Received: from localhost ([::1]:54526 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1dFxxM-0000LQ-JX; Wed, 31 May 2017 00:22:12 -0700 Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:33901) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1dFxxJ-0000KW-JA for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2017 00:22:10 -0700 Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d14so5240725qkb.1 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 00:22:09 -0700 (PDT) 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=HkFT8D0Tt1OEyl+ywJduUo9D/4lGZCOzYD09dUlXayQ=; b=oftQqWCZhHpRAXRr6h9dSfvvOrqE5PEJKThCmZdhydtU4Jh/loxo49fwp/51IbLVyX sc7DTBmzGj1VgSonlVXM6k8PnTFAqMc/GnHi9fOKQDg1oDEOLGRc0xQFX1zY3NPmJ8l7 AsZOQxm6OjeOvsnpgIJ1bVW1AMJkv8S7HxrsoRIJkF85sHvRTE4y3x3ZHIoHhkidygOU YCTeAxVkZSs8QjX0GizyCz6lH/yTM958t8Ufqr8oyc0/+XYz6AErSN9GxaRKhkkd3+on AMd7/l5H4CAXQT14r949d//xKEJshVA9uhmYpPzpnZYqb5PetT84eZRfvB8fiSQNFdcj +xzw== 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=HkFT8D0Tt1OEyl+ywJduUo9D/4lGZCOzYD09dUlXayQ=; b=n5ypIwqUoXoT003VqNod/MxcC0DEYdLC7Zg1l40v7iK8qvHtaPiTmtU6DX00lvGrLt x6P8kZrR/Acg236az6hg4DCwV6yZAX6zzy8NAsC/ch2/e/6anYrP+sPaMiUKOPSAKm5u luxtdDKr+osclOhzBP91hnkRhR5zMosCMkninASHIIPSh8DyskHCGe7mDiWA++3b18kI 3zfq3cVayaOK4HwspoXr+i6Yed40aMfGIi7ldBrtzdchkwoFD2hCJOlv5VT0jyWeCLCv 32ktHewCs+3902APR3WybGCgVA9PCGV6ySkC0BsGNXi2hQdbMcD4r02HPpYxvR4pRSDz Xrdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcC/f0Xl82aaaYAzwQBN9YJOrAf6aJ/AW8dJXP4EabcE8koBVLst tKouWaFT7Ipb4Y2QMp/yAUyEByVfjw== X-Received: by 10.55.93.133 with SMTP id r127mr27279081qkb.98.1496215323413; Wed, 31 May 2017 00:22:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.32.131 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 00:21:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0457f7fe-dfd2-2ef6-9402-00d1dd15b239@lojban.org> <19AE0EBA-AD2B-46BA-A03D-F2E77F52D7A8@gmail.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 10:21:23 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Request for clarification 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="===============7331722931929390795==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7331722931929390795== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c89d4dc1cd10550ccc6a7" --001a114c89d4dc1cd10550ccc6a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-05-30 23:42 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > Do the other methods for discussion count as in-person, telephone, or 'by > mails'? If not, then we need to technically conduct the meeting via email > (or another example of those methods, aforementioned) as we have been or to > change the by-laws. The meeting perhaps would be informally > facilitated/quickened via the other means, but it could not technically be > conducted by them unless they count as one of those three methods. > I agree that the only means must be via this mailing list. > > On Apr 22, 2017 17:19, "Karen Stein" wrote: > >> Lojbab's belief that discussion between meetings occur here is not what I >> understood the proposal to be. My understanding was that discussion was >> going to happen at random times using any and all the discussion methods >> available to at least some members of the broad lojban community. >> >> Since there is such a difference between these two I did have one item of >> business to address at this time. I would like to have this clarified. We >> all need to know before we adjourn what the procedures we are using for our >> trial such as the means with which everyone is to be notified of topics, >> and when and where such discussions will be happening. If it is to be >> totally freeform, please make this clear. >> >> .karis. >> >> On April 22, 2017 2:39:03 PM EDT, Bob LeChevalier >> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/20/2017 8:03 PM, guskant wrote: >>> >>>> 2017-04-13 20:31 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier : >>>> >>>>> I'll allow a full week for responses, until end of day 21 April. If there >>>>> are motions that need to be decided, they need a second, and then you may >>>>> proceed to debate without me explicitly calling for it. I will try to pay >>>>> attention in order to keep things moving. If there are no motions by then, >>>>> we should adjourn. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We have a motion that was implicitly seconded by Gleki. >>>> The motion is entitled "Motion: liberate lojban.org to community >>>> volunteers, and move the official contents to another website", and >>>> archived here: >>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html >>>> >>>> A reply of Gleki in the following part of discussion implies that he >>>> seconded the motion. >>>> >>>> 2017-02-20 14:38 GMT+00:00 guskant : >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I guess you all want to adjourn the meeting as soon as possible >>>> without discussing any important matter, and I give up discussion >>>> until the meeting of 2017. >>>> >>> >>> I think we indeed want to get the meeting adjourned (separate message >>> coming). But as I understand the concept that mukti has advanced, the >>> discussion should primarily take place OUTSIDE the meeting, in advance >>> of a formal decision at a meeting. >>> >>> Once the 2016 meeting ends, this mailing list still exists with all >>> voting members enrolled. So people can and should be talking up their >>> ideas for community action (the regular Lojban list, as well as the IRC >>> Lojban channel(s) also exist for such discussion). >>> >>> This discussion can be tied to a specific proposal, such as the >>> paragraphs that you quoted above, or it can be less restricted, with the >>> goal of producing a motion that will be formally voted on at the next >>> (2017) annual meeting. mukti will call for motions IN ADVANCE of that >>> annual meeting, and those motions presented in advance will constitute >>> the agenda for the meeting. The meeting then moves along at a much >>> faster speed, because most/all of the discussion has taken place before >>> the meeting. I believe that one or more planned IRC sessions also fit >>> into the proposal as well. >>> >>> If discussion produces a consensus and speed is desired, that consensus >>> can be passed to the Board of directors which can approve most ideas at >>> any time of the year, and that also will reduce the time required for >>> the formal annual meeting. >>> >>> mukti and others should feel free to correct my interpretation of the >>> concept. >>> >>> lojbab >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Llg-members mailing list >>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a114c89d4dc1cd10550ccc6a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2017-05-30 23:42 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gma= il.com>:
= Do the other methods for discussion count as in-person, telephone, or '= by mails'? If not, then we need to technically conduct the meeting via = email (or another example of those methods, aforementioned) as we have been= or to change the by-laws. The meeting=C2=A0perhaps would be informally facilitated/quickened via the other mea= ns, but it could not technically be conducted by them unless they count as = one of those three methods.

