Received: from localhost ([::1]:41564 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1a6Fsb-0008C3-Uf; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 02:52:22 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:36766) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1a6FsV-0008Bw-Oe for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 02:52:19 -0800 Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so175980433wmw.1 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 02:52:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=ABQQcIoalsGTeyz0knWVgNBXNM9ql7TvT++9uNywh/g=; b=CBDZe+qFslLfNwwBs79oqoJzN+bEyFK8NzmHQ7XOhV/fVUWyG7p5UeGLwDx5Gfc22m QzGrbsbH/rcXDcSLjSF+60McHpxJZTIs+Hy4FrCMNVc7nqtMjHgpmCN8tudXIZNtgKdT 2y6wOeLrLK/KJ+xkA+kNax8FK3cRvN0c2nxKGWKdfTyhcP3HVBjxHCT5YvIg5Z6eLHrT SpUoOrvFPE3B+gfKGfRV3nHVv+rVSccXNmi0R8sSEtFR+8rL8rHtJURqi6NLu3aEh9cX OD2YyT89tNZ9yex+Wibdv9ZvPeX24da+fwRPECIo4Nn57WaAEnnIGqViT+mbSrJ0yiRu +iyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.79.201 with SMTP id l9mr2848526wjx.151.1449571929314; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 02:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.13.146 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 02:52:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4E514785-A922-4D75-B34A-EFB3880C5712@gmail.com> References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> <4E514785-A922-4D75-B34A-EFB3880C5712@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 05:52:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks To: "llg-members@lojban.org" X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] BPFK 2015 Report X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5534271056855414322==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5534271056855414322== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0d0f6ec5b86052660c326 --047d7bf0d0f6ec5b86052660c326 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let us maintain pace! On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > I want to add my (belated!) voice to the others in congratulating BPFK an= d > its chair for this report. The proceedings are conducted in lojban speaks > well of the qualifications of committee members and is a hopeful indicati= on > of the maturity of the language itself. > > I=E2=80=99m also glad to see guskant=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cunofficial commen= tary=E2=80=9D highlighted as an > insightful technical exposition of the gadri. Since first reading it, I= =E2=80=99ve > hoped to see wider discussion of the issues guskant raises about {zo=E2= =80=99e} as > a constant or a variable. (But not in this mailing list!) > > When we reach the point in the meeting when such motions are welcome, I= =E2=80=99d > be glad to move to accept BPFK=E2=80=99s report on dotside as an official > recommendation, or to support such a motion. > > =E2=80=94Riley > > > On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:48 AM, selpahi, Chair of the BPFK < > selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote: > > > > After its reauthorization earlier this year, the BPFK took up its work > at the end of July. I began by initiating a general discussion about BPFK= 's > working language and its voting mechanisms, and the membership quickly ca= me > to an agreement to hold all discussions in Lojban and vaguely agreed that > looser voting rules should be preferred and agreed tentatively on a >50% > majority rule. We also talked a bit about how membership ought to be > handled. Right now, anyone can become a member just by announcing it but = is > expected to be able to participate in conversations in Lojban. Members wh= o > don't take part in discussions or who don't vote over a certain period of > time become dormant or are automatically excluded from the BPFK until the= y > re-join. > > > > Since then, the BPFK has discussed several topics, and has voted on > making "Dotside" official. Of the 8 BPFK members, there were 7 votes in > favor and 1 abstention. The abstention was by And Rosta, and I'm sure he > would have voted in favor had he been asked explicitly; And has said that > he can't easily read Lojban anymore, so he probably simply didn't know > there was a vote. > > > > The results of the vote are also recorded here: > https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla > > > > The Lojban-speaking community has been informed of this update and has > reacted quite positively. > > > > It should also be noted that the BPFK list is not the only place where > language documentation/definition questions are being discussed: IRC is > another important one, especially for informal discussions, both for > members and non-members. Still, actual voting, when necessary, is done on > the BPFK list. > > > > BPFK has a long list of topics to work through, many of them listed her= e: > > > > https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_To-Do > > > > Some of the items on that list are more important or urgent than others= , > because of the planned new edition of the CLL. The CLL project itself is > not bound to the BPFK (indeed, the main contributor right now is not a > member of BPFK!), but the BPFK is needed to sort of out most of the > questions regarding the CLL. I am happy to inform the membership that wor= k > on an updated CLL has begun and quite a few errata have been corrected ( > https://mw.lojban.org/papri/CLL,_aka_Reference_Grammar,_Errata), and it > has been updated to reflect the newly approved Dotside rule. A more > thorough discussion of the CLL work can be had in a separate thread, if > needed. > > > > The most important and most difficult update at this point is xorlo. It > will demand a lot of careful thinking to properly xorlo-ify the CLL while > still giving each gadri a fair amount of coverage, {lo} being so > predominant in most modern Lojban usage. As for how to actually describe > xorlo from a logical point of view, guskant has done a phenomenal job in > her write-up on the logic of Lojban gadri, which can be found here: > > > > > https://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logica= l_point_of_view > > > > Most people here are hopefully already familiar with that write-up. Man= y > people agree that it would make a good basis for a CLL chapter. > > > > This is all I have to report for now; I want to stress that the BPFK is > in a *much* better state now than it has been in many years. There is > actually a sense of "We can do things!" now, though as always, time, > energy, and good ol' laziness are limiting factors. BPFK's To-Do list bei= ng > as big as it is, I am hoping that more BPFK members will begin to initiat= e > discussions on their own, instead of waiting for me to do it. The BPFK ha= s > very capable members, and I have full confidence in their (our) ability t= o > handle the tasks we are confronted with. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Llg-members mailing list > > Llg-members@lojban.org > > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --047d7bf0d0f6ec5b86052660c326 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let us maintain pace!

