Received: from localhost ([::1]:37157 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajDaf-0005ot-Bx; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:18:53 -0700 Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net ([68.230.241.217]:56573) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajDaX-0005od-Vg for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:18:50 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo109.cox.net ([68.230.241.222]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20160324221840.JPSW21150.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo109.cox.net> for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:18:40 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo109.cox.net with cox id ZyJf1s00B2869s801yJfJ3; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:18:39 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.56F467C0.0004, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=LPboQfm9 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=aUEFWn_AoyNguardPYQA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org> <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com> <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org> <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org> To: llg-members@lojban.org From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:18:39 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business 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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On 3/20/2016 5:55 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > I think that mukti has made two motions, and both have been seconded. I > do not see any other motions, nor any amendments or request for them. > > 1. "Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK=92s findings on =93dotside=94, I= move > that we do so." > > 2. "If the chair of BPFK would accept re-appointment to that position, I > would also like ask that we vote to recognize his leadership for another > term." > > For 2., the conditional probably requires that selpa'i actually say that > he accepts, but I won't hold up the motion waiting for that. > > Discussion on either motion can continue if desired, but if I see no > explicit objection, or an explicit request to hold up either question > for additional discussion, then both motions will be considered approved > after end of day next Wednesday (23rd). Both motions have passed, and selpa'i has accepted reappointment. No one else has proposed any new motions, but Riley has indicated that = he has additional ideas in mind. We do however have the issue brought up earlier in the meeting as to = whether BPFK will be charged with deciding about the lexicon or about = definitions (other than the cmavo definitions). I think that it can be = safely understood that the BYFY is charged with maintaining CLL as the = defining standard for the language as a whole and its grammar. I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically = approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser, = which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of = grammatical correctness. I don't particularly like this myself, in part = because I don't really understand non-YACC grammar definitions and have = always needed to rely on a parser to know whether what I write is = "proper", but it isn't my decision. I think a decision on the current relative importance of producing a = written dictionary is also something that should be decided, since that = was in a sense the original motivation for setting up a byfy. We must = also remember that none of the various online lists and databases of = words and their definitions is currently in any way official, above and = beyond the baselined gismu and cmavo lists. I have a comment on the question of officialness of words, but it isn't = pertinent to any motion or intended motion that I've seen, and I'm not = at the moment up to writing it in a form I think appropriate for the = meeting. I may end up putting it off, and posting to the main list = outside the meeting. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members