Received: from localhost ([::1]:38969 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aCSfs-0006Mh-R5; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:44:52 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:37283) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aCSfm-0006MQ-6g for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:44:50 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id p187so206363988wmp.0 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:44:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ICnOYxnT/Fenu0VbzrvgbtYuGOqK8bkvHsoQjJuzytw=; b=IPSOqcmvBrOgxPgX1vR3TujJBkkyviuaIIFxJofP4uCQV65JtPKfJ9m88s2xJ6fNtj ncqQrsa/ihbpS/Ps7MimD3ZNBHJ4P6TK8oO6U7UgaxljXGbnsbkdSbM/T4rKbGIP4THd Kvyvkd91KHP9+FNVzHm+XvXTfLXy8u61GdBN0Rd+ss13WzGW82WoWbdU9Um13PW6+ZrM i6TOytvFmodo8WAvYgx8FdaVD2RmfMtsAll1CkkMQO/m/p9mv/gG4X2sjjEylwveul3t AMQ2tqwqV/3GR2wgyytz5VMjmtbDdE6nZh0HZ+6hMz1dw//i1Uj0q+ByA88WbtPoNHuI Ygrw== X-Received: by 10.28.176.70 with SMTP id z67mr47802868wme.5.1451051079526; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:44:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.92.206 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:43:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> <4E514785-A922-4D75-B34A-EFB3880C5712@gmail.com> <566701E3.4060408@lojban.org> <566CD949.7010504@lojban.org> <5671E710.2020407@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:43:59 +0300 Message-ID: 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] 2015 Annual Meeting 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="===============1169846027031500534==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1169846027031500534== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141259a256da40527b9280f --001a1141259a256da40527b9280f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-12-25 16:02 GMT+03:00 guskant : > 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > > > Yes, I edit that branch. CLL 2.0 is a purely unofficial unstable draft so > > that we can get at least some feedback. > > What is the official BPFK repository for CLL? > > What is even the next version of CLL? > > Isn't it CLL 1.5 ? > > > > Why do you think the next edition is CLL 2.0 and that I'm editing what is > > supposed to become the next edition? In the mailing list I proposed it > to be > > downgraded in future to CLL 1.5. > > > > I recognize that CLL2.0 branch > https://github.com/lojban/cll/commits/docbook-prince-cll-2.0 > was and will be modified for the next official CLL. > > As I wrote in my first post to this thread: > > 2015-12-17 3:26 GMT+00:00 guskant : > > I think the modifications should be periodically or finally discussed > and admitted by byfy > > Answers to your questions are to be concluded in this thread if you > don't disturb. > > 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > I ask questions, you don't reply. So what am I supposed to think of that? > > > > I cannot identify the questions you refer to. Could you list them up > if you need any reply of me to them? > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/mQ-qWyjjssQ/discussion Since no one replied and no one posted a rival proposal then the github CLL 2.0 branch is unofficial. According to BPFK rules a decision can appear (if the required number of votes is reached). > 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > In fact it was me who proposed using that branch for upgrading CLL but no > > one replied. > > This means that branch is not official so I don't even have any excuses. > > > > As I wrote above, it is one of the subject I discussed in my first > post to this thread. > > 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > 1. If you want that CLL 2.0 branch to be official (which I also want) > PLEASE > > PLEASE PLEASE reply to the corresponding BPFK message. Or make your own > > proposal. > > My proposal was written in my first post to this thread so that we > will be able to discuss. > this is an LLG thread btw. > > 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > 2. After that we can discuss how to apply commits to it and make that > policy > > official too. > > > > I agree. > > 2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > I wanted to make commits so that BPFK can vote for all of them at once. > > If there is some disagreement then using cross division they can be split > > into smaller