=
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Riley Martinez-= Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to add my (belated!) voice to the others in congratula= ting BPFK and its chair for this report. The proceedings are conducted in l= ojban speaks well of the qualifications of committee members and is a hopef= ul indication of the maturity of the language itself.

I=E2=80=99m also glad to see guskant=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cunofficial commenta= ry=E2=80=9D highlighted as an insightful technical exposition of the gadri.= Since first reading it, I=E2=80=99ve hoped to see wider discussion of the = issues guskant raises about {zo=E2=80=99e} as a constant or a variable. (Bu= t not in this mailing list!)

When we reach the point in the meeting when such motions are welcome, I=E2= =80=99d be glad to move to accept BPFK=E2=80=99s report on dotside as an of= ficial recommendation, or to support such a motion.

=E2=80=94Riley

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:48 AM, selpahi, Chair of the BPFK <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
>
> After its reauthorization earlier this year, the BPFK took up its work= at the end of July. I began by initiating a general discussion about BPFK&= #39;s working language and its voting mechanisms, and the membership quickl= y came to an agreement to hold all discussions in Lojban and vaguely agreed= that looser voting rules should be preferred and agreed tentatively on a &= gt;50% majority rule. We also talked a bit about how membership ought to be= handled. Right now, anyone can become a member just by announcing it but i= s expected to be able to participate in conversations in Lojban. Members wh= o don't take part in discussions or who don't vote over a certain p= eriod of time become dormant or are automatically excluded from the BPFK un= til they re-join.
>
> Since then, the BPFK has discussed several topics, and has voted on ma= king "Dotside" official. Of the 8 BPFK members, there were 7 vote= s in favor and 1 abstention. The abstention was by And Rosta, and I'm s= ure he would have voted in favor had he been asked explicitly; And has said= that he can't easily read Lojban anymore, so he probably simply didn&#= 39;t know there was a vote.
>
> The results of the vote are also recorded here: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla
>
> The Lojban-speaking community has been informed of this update and has= reacted quite positively.
>
> It should also be noted that the BPFK list is not the only place where= language documentation/definition questions are being discussed: IRC is an= other important one, especially for informal discussions, both for members = and non-members. Still, actual voting, when necessary, is done on the BPFK = list.
>
> BPFK has a long list of topics to work through, many of them listed he= re:
>
> https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_To-Do
>
> Some of the items on that list are more important or urgent than other= s, because of the planned new edition of the CLL. The CLL project itself is= not bound to the BPFK (indeed, the main contributor right now is not a mem= ber of BPFK!), but the BPFK is needed to sort of out most of the questions = regarding the CLL. I am happy to inform the membership that work on an upda= ted CLL has begun and quite a few errata have been corrected (https://mw.lojban.org/papri/CLL,_aka_Reference_Gram= mar,_Errata), and it has been updated to reflect the newly approved Dot= side rule. A more thorough discussion of the CLL work can be had in a separ= ate thread, if needed.
>
> The most important and most difficult update at this point is xorlo. I= t will demand a lot of careful thinking to properly xorlo-ify the CLL while= still giving each gadri a fair amount of coverage, {lo} being so predomina= nt in most modern Lojban usage. As for how to actually describe xorlo from = a logical point of view, guskant has done a phenomenal job in her write-up = on the logic of Lojban gadri, which can be found here:
>
> https:/= /mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logical_point_o= f_view
>
> Most people here are hopefully already familiar with that write-up. Ma= ny people agree that it would make a good basis for a CLL chapter.
>
> This is all I have to report for now; I want to stress that the BPFK i= s in a *much* better state now than it has been in many years. There is act= ually a sense of "We can do things!" now, though as always, time,= energy, and good ol' laziness are limiting factors. BPFK's To-Do l= ist being as big as it is, I am hoping that more BPFK members will begin to= initiate discussions on their own, instead of waiting for me to do it. The= BPFK has very capable members, and I have full confidence in their (our) a= bility to handle the tasks we are confronted with.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


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

--047d7bf0d0f6ec5b86052660c326-- --===============5534271056855414322== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============5534271056855414322==--