MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7f34c1b7-c8b5-ae5b-009c-88b6fed561de@lojban.org>
References: <CADbAA4Uv420mBUBjeihFdqxWfzbC4s5S5JTRVRpQgiy9Y6FH9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+h=qtWw6CaGutQAQg9kgwtyy45WqOhko8kkdyVeA+bKxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFoHDTf1a6GZu0eo3qaXmK7i8wsg_jrwZA8VXWmiPwX8gKjY6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal>
 <CADbAA4U=t-y1ef=zoQjjTP7Wm6U-B_LBV0rsEQTOx5RscQq+WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+hZ=tb9+ZKKWPeaMOUGKvKLX6OR68NoMR7t7Y_r=SerpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADbAA4VtZPXqYpvDVyu0k-9eDy53aJ9oss17Gsfg+p0JSL21Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+jEJH-gcZieaf7cGfhDxOKweNG3sUdB5_HNTDoGTm780Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADbAA4W-5-VMexAeQvMjNiMCK+X1ypd3_ObZSnTJOxQkg1zx1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO1AUJO36S_7JBoKfou3LGdhMzUmLQC1GNBESf8QHePvUULY5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+gf6kefkNtTT=D42TnG9VwFDYQqaGQwVPZmWSTu4Z0+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO1AUJPC+PUScj6yjhBvWhbg9NHQ4fHo2pcdXoYCimcMSMT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+g0ON1dVPH=9oQoShbdHBZ8_zi2zvoHO=_Xa+g-82kbJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae30d492-acf4-6c64-b6ad-a7f8c26325eb@lojban.org>
 <7f34c1b7-c8b5-ae5b-009c-88b6fed561de@lojban.org>
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 15:34:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJPcvqNp=0ZgLhgT-m_uFKSJsqEqJtNoEf=uGoN_Ozy5mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: -4.3
X-Spam_score_int: -42
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: <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

2017-12-28 9:16 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>:
> On 12/27/2017 2:05 AM, guskant wrote:
>>
>> Copying and changing the official documents without notice brings
>> chaos because anyone can deceive people in believing that one's
>> version is the real official documents. In order to prevent the chaos,
>> I recommend CC BY-SA 4.0 described here:
>> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
>> It is neither "no rights reserved (public domain)" nor "all rights
>> reserved", but some rights reserved for keeping the source documents
>> easy to be used by others. It is practical for future Lojbanists
>> because they will easily refer to the source documents without
>> worrying about the difference of versions between copies.
>
>
> This may be worthy of a distinct motion, but is not to my knowledge yet on
> the floor.  Please considering making such a motion  (I move that ...".  I
> don't know whether it is an appropriate standard or not, and how it should
> be worded.  The original baseline was intended to be public domain, but I
> also intended that an official version would be kept on the site that was
> not changeable except after a formal procedure.
>

We are still at the stage of "unfinished business". It's not the time
for "new business". I will make a motion for the copyright after Karis
calls for motions of new business.

>>
>> My last motion was exactly to solve problems with the point 3:
>>
>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html
>>
>> Gleki implicitly agreed and Curtis did not oppose to the motion, but
>> the meeting was closed without discussing it. No opposition. It was
>> not discussed. Everyone other than Gleki and Curtis just ignored the
>> motion. That is the death of the LLG.
>
>
> I have just reviewed the last meeting as I've archived it. Unfortunately we
> don't have official minutes to clarify things, but this is my
> interpretation, and I was chairing the meeting.