parts. > > If another proposal wins, namely, vote over each pull request that's > fine to > > me too. > > > > OK, I see what you wanted, and it is different from my preference I wrote: > > 2015-12-25 2:33 GMT+00:00 guskant : > > It relieves my anxious that you don't plan to destroy CLL. How ever, > > you have already removed from CLL2.0 "voi" and "observative" that are > > not yet agreed by BPFK. We will be able to remove your push and save > > only the other's fruitful pushes in the future, but I rather prefer > > that you make only comments on lines, and don't touch the contents > > before agreement by BPFK. I really hate your dictatorship (sorry, I > > have no other word to qualify your various activities). > > > > Probably the majority agree to you, then I should obey the decision. > If the idea of observatives bothers you I would vote for introducing Quine's observation sentences into the Red Book if someone does a job of explaining them. If you need my personal opinion on {voi} I only commented it out without even pushing requests to delete that section because personally I feel the need in this particle. Again no rules so I intuitively did something. > > > 2015-12-25 6:56 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > > > 2015-12-25 5:33 GMT+03:00 guskant : > >> > >> It relieves my anxious that you don't plan to destroy CLL. How ever, > >> you have already removed from CLL2.0 "voi" and "observative" that are > >> not yet agreed by BPFK. > > > > > > Well, actually you are wrong, which might be explained that git is not a > > tool easy for everyone. > > > > For observatives I just made push requests as you can see here: > > https://github.com/lojban/cll/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed > > > > Since there is no official policy on how to assess such push requests > > another person merged them into the CLL 2.0 branch. > > > > OK, maybe I should have explained the process of push and pull. > Anyway, your pushes were pulled, and "voi" and "observative" were > removed as a result. > It is true that you only commented them out, but that means those > words will not appear in the book. > It means nothing. It's not an official branch, the process of merging pull requests is not even regulated. I commented them out to prevent any difficulties in restoring them if that would be desirable. As for observatives I sent them as proposals waiting for someone to disagree. > > My preference is that you only make comments to each line without > doing that if the parts are not yet discussed by BPFK. > Your preference is that you change all as you like and push (and those > are currently mostly pulled), and after that, BPFK will discuss the > validity. > We can discuss the procedure here. I will obey the majority. > Here? By LLG? Ok, what do others think? Personally I refrain from voting because either decision is fine to me. Also as for xorlo "commenting to each line" would be hard since xorlo can mean reworking larger sections of the book. Some necessary sections/examples simply don't exist yet. Others can change their internal structure totally. > Now, I would like to explain why I prefer the procedure that BPFK > first discuss a modification of the language design, and after that > CLL2.0 should be modified. > A modification need many technical discussions from points of view of > linguistics, logic, grammar and so on. > The discussion might result in a slightly or mostly different design > than you or we expected. > If CLL is first modified, pushed and then discussed, the push will be > only a waste of time. > 'kay, begin. > mu'o mi'e la guskant > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a1141259a256da40527b9280f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-12-25 16:02 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com><= /span>:
2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Glek= i Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.na= me@gmail.com>:
>
> Yes, I edit that branch. CLL 2.0 is a purely unofficial unstable draft= so
> that we can get at least some feedback.
> What is the official BPFK repository for CLL?
> What is even the next version of CLL?
> Isn't it CLL 1.5 ?
>
> Why do you think the next edition is CLL 2.0 and that I'm editing = what is
> supposed to become the next edition? In the mailing list I proposed it= to be
> downgraded in future to CLL 1.5.
>

