Received: from localhost ([::1]:55420 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eSyrK-0001FT-DV; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:30:02 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f68.google.com ([209.85.213.68]:34196) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eSyql-0001EN-EF for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:29:31 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f68.google.com with SMTP id j192so19471085vkc.1 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:29:26 -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=OBwa7QZ5EmXv93ANj4MnR4HR2PLdFOs33Zbw6NrIGwc=; b=pIiM3Lr2VYG5iJVIUrZmDLaLxviQouO9ia7z0tTaOrYBPxeTGTCmK06tvNO2LhFEA0 TXrMBWY/fAt04XhzAeVZWh/lY7BkHmyA3uX1i35lBD5AOITvFHP+09OHhadyTAdO/Qar vdPQX3YDEF13o0bavOeApKiVxDVnibKKxdsY2G/dc8AqmWGFB499rekWK245HI2ACw5Z PfSAhiIY8ntGDtF8GwWIT/jK4fB4Q+AtVuG9AqpI3gG17msJH7XNPShmND1zioxzxNK1 rqiIFF5HedBcMrrbThFLgxRuSIA6C/SGbnLMI9GH2L5Dsy0IyEOCUW5wzEu7m7sopJ/z S3zA== 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=OBwa7QZ5EmXv93ANj4MnR4HR2PLdFOs33Zbw6NrIGwc=; b=i1BquwEtA01Q09eMOLcL6fMI4kzf0z6AitkL3VbmOF5jMc2LPWHsAHFqa4jFD+xTJJ GBGmeC1xQS5nbwEr3NW7EmONy+lGxCYuHrvIWWhF6hhP2BN+TQcRkEeNpsbVSinzFKNL WrBj7gfKaCHEwgJXWSY6Rgan2uv6rA7BpqtrJj1/tt22Yo68vR+KOC/4JQ/1PRwBhMtx IZk87Q/GCPZPCCfWmh5fZr/xhkQPBY+efIuGN7HSoyPJMY34xF64sOj70gkU4zYR4KI7 IPrzryzd5CqXS5QqEy1Zcui1q8azcqabQcmV0F6+R+S1PDr/ukfYHH+uBUm/FruKkGJ7 4qBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJRVeloqYCnZJX6Cr5IY0/LwMOpwSElIN9aTYCVXdBbSa3GAHIA 42CVpoZCT9aIpoXGRsghDHU2v1q0I4K9uanN7jY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovAYcyCE/4hTJcKMSovBi7AXVtdWKn3hnhQU8pNlbfVDPzaouxO1QotGPAiW+/d2m7AHDfG30C5Vgpp6fXm6ZM= X-Received: by 10.31.94.14 with SMTP id s14mr18508065vkb.6.1514093357389; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:29:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:29:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> From: Creative Care Services Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:29:16 -0500 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] Unfinished Business: BPFK 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="===============6613587912882386647==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6613587912882386647== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e5690b95da605610f54f1" --001a114e5690b95da605610f54f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday, December 23, 2017, selpahi wrote: > On 22.12.2017 23:51, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > >> Setting aside questions of scope =E2=80=94 lojbanists, I am told, almost= always >> get those wrong =E2=80=94 I can=E2=80=99t reconcile the idea that lojban= gave up the ghost >> with the fact that, even as plugged in as I am not, I=E2=80=99m aware of= new songs >> and stories composed in lojban, the production of an hour-long animation= , >> and people in chat {na=E2=80=99e slabu be mi} conversing in uninterrupte= d lojban. >> > > Almost all of the music is done by me or guskant. > > There's actually very little Lojban being spoken on IRC anymore. This yea= r > had many long periods of dead silence on IRC (and not just there). That's > why the "Lojban is dead" meme became a thing. There may not be much spoken on IRC, but one of the chats I'm receiving being in thousands of messages a month,for example. The other is also frequently active. > > I understand that for those who are intensely involved on a day-to-day >> basis, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to invest the energies that you do, and = not to find >> others matching your contributions. On the other hand, if you zoom out a= nd >> look at the history of lojban, isn=E2=80=99t this the rule? Whether it= =E2=80=99s lojbab >> trying to resuscitate Loglan after it had been dismantled by years of JC= B=E2=80=99s >> =E2=80=9Cengineering interventions=E2=80=9D, or John Cowan taking it on = himself to see that >> the reference grammar got finished, or Robin persisting through years of >> drudgery to make sure that we could update and re-publish it =E2=80=94 a= nd so on. >> Asymmetries of effort are the rule, not the exception. >> > > That's a fair point. > > I do not for a moment doubt that you have paid your dues, {doi selpa=E2= =80=99i}. >> You are entitled to feel disappointed, disillusioned, frustrated. Nobody >> could blame you for cutting your losses. I sincerely hope that you conti= nue >> making more beautiful things with lojban and shining light into the dark >> corners of the language, but you don=E2=80=99t owe that to me or anybody= else. >> > > I feel *guilt* when I don't work on my Lojban projects. I'm a person who > has skipped vacations to work on Lojban projects. I have sacrificed large > chunks of my life to this language. The only other person I know who know= s > this guilt is Robin, which is ironic, because he didn't owe the community > anything either and never got the help he asked for, but he pulled throug= h > by himself. There are also lojbab, who had literally spent years of his life on this language and has always felt horrible when health issues and other things got in the way, Nora LeChevalier who repeatedly apologized during the meetings of old because she couldn't do as much for the language as she felt she should, and John Cowen, who told a number of us he wished he'd been able to make the updates to CLL. It seems all of then felt (and still feel in at least the heat case) this same guilt. I do appreciate all the work you've put in for BPFK, LLG, and most of all lojban speakers and partners. > > Also, I *am* currently working on my second album. > > Working on Lojban this much, I have found that I am reaching the limits o= f > what Lojban is allowing me to express. I cannot see a good way out of the > limited vocabulary, *especially* not