From: Riley Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <7E5AA1ED-DBBB-4E01-ADF6-CE16E49FA6E0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 06:02:35 -0600
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: -1.5
X-Spam_score_int: -14
X-Spam_bar: -
Subject: [Llg-members] What to vote on
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

My travels are (sadly?) complete. The meeting has my attention.

At this moment there are a number of different things that I'd like to speak to.

Perhaps most urgently: I would like to write more about the function of LLG related to lojban, and I will, but I would like to avoid drawing out the meeting with non-actionable discussion. One problem we have yet to solve as a body is how to disentangle the kind of business that we can only accomplish within the context of a meeting from unbounded informal discussions that do not require being on-the-record or subject to parliamentary procedure.

I have some ideas about how we can change the way that we conduct business, but with the number of issues already in the air, I'm not sure it would be helpful to broach that subject yet.

Instead and for now, I'd like to raise an argument that it's premature to discuss the dissolution of the organization, let alone the disposal of its resources once dissolved. The bylaws specify that such a motion would require a supermajority within the meeting as well as the unanimity of the board, which is to say that, by design, it is not actionable so long as it is controversial. 

I have seen the motion discussed, but I'm not sure if it was formally raised or formally seconded. I'd like to suggest that if its proponents are earnest, that they first bring the question to the larger community in forums such as the mailing list, and that it be explicitly advertised as part of the agenda of the meeting it is to be raised within. This kind of thing should not be rushed and should not be allowed to surprise. 

I will only add that as a member of the organization and its board, I view such a motion as at odds with our mission. I can think of many things that we can do better to promote lojban and logical language, and to support the communities that use them. I can think of few things that we could enact which would do more harm to the advancement of our shared goals than to disband and thereby formally abandon our mission.

mi'e la mukti
mu'o

>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 12/27/2017 9:35 PM, Creative Care Services wrote:
>> Thank you, Robin, for addressing this problem.
> 
> I suggest, Karen, that any motions being discussed be explicitly restated at a call for seconds or for a vote or to announce the results of a vote, so that if this problem recurs, people know what has been discussed and voted on.  Especially important since we know mukti is not necessarily paying attention on any given day due to his travel circumstances, and we really need him to get everything into the minutes.
> 
> 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