I recognize that CLL2.0 branch
https://github.com/lojban/cll/commits/do= cbook-prince-cll-2.0
was and will be modified for the next official CLL.

As I wrote in my first post to this thread:

2015-12-17 3:26 GMT+00:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
> I think the modifications should be periodically or finally discussed<= br> and admitted by byfy

Answers to your questions are to be concluded in this thread if you<= br> don't disturb.

2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> I ask questions, you don't reply. So what am I supposed to think o= f that?
>

I cannot identify the questions you refer to. Could you list them up=
if you need any reply of me to them?

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/mQ-qWyjjssQ/discussion

Since no one replied and no one posted a rival propo= sal then the github CLL 2.0 branch is unofficial.
According =C2= =A0to BPFK rules a decision can appear (if the required number of votes is = reached).


2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> In fact it was me who proposed using that branch for upgrading CLL but= no
> one replied.
> This means that branch is not official so I don't even have any ex= cuses.
>

As I wrote above, it is one of the subject I discussed in my first post to this thread.

2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> 1. If you want that CLL 2.0 branch to be official (which I also want) = PLEASE
> PLEASE PLEASE reply to the corresponding BPFK message. Or make your ow= n
> proposal.

My proposal was written in my first post to this thread so that we will be able to discuss.

this is an LLG= thread btw.
=C2=A0

2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> 2. After that we can discuss how to apply commits to it and make that = policy
> official too.
>

I agree.

2015-12-25 6:45 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> I wanted to make commits so that BPFK can vote for all of them at once= .
> If there is some disagreement then using cross division they can be sp= lit
> into smaller parts.
> If another proposal wins, namely, vote over each pull request that'= ;s fine to
> me too.
>

OK, I see what you wanted, and it is different from my preference I = wrote:

2015-12-25 2:33 GMT+00:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
> It relieves my anxious that you don't plan to destroy CLL. How eve= r,
> you have already removed from CLL2.0 "voi" and "observa= tive" that are
> not yet agreed by BPFK. We will be able to remove your push and save > only the other's fruitful pushes in the future, but I rather prefe= r
> that you make only comments on lines, and don't touch the contents=
> before agreement by BPFK. I really hate your dictatorship (sorry, I > have no other word to qualify your various activities).
>

Probably the majority agree to you, then I should obey the decision.=

If the idea of observatives bothers yo= u I would vote for introducing Quine's observation sentences into the R= ed Book if someone does a job of explaining them.

= If you need my personal opinion on {voi} I only commented it out without ev= en pushing requests to delete that section because personally I feel the ne= ed in this particle. Again no rules so I intuitively did something.
=C2=A0


2015-12-25 6:56 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
>
> 2015-12-25 5:33 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
>>
>> It relieves my anxious that you don't = plan to destroy CLL. How ever,
>> you have already removed from CLL2.0 "voi" and "obs= ervative" that are
>> not yet agreed by BPFK.
>
>
> Well, actually you are wrong, which might be e= xplained that git is not a
> tool easy for everyone.
>
> For observatives I just made push requests as you can see here:
> https://github.com/lojban/cll/pulls?= q=3Dis%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
>
> Since there is no official policy on how to assess such push requests<= br> > another person merged them into the CLL 2.0 branch.
>

OK, maybe I should have explained the process of push and pull.
Anyway, your pushes were pulled, and "voi" and "observative&= quot; were
removed as a result.
It is true that you only commented them out, but that means those
words will not appear in the book.

It m= eans nothing. It's not an official branch, the process of merging pull = requests is not even regulated.
I commented them out to prevent a= ny difficulties in restoring them if that would be desirable.
As = for observatives I sent them as proposals waiting for someone to disagree.<= /div>
=C2=A0

My preference is that you only make comments to each line without
doing that if the parts are not yet discussed by BPFK.
Your preference is that you change all as you like and push (and those
are currently mostly pulled), and after that, BPFK will discuss the
validity.
We can discuss the procedure here. I will obey the majority.

Here? By LLG?
Ok, what do others think?
Personally I refrain from voting because either decision is fine to = me.

Also as for xorlo "commenting to each lin= e" would be hard since xorlo can mean reworking larger sections of the= book. Some necessary sections/examples simply don't exist yet. Others = can change their internal structure totally.


Now, I would like to explain why I prefer the procedure that BPFK
first discuss a modification of the language design, and after that
CLL2.0 should be modified.
A modification need many technical discussions from points of view of
linguistics, logic, grammar and so on.
The discussion might result in a slightly or mostly different design
than you or we expected.
If CLL is first modified, pushed and then discussed, the push will be
only a waste of time.

'kay, begin.<= /div>
=C2=A0


mu'o mi'e la guskant

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

--001a1141259a256da40527b9280f-- --===============1169846027031500534== 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 --===============1169846027031500534==--