all of the process of the parent organization.

I hope that the proposed policy is seen as a step in the direction of reducing procedural overhead for BPFK. There's an irony in proposing a process to limit process, but not in this case, an absurdity -- or so I hope.

--Riley


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members