Received: from localhost ([::1]:37522 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cfrNb-0007yB-BS; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:04:03 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]:35398) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cfrNU-0007y0-Po for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:04:00 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x75so65186488vke.2 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:03:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pvO56RlF/JB8HjO7sxq0gSPA0e0Sbn2T9JE3Wf0cqEk=; b=AQef/GR/8XF2KJxUd+SB9gxE4KKbwcq0zmbQPoVx0Eo3/Q9g8bBxXhqS5yfgwmo9IR AIzY8eMQbw5Q5mJJxs4mcxuuPquKlUFSa+CUe1WhKW6M349ZD14rp74CgW2XE1d2mnea c3gGbNVV8aFwBUxsZX30nHN4apGhZLhEfe+1LgaO95RPPNwWi6JDYvbc/qoi6+5PzAQb bjDTIg+alfWu5qkSt77kbvVeGz/PziD8hToheyOH52gBre0v1Os3d/4DfGuE4A4P2+O3 rR/qZTAC9FW1vtg3n5rrQbpHExSnTzVljoIZMgDmDD9d/ex9rf1nrQxJi+C1tEbQdfe+ Iyeg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=pvO56RlF/JB8HjO7sxq0gSPA0e0Sbn2T9JE3Wf0cqEk=; b=KfcjBJqCA27yqpIa2Sf4E3l4a565RYdtn7TEc5srwKu5eMelD4as+y56xZsYcRLOyD 835VDLeYkTKaBiCoAg6nnrxulo57zCYT0te5ZIKN8/1bEptdADgXlS5mD3unBvucPBet 9nZm926hyowTzncVFBiQ2jcxx5Ogn9ULfkoslbzDWqYg6XUm1hMUxwWiypHTcokUi2Kj abzjxRsge/3/8WPg1cg6tzrLuASxdPua9Evphj8wnjeQVsQ1k5dgBDgvx78ukRYN1ZT8 +ZlbuCWClsZV9mnsTbmNvvxICOaJCwL1AjQCUxBgvwXx3cIiiFXqyF6ywJlwZ67YD8m7 EcGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nOd8GmzDpGz20xAH2jIfCTeDkBR5pEpaewXc7crdPWV0z7Wrn4SdvoYH9Cn/1CzHVQBA4H/RmB1aw3ig== X-Received: by 10.31.63.88 with SMTP id m85mr9146107vka.158.1487610230063; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.6.202 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:03:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.6.202 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:03:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:03:49 -0500 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] Motion: liberate lojban.org to community volunteers, and move the official contents to another website X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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="===============6838835760026670681==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6838835760026670681== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114dccfe53cb230548f93ff0 --001a114dccfe53cb230548f93ff0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Overall, I am not especially opposed to this motion. I do not know enough about some details (such as using GitHub), but I have heard good things about them, so that is promising. We should negotiate with those other groups who presently own the name that we want before we get too involved in the motion process. There might be other details which I have not yet thoroughly evaluated but which deserve reconsideration. I am interested in this discussion > Original research of other than Gleki is tagged with "non-official" or placed in User's page, so there is no need to mention it here. Is there any significant difference between Gleki's work and anyone else's which would motivate his work receiving an entirely separate main-level category? I just do not see what makes it special in this sense (although it is notable in other ways). On Feb 20, 2017 09:39, "guskant" wrote: 2017-02-20 11:14 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > Using github.com for official repositories can be dangerous since Github is > not own by LLG. > I suggest > 1. still use Github > 2. make synced backups of all official repositories on Github at servers > owned by LLG or provided to LLG for free. > So you agree to the optional suggestion that requires the motion being realized. It implies that you agree to the motion. Say "I second!" I hope this motion makes you really {gleki} because you will become not being blamed for your abuse of power on the "official" website. As for backup, the official contents are not very large, and every member can keep them in one's own computer. Such plural backing-up is much safer than keeping backups in one place. The official body has no need to own servers. > > As for > >> - The official contents exclude records of discussions by the > community, mailing lists, jbotcan, learning materials by person or the > community, non-BPFK proposals, Gleki's original research, community > news, artworks, list of artworks, jbovlaste, parsers, tools, robots, > arranged official logos, community logos. > > I suggest replacing "Gleki's original research" with "original research of > members" since Gleki is not the only one (but thanks for making Gleki even > more famous). > You are welcome! Original research of other than Gleki is tagged with "non-official" or placed in User's page, so there is no need to mention it here. If any suspicious pages are found, the third condition of the definition "Any other unclear contents should be defined by discussion" is applied. >> 2-4. By paying to Github, LLG can create private repositories that are > visible only to the organization members. This feature may be useful > for group working like LBCK. > > Can you explain why LBCK should be done in private? > Proficiency test under construction is not yet an official content, and therefore it is inappropriate to be put in a public repository of the official body without any notice. _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --001a114dccfe53cb230548f93ff0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Overall, I am not especially opposed to= this motion. I do not know enough about some details (such as using GitHub= ), but I have heard good things about them, so that is promising. We should= negotiate with those other groups who presently own the name that we want = before we get too involved in the motion process.
There might be other details which I have not yet= thoroughly evaluated but which deserve reconsideration. I am interested in= this discussion

>=C2=A0Original research of other than Gleki is tagge= d with "non-official" or
placed in User's page, so the= re is no need to mention it here.

Is there any significant difference between Gleki's work and anyone e= lse's which would motivate his work receiving an entirely separate main= -level category? I just do not see what makes it special in this sense (alt= hough it is notable in other ways).

On Feb 20, 20= 17 09:39, "guskant" <= gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-02-20 11:14 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxo= kuna <gleki.is.my.name@gma= il.com>:
> Using github.com for official repositories can be dangerous since Github i= s
> not own by LLG.
> I suggest
> 1. still use Github
> 2. make synced backups of all official repositories on Github at serve= rs
> owned by LLG or provided to LLG for free.
>


So you agree to the optional suggestion that requires the motion bein= g
realized. It implies that you agree to the motion. Say "I second!"= ;
I hope this motion makes you really {gleki} because you will become
not being blamed for your abuse of power on the "official" websit= e.

As for backup, the official contents are not very large, and every
member can keep them in one's own computer. Such plural backing-up is much safer than keeping backups in one place. The official body has no
need to own servers.


>
> As for
>
>> - The official contents exclude records of discussions by the
> community, mailing lists, jbotcan, learning materials by person or the=
> community, non-BPFK proposals, Gleki's original research, communit= y
> news, artworks, list of artworks, jbovlaste, parsers, tools, robots, > arranged official logos, community logos.
>
> I suggest replacing "Gleki's original research" with &qu= ot;original research of
> members" since Gleki is not the only one (but thanks for making G= leki even
> more famous).
>


You are welcome!

Original research of other than Gleki is tagged with "non-official&quo= t; or
placed in User's page, so there is no need to mention it here. If any suspicious pages are found, the third condition of the definition "Any=
other unclear contents should be defined by discussion" is applied.


>> 2-4. By paying to Github, LLG can create private repositories that= are
> visible only to the organization members. This feature may be useful > for group working like LBCK.
>
> Can you explain why LBCK should be done in private?
>


Proficiency test under construction is not yet an official content, and therefore it is inappropriate to be put in a public repository of
the official body without any notice.

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

--001a114dccfe53cb230548f93ff0-- --===============6838835760026670681== 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 --===============6838835760026670681==--