with the current morphology (my > Simpler morphology article has been put on hold until I feel like there's > any hope for this language). > > As a wise fella once put it, LLG is not the "getting things done" arm of >> the Lojban community. That said, we do have it as our mission to promote >> the study of the relationships between language, thought and human cultu= re, >> and to support the community of people learning artificially-engineered >> natural language, etc. We haven=E2=80=99t exactly covered ourselves in g= lory so >> far, but if we=E2=80=99re going to improve, it=E2=80=99s going to take l= eadership: That >> continues to be a bigger problem than laziness or lethargy. A bigger >> problem than language management, too. >> > > Who wants to take leadership of an organization with no apparent purpose > (the LLG has clearly given up on the goals stated in the bylaws)? It > doesn't help to keep saying "We need this or that", while nothing ever > changes. I, for one, have just taken leadership of the LLG less than a year ago. I did so in an effort to keep the organization going, to provide some continuity with the past while looking toward the future, and to give in the ways in which I, myself, am able. > If it's going to take leadership, as you say, then that needs to be made > more concrete and then acted upon. Are you suggesting we throw out the > current officers and elect a new president? If not, what is to be done > *now*? I continue to believe that there is much to be gained by continuing to work >> with lojban, not only in spite of its imperfections, but because of them= . >> If it turns out that something can=E2=80=99t be fixed, either because of >> deep-seated commitments in the structure of the language, or because the >> language community rejects the remedy, that=E2=80=99s something that lan= guages >> which have yet to be specified can learn from. >> > > Yes. I learned a lot from Lojban's mistakes and avoided them as best as I > could in my loglang Toaq, which I published this September. It may have once been true that it was impossible to resolve certain >> problems because of the rigidity of the baseline and a disparity of >> organizational representation between generations of lojbanists. I don= =E2=80=99t >> think that reflects the current situation. We haven=E2=80=99t been fixin= g things >> that are within our power to fix. >> >> Why is it, for example, that nearly fifteen years after xorlo was >> approved by BPFK, CLL continues to use {le} as the default gadri? >> > > mezohe has done some (a lot of?) work updating CLL for xorlo. I haven't > looked into it in detail because I've grown allergic to projects that hav= e > gleki in it. That's also why I've moved further and further away from BPF= K > work. gleki just drives me up the wall. I find him completely impossible = to > work with. Destructive, irrational and unable or unwilling to use logic. = I > do appreciate his contributions in other areas (chat bridges, dictionary > stuff, even the wiki work). > > If I had to guess, it=E2=80=99s less because of the grunt work involved t= o >> implement the changes than the fact that although most people would agre= e, >> not everyone will. That=E2=80=99s where a lack of leadership holds us ba= ck: Without >> willingness to engage in the unglamorous business of building rough >> consensus, the commons stagnate. It=E2=80=99s less work for individuals = to >> incorporate insights into their idiolects than to educate others and >> institutionalize the learning. It=E2=80=99s easier to resign one=E2=80= =99s self to others=E2=80=99 >> lack of initiative than to stick one=E2=80=99s neck out and risk persona= l failure., >> or even just ill-considered criticism. >> > > A well-spoken account of what seems to be the reality of the situation. > > If a =E2=80=9Ctake no prisoners=E2=80=9D solution to lojban=E2=80=99s ill= =E2=80=99s includes >> consensus-building and the kind of follow-up that will ensure the >> availability of up-to-date reference and learning materials, let=E2=80= =99s talk >> about what it would take to make that happen. But please take a moment t= o >> think about what you=E2=80=99d be signing yourself up for, too. >> > >> Consensus building was much easier when meetings were almost exclusively face to face and everyone involved had opportunities to get to know the others. Even then it wasn't always easy and often involved lojbab and I each having firm ideas that differed in large or small ways. I am not sure how it can be accomplished as things stand now. I have serious issues with "consensus" that comes when people are pressured into agreeing rather than convinced and this is what I have generally seen when very large groups try. If anyone can either help me directly or direct me at resources for lastminute.com how Teague consensus building might work I would love to talk. As for, "the kind of follow-up that will ensure the availability of up-to-date reference and learning materials," I know this has been an important goal from the beginning. Implementation has been the issue for most of that time. I will branch this to a new topic so we can discuss how to modify our approach. .karis. --001a114e5690b95da605610f54f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday, December 23, 2017, selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 22.12.2017 23:51, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote:
Setting aside questions of scope =E2=80=94 lojbanists, I am told, almost al= ways get those wrong =E2=80=94 I can=E2=80=99t reconcile the idea that lojb= an gave up the ghost with the fact that, even as plugged in as I am not, I= =E2=80=99m aware of new songs and stories composed in lojban, the productio= n of an hour-long animation, and people in chat {na=E2=80=99e slabu be mi} = conversing in uninterrupted lojban.

