Received: from localhost ([::1]:47114 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTvWW-0002AH-Eo; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:08:28 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net ([68.230.241.216]:48613) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTvW0-00029K-1C for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:07:57 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo305.cox.net ([68.230.241.237]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20171226200750.FYQW4103.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo305.cox.net> for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:07:50 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo305.cox.net with cox id qk7p1w00P2869s801k7pB1; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:07:49 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.5A42AC15.0233, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=Mv0i0ySe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=Y2-s2RbdtEWJQKbsTvMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Piz0I9YU4PQA:10 a=iwh3BSu4myUNQlX_M7KP:22 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:07:49 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On 12/25/2017 9:39 PM, guskant wrote: > I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, > there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already > published in the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that > the identical free documents were managed by reliable archivists. That is the intended purpose of BPFK, but I don't think the active members of BPFK have ever understood or accepted that as their primary role. People too badly want to propose and make changes to the language, and not so much to provide a clear and definitive standard. >>> If my motion in the previous LLG meeting were adopted, mw.lojban.org >>> would be free from any restriction as an "official" website, and then >>> it would be unnecessary to make a backup by the official body. If you made a motion in a prior LLG meeting that was not resolved (i.e. it was "tabled" in formal procedures terms), I am not aware of it. It should have been taken off the table and discussed under "old business" if it was. But lacking minutes of the last meeting, it is hard to know if any such motion exists. If you want to make a new motion, please do so, and state it clearly as a motion. >> mw.lojban.org and Tiki has historical information. Your motions required >> either paying for new servers or no preservation of historical data (e.g. >> history of page editing). >> > > My motion requires neither of them. Please remember correctly the motion [1]. The only motions that can be discussed NOW are new motions that have been made during this meeting. Please make such a motion. >> Fear of forking CLL by non-LLG members is justifiable but how to justify the >> lack of rules+following action? > > Unless the copyright of the official contents are clearly mentioned, > we have no way to prevent people forking the official documents [2] > and modifying them without any notice. There is a copyright notice on > the CLL, but I don't see any description about copyright on the other > official documents. All of the other official documents are in the public domain, as far as I know. Anyone can copy them or change them. But only a version of the document(s) explicitly adopted by BPFK (or LLG) will be considered official by most people. > I wish all the official contents were attributed > to CC BY-SA 4.0, No idea what this means. > I don't want to continue discussion of websites or servers in this > thread. I want to go back to my first post addressed to Karis in this > thread [3]. My points are the following three: > > 1. Any official supports are not required for advertisements, events > or meetings. > 2. I agree to dissolving the LLG, wishing that the balance would be > contributed for education of poor children. > 3. Future Lojbanists need concrete fossil (reliable archives) of the > CLL and the BPFK documents. > > I'm waiting for a reply from Karis. Those points are largely independent of each other. On point 1, it is correct that such are not "required". I think Karen was merely noting that LLG has some funds, and that this would be a valid and possible use of those funds. If LLG were to decide to undertake some promotion of the language, there would likely be costs that someone would have to bear. Whether sponsoring such is the best use of LLG funds is something to be debated. On point 2, LLG is unlikely to be dissolved, and most likely if it were, any assets that we have would likely be applied to some other qualified organization that works with language in some way at least tangential to the LLG purposes. People who gave money to LLG presumably did so in support of either Lojban or language research. However virtuous the education of children is, it would be a misappropriation of funds to use them for that purpose. I agree with point 3. The Secretary (mukti) is responsible for any official management of archival materials (though in my titled role as "Archivist" (which has no formalized responsibility), I have unofficially kept my own archive). But I don't pay attention to anything not on the LLG web pages. BPFK is of course responsible for promulgating any documents which they approve, though they can do so by reporting them to this meeting or directly to the Secretary (mukti). I'm not sure what if any changes need to be made to this status quo, other than to have BPFK decide to do its job and then actually follow through. > [1] The archive of my motion is accessible by the LLG members here: > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html If you want it discussed then make the motion anew. > [2] "forking the official documents" if any. As I discussed above, > however, there is no reliable archive of the official documents except > the CLL sold in the forms of printed or digital book. Maybe that is all that is needed. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members