To: llg-members@lojban.org
References: <e9194ba6-9c74-6436-25ad-eee17afcdf48@lojban.org>
 <043FA78B-0C3C-4A53-A408-51C436A808C0@gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+iv3z7wTKp6Dt1BWdaPsg8+vbu0WbKndqM1sittJqCtbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <921C62E1-F312-4C18-9D6D-5F8955981DDB@gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+hmgCL81g=EHOXRNS8koAoa2Jj-1EBTbmu4=8q_yy_bWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <mVkH1u00D56Cr6M01VkJfN>
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <27ba47ef-5620-558d-7e2a-a16d5a3dd9f5@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:20:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <mVkH1u00D56Cr6M01VkJfN>
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2016 Annual Meeting of the Logical Language Group,
 Inc. - call to order and roll call
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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 2/19/2017 12:43 AM, Karen Stein wrote:
> On February 19, 2017 12:27:53 AM EST, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2017-02-19 8:17 GMT+03:00 Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Gleki,
>>>
>>> I don't see how having the discussion posted means the thoughts of
>> someone
>>> not part of it will receive full consideration.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, then I amena my proposal by adding a rule: respect opinion of
>> everyone.
>
> This isn't possible to legislate.
>
>> In fact such discussions happen all the time on IRC. If you wish they
>> can
>> still be considered informal.
>> In other words, noone can stop people from thinking or sharing their
>> thoughts.
>>
>> One cannot limit discussions to llg-members mailing list, especially
>> since
>> this mailing list is not run in Lojban language.

> 1) Having informal discussions occur on IRC (or anywhere else) all
> the time is not the same as having discussions of specific proposals
> before the membership meeting occur in the same way. The latter are
> discussions of official policy and therefore, i believe, should
> exclude as few member as possible. IRC discussions do this in all the
> waits I've already posted.

i'm guessing that the proposal is that a discussion of an official 
proposal would consist of

a) posting that proposal for discussion on IRC
b) after a period of discussion, posting the log of the IRC session on 
the members list for non-IRC comment

> 2) How does the discussions on the members list not occurring in
> lojban mean that they are less valuable than those in lojban? This is
> which is the only interpretation of the comment about discussions in
> lojban I was able to get out of your comment.

I think that the claim is that there are now sufficient 
non-English-speaking Lojbanists who could ONLY participate if the 
discussions and meetings were held in Lojban instead of English.

This is plausible, but at least so far, all of the voting members are in 
fact capable of communicating in English.  We are effectively excluding 
non-English speakers from formal participation in meetings.  I accept 
that this is a problem (and in the long term an important one, if LLG is 
to remain an international organization), but is not the problem that 
prompted this discussion, which is to find ways to speed up the meetings 
of the *existing* membership so that they don't last for months.

So on that point, gleki's argument is irrelevant. We CAN limit official 
discussions of official business to the mailing list (and ignore 
backchannel discussions via IRC and other fora).  We can also make some 
attempt to include such discussions, by posting logs to the mailing 
list, and we could effectively offload some official discussions to IRC 
and/or other fora by posting the intent to do so on the mailing list 
(with date/time, posting the log, and then allowing non-participants in 
the off-list activity to have a period of comment-and-rebuttal).

The key thing about the proposal that speeds up the meetings is that the 
proposals are required to be made in advance of the meetings, so that 
whatever discussion is needed also takes place in advance of the meeting 
so that only a short period of voting is required.

A more drastic approach that probably would require bylaw amendments, 
would effectively allow such proposals to be made whenever, and 
discussed and then voted on by members outside the formal meeting, so 
that the meeting itself is reduced to formal recognition of the actions 
of the past year (in the form of "minutes"), approval of bylaw changes, 
reappointment of the byfy chair, and new members and board elections.

Possibly even many of these could be phased out of the formal meeting 
and/or set to take place at particular calendar dates, so that there 
would be almost no formal meeting (or rather the formal meeting 
effectively lasts all year long, but has a calendar-based agenda).  But 
that may be too drastic a change to manage now.

lojbab


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