Almost all of the music is done by me or guskant.

There's actually very little Lojban being spoken on IRC anymore. This y= ear had many long periods of dead silence on IRC (and not just there). That= 's why the "Lojban is dead" meme became a thing.
=

There may not be much spoken on IRC, but one of the cha= ts I'm receiving being in thousands of messages a month,for example. Th= e other is also frequently active.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

I understand that for those who are intensely involved on a day-to-day basi= s, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to invest the energies that you do, and not to = find others matching your contributions. On the other hand, if you zoom out= and look at the history of lojban, isn=E2=80=99t this the rule? Whether it= =E2=80=99s lojbab trying to resuscitate Loglan after it had been dismantled= by years of JCB=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cengineering interventions=E2=80=9D, or = John Cowan taking it on himself to see that the reference grammar got finis= hed, or Robin persisting through years of drudgery to make sure that we cou= ld update and re-publish it =E2=80=94 and so on. Asymmetries of effort are = the rule, not the exception.

That's a fair point.

I do not for a moment doubt that you have paid your dues, {doi selpa=E2=80= =99i}. You are entitled to feel disappointed, disillusioned, frustrated. No= body could blame you for cutting your losses. I sincerely hope that you con= tinue making more beautiful things with lojban and shining light into the d= ark corners of the language, but you don=E2=80=99t owe that to me or anybod= y else.

I feel *guilt* when I don't work on my Lojban projects. I'm a perso= n who has skipped vacations to work on Lojban projects. I have sacrificed l= arge chunks of my life to this language. The only other person I know who k= nows this guilt is Robin, which is ironic, because he didn't owe the co= mmunity anything either and never got the help he asked for, but he pulled = through by himself.

There are also lojbab, = who had literally spent years of his life on this language and has always f= elt horrible when health issues and other things got in the way, Nora LeChe= valier who repeatedly apologized during the meetings of old because she cou= ldn't do as much for the language as she felt she should, and John Cowe= n, who told a number of us he wished he'd been able to make the updates= to CLL. It seems all of then felt (and still feel in at least the heat cas= e) this same guilt.=C2=A0

I do appreciate all the = work you've put in for BPFK, LLG, and most of all lojban speakers and p= artners.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

Also, I *am* currently working on my second album.

Working on Lojban this much, I have found that I am reaching the limits of = what Lojban is allowing me to express. I cannot see a good way out of the l= imited vocabulary, *especially* not with the current morphology (my Simpler= morphology article has been put on hold until I feel like there's any = hope for this language).

