To: llg-members@lojban.org
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>
 <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org>
 <CAFoHDTdRufHmmtFtjOFVOg3E48Ec2KKxBGfuQAF=_qJbKESyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+h6_VPmPk0pSheUijhE4jBFMD8B6v9=yxFqzt_oKJvqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACf3dPmRrWpdB0tQ34kPoyVscYXfdKnPfd-Tk+mzCMyL3Ob6gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aGK11s00H56Cr6M01GK24i>
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <56F70A92.3090007@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:17:54 -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: <aGK11s00H56Cr6M01GK24i>
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: <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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

On 3/25/2016 12:18 PM, Curtis Franks wrote:
> The wording is such that in the conditions, solely the intention, by the
> LLG, of the establishment (thus existence, where appropriate) of the
> various things (entities, rules, and truths resp.) matters - rather
> than, as far as explicitness goes, the realization of their respective
> existences. This is meant to pre-emptively disarm a rebellious BPFK
> and/or a rebellious populace. Implicitly, though, I also mean that if
> this condition is met, then each of the things so established under
> these auspices is exactly the thing which is being considered in the
> conclusions by the same name/descriptor. I say this because I definitely
> want the intention to matter more than the realization in the
> conditions, but I do not want the conclusions to be improper due to
> nonexistence. I should have been clearer in this regard, I agree.
>
> As an aside: I do think that solely the intention - of the LLG and/or
> the BPFK, where appropriate - for the establishment of one of these
> things directly implies and causes the said establishment thereof; I
> also think that the converse of this statement is untrue. Moreover,
> according to my (relatively uninformed, I admit) understanding: The BPFK
> cannot establish itself. Additionally, at least one of the LLG or the
> BPFK has the power to dissolve the BPFK; whereupon the power to
> establish another (sitting/session of the) BPFK devolves upon the LLG.
> Moreover, solely the LLG has the power to prematurely dissolve the LLG,
> although its authority and sessions also expire periodically in a
> predetermined manner.

Actually, the latter is not quite true.  LLG can dissolve itself, 
according to its bylaws, or it can be dissolved by the state, if we fail 
to file the annual forms and fees (and probably under some other 
conditions, like a judges order or a relevant change in corporation law).

However, any motion is a motion that would be passed by the LLG 
membership, which has no binding power except on the organization which 
we collectively are members of, and on the BPFK which was created and 
maintained by prior such motions.

As to the "rebellious BPFK" argument, if LLG were to dissolve the BPFK 
(which it could do), it could not stop the same people in said BPFK from 
reforming itself as an organization independently from LLG, and claiming 
authority over the language.  In which case it would be up to the 
individuals of the Lojban community to each decide whatever they choose 
to decide regarding authority in general.  The only real control LLG has 
is that limited control applicable to our various "copyleft" notices, 
which is not much at all.  (If LLG dissolves, of its own volition, we 
have to specify who gets our "property" which would include intellectual 
property; only qualified non-profit organizations are eligible).

So, in my opinion, there is no point making or passing any motions 
intended to apply to any other LLG or to any other BPFK or any other 
language (version), as such would have no legal or other relevance.

lojbab


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