I = agree that the only means must be via this mailing list.
=C2=A0

On Apr 22, 2017 17:19, "Karen= Stein" <comcaresvcs@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Lojbab's beli= ef that discussion between meetings occur here is not what I understood the= proposal to be. My understanding was that discussion was going to happen a= t random times using any and all the discussion methods available to at lea= st some members of the broad lojban community.

Since there is such a difference between these two I did have one item of b= usiness to address at this time. I would like to have this clarified. We al= l need to know before we adjourn what the procedures we are using for our t= rial such as the means with which everyone is to be notified of topics, and= when and where such discussions will be happening. If it is to be totally = freeform, please make this clear.

.karis.

On April 22, 2017 2:39:03 PM EDT,= Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
On 4/20/201=
7 8:03 PM, guskant wrote:
 2017=
-04-13 20:31 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>:
 I'll allow a full week for responses, until end of =
day 21 April.  If there
 are motions that need to be decided, they need =
a second, and then you may
 proceed to debate without me explicitly call=
ing for it.  I will try to pay
 attention in order to keep things moving=
.  If there are no motions by then,
 we should adjourn.
=

 We have a motion that was implicitly seconded by Gleki.
 The motion=
 is entitled "Motion: liberate lojban.org to community
 volunteers, and move the official =
contents to another website", and
 archived here:
 http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/=
2017-February/001357.html

 A reply of Gleki in the followin=
g part of discussion implies that he
 seconded the motion.

 2017-=
02-20 14:38 GMT+00:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
 2017-02-20 11:14 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
 Using github.com for official repositories can be dangerous since Github=
 is
 not own by LLG.
 I suggest
 1. still use Github
 2. make s=
ynced backups of all official repositories on Github at servers
 owned b=
y LLG or provided to LLG for free.

 So you agree to the=
 optional suggestion that requires the motion being
 realized. It implie=
s that you agree to the motion. Say "I second!"
 I hope this m=
otion makes you really {gleki} because you will become
 not being blamed=
 for your abuse of power on the "official" website.
<=
br>
 I guess you all want to adjourn the meeting as soon as possible
=
 without discussing any important matter, and I give up discussion
 unti=
l the meeting of 2017.

I think we indeed want to get th=
e meeting adjourned (separate message 
coming).  But as I understand the=
 concept that mukti has advanced, the 
discussion should primarily take =
place OUTSIDE the meeting, in advance 
of a formal decision at a meeting=
.

Once the 2016 meeting ends, this mailing list still exists with al=
l 
voting members enrolled.  So people can and should be talking up thei=
r 
ideas for community action (the regular Lojban list, as well as the I=
RC 
Lojban channel(s) also exist for such discussion).

This discu=
ssion can be tied to a specific proposal, such as the 
paragraphs that y=
ou quoted above, or it can be less restricted, with the 
goal of produci=
ng a motion that will be formally voted on at the next 
(2017) annual me=
eting.  mukti will call for motions IN ADVANCE of that 
annual meeting, =
and those motions presented in advance will constitute 
the agenda for t=
he meeting.  The meeting then moves along at a much 
faster speed, becau=
se most/all of the discussion has taken place before 
the meeting.  I be=
lieve that one or more planned IRC sessions also fit 
into the proposal =
as well.

If discussion produces a consensus and speed is desired, th=
at consensus 
can be passed to the Board of directors which can approve =
most ideas at 
any time of the year, and that also will reduce the time =
required for 
the formal annual meeting.

mukti and others should =
feel free to correct my interpretation of the 
concept.

lojbab


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

__________________________________________= _____
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


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


--001a114c89d4dc1cd10550ccc6a7-- --===============7331722931929390795== 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 --===============7331722931929390795==--