As a wise fella once put it, LLG is not the "getting things done"= arm of the Lojban community. That said, we do have it as our mission to pr= omote the study of the relationships between language, thought and human cu= lture, and to support the community of people learning artificially-enginee= red natural language, etc. We haven=E2=80=99t exactly covered ourselves in = glory so far, but if we=E2=80=99re going to improve, it=E2=80=99s going to = take leadership: That continues to be a bigger problem than laziness or let= hargy. A bigger problem than language management, too.

Who wants to take leadership of an organization with no apparent purpose (t= he LLG has clearly given up on the goals stated in the bylaws)? It doesn= 9;t help to keep saying "We need this or that", while nothing eve= r changes.

I, for one, have just taken lead= ership of the LLG less than a year ago. I did so in an effort to keep the o= rganization going, to provide some continuity with the past while looking t= oward the future, and to give in the ways in which I, myself, am able.=C2= =A0
=C2=A0
If it's going = to take leadership, as you say, then that needs to be made more concrete an= d then acted upon. Are you suggesting we throw out the current officers and= elect a new president? If not, what is to be done *now*?
=
I continue to believe that there is much to be gained by continuing to work= with lojban, not only in spite of its imperfections, but because of them. = If it turns out that something can=E2=80=99t be fixed, either because of de= ep-seated commitments in the structure of the language, or because the lang= uage community rejects the remedy, that=E2=80=99s something that languages = which have yet to be specified can learn from.

Yes. I learned a lot from Lojban's mistakes and avoided them as best as= I could in my loglang Toaq, which I published this September.
=

It may have once been true that it was impossible to resolve certain proble= ms because of the rigidity of the baseline and a disparity of organizationa= l representation between generations of lojbanists. I don=E2=80=99t think t= hat reflects the current situation. We haven=E2=80=99t been fixing things t= hat are within our power to fix.

Why is it, for example, that nearly fifteen years after xorlo was approved = by BPFK, CLL continues to use {le} as the default gadri?

mezohe has done some (a lot of?) work updating CLL for xorlo. I haven't= looked into it in detail because I've grown allergic to projects that = have gleki in it. That's also why I've moved further and further aw= ay from BPFK work. gleki just drives me up the wall. I find him completely = impossible to work with. Destructive, irrational and unable or unwilling to= use logic. I do appreciate his contributions in other areas (chat bridges,= dictionary stuff, even the wiki work).

If I had to guess, it=E2=80=99s less because of the grunt work involved to = implement the changes than the fact that although most people would agree, = not everyone will. That=E2=80=99s where a lack of leadership holds us back:= Without willingness to engage in the unglamorous business of building roug= h consensus, the commons stagnate. It=E2=80=99s less work for individuals t= o incorporate insights into their idiolects than to educate others and inst= itutionalize the learning. It=E2=80=99s easier to resign one=E2=80=99s self= to others=E2=80=99 lack of initiative than to stick one=E2=80=99s neck out= and risk personal failure., or even just ill-considered criticism.

A well-spoken account of what seems to be the reality of the situation.

If a =E2=80=9Ctake no prisoners=E2=80=9D solution to lojban=E2=80=99s ill= =E2=80=99s includes consensus-building and the kind of follow-up that will = ensure the availability of up-to-date reference and learning materials, let= =E2=80=99s talk about what it would take to make that happen. But please ta= ke a moment to think about what you=E2=80=99d be signing yourself up for, t= oo.

<= div><snip>

Consensus building was much easie= r when meetings were almost exclusively face to face and everyone involved = had opportunities to get to know the others. Even then it wasn't always= easy and often involved lojbab and I each having firm ideas that differed = in large or small ways. I am not sure how it can be accomplished as things = stand now. I have serious issues with "consensus" that comes when= people are pressured into agreeing rather than convinced and this is what = I have generally seen when very large groups try. If anyone can either help= me directly or direct me at resources for lastminute.com how Teague consensus building might work I would love = to talk.=C2=A0=C2=A0

As for, "the kind of fol= low-up that will ensure the availability of up-to-date reference and learni= ng materials," I know this has been an important goal from the beginni= ng. Implementation has been the issue for most of that time. I will branch = this to a new topic so we can discuss how to modify our approach.

.karis.
--001a114e5690b95da605610f54f1-- --===============6613587912882386647== 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 --===============6613587912882386647==--