Received: from localhost ([::1]:33199 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1adDUk-0005bp-Up; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:59:59 -0800 Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:34741) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1adDUf-0005T7-G1 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:59:57 -0800 Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id xr8so9957920lbb.1 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:59:53 -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; bh=ZUqXolHkdoPVscn400kgEJpnTrSgMsd7iG/cCOQyAyA=; b=DQ0h6akDcsp4ELDkaOtabFGd5G3W0TYxamQezp9P7gNRZgPAZgsxS3UwkoTFXNWX1U 5tiPGaIo8VjgoXmNDAsKwWBzt/TAYnlX6EXDc3Z4a/JfUAI2YAqEcex5UxI3qmzDVaxP CNO4DX/qbZuLRYf/4G+IxLVvsMDBanojFHuWZJ4/jYIiq5BXd5/5P95mhdb/rzziymFI e7M/qoXNUvxUwfzLWOxdIXhF4vexiNm10J+rXOzkzaove3OKQRuYRaDgIv6VkOYM9+I2 B11UO9YY/3CgXWzpemd2SjzFyp0ydN85tIuvr/wlJ4g1faGM6dCh6zIRVDaor1IFbw5H bWFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=ZUqXolHkdoPVscn400kgEJpnTrSgMsd7iG/cCOQyAyA=; b=IBcNPyutLYa70VJGccY2CcmXV6yJzqPrP28JQSZgT/JoQw8zP5dZN6iUKjOmS7gWTX 2NGQVF11KwomYJaaBbPNgKnJcRi/8ALzkwTFMb20EFHMQYSuuAYRTCH6vT23lU7mZ1XX eYf+0oBQr/JiptdMN9Fg+UYMF6ngphpLTbmL5YdDYk94al/qysCqBFXBTYc6zq9HPSzp 1gbfbfAoWONBS4gdsERCk2bnf70zYO+6iWwOs6fu67bQPz9FpkWkX4KRw5mwNhgV9C07 UMdx+F7Sz0QYj0F0ShwXeCB2h3qHsbDimpuOFvXy61TWYb/T3cxHJsFmCoLH9heXy3kH Y7/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJEMyTMHeMBh3YOGWYJtyiV7MzvN+xTuAvMwsvlv+trb/fsm28S1BiR9Ec2xSDZFjEPoSneInu17tpSXQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.162.231 with SMTP id yd7mr9266301lbb.40.1457427586431; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.40.193 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 00:59:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 08:59:46 +0000 Message-ID: From: And Rosta To: "llg-members@lojban.org" X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam_score: 1.4 X-Spam_score_int: 14 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 the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I thought it might be helpful to resend the email, because Selpa'i's link to it took me to the faff of a login page wanting a password. Forwarded message From: selpahi, Chair of the BPFK Date: 6 November 2015 at 14:48 Subject: [Llg-members] BPFK 2015 Report To: llg-members@lojban.org [...] Content analysis details: (1.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.217.182 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (and.rosta[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.5 BAYES_60 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 60 to 80% [score: 0.7944] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -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 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders Subject: [Llg-members] Fwd: 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="===============1615668603368789284==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1615668603368789284== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011608e093468f052d85cd82 --089e011608e093468f052d85cd82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I thought it might be helpful to resend the email, because Selpa'i's link to it took me to the faff of a login page wanting a password. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: selpahi, Chair of the BPFK Date: 6 November 2015 at 14:48 Subject: [Llg-members] BPFK 2015 Report To: llg-members@lojban.org 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 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 >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 who 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 they 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 here: 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 work 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_logical_point_of_view Most people here are hopefully already familiar with that write-up. Many 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 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) ability to handle the tasks we are confronted with. _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --089e011608e093468f052d85cd82 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought it might be helpful to resend the email, because= Selpa'i's link to it took me to the faff of a login page wanting a= password.
---------- Forwarded message -----= -----
From: selpahi, Chair of the BPFK= <selpahi@selpah= i.de>
Date: 6 November 2015 at 14:48
Subject: [Llg-memb= ers] BPFK 2015 Report
To: llg-= members@lojban.org


After its reauthorization earlier this ye= ar, the BPFK took up its work at the end of July. I began by initiating a g= eneral discussion about BPFK's working language and its voting mechanis= ms, and the membership quickly 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 >50% majority rule. We also talked a bit abo= ut how membership ought to be handled. Right now, anyone can become a membe= r just by announcing it but is expected to be able to participate in conver= sations in Lojban. Members who don't take part in discussions or who do= n't vote over a certain period of time become dormant or are automatica= lly excluded from the BPFK until they 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 h= e 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: http= s://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla

The Lojban-speaking community has been informed of this update and has reac= ted quite positively.

It should also be noted that the BPFK list is not the only place where lang= uage documentation/definition questions are being discussed: IRC is another= important one, especially for informal discussions, both for members and n= on-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 here:
https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_To-Do

Some of the items on that list are more important or urgent than others, be= cause 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 o= f BPFK!), but the BPFK is needed to sort of out most of the questions regar= ding the CLL. I am happy to inform the membership that work on an updated C= LL 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 t= hread, if needed.

The most important and most difficult update at this point is xorlo. It wil= l demand a lot of careful thinking to properly xorlo-ify the CLL while stil= l 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 log= ical point of view, guskant has done a phenomenal job in her write-up on th= e logic of Lojban gadri, which can be found here:

https://mw.l= ojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logical_point_of_vie= w

Most people here are hopefully already familiar with that write-up. Many pe= ople 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, ener= gy, and good ol' laziness are limiting factors. BPFK's To-Do list b= eing as big as it is, I am hoping that more BPFK members will begin to init= iate 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) abilit= y to handle the tasks we are confronted with.

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

--089e011608e093468f052d85cd82-- --===============1615668603368789284== 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 --===============1615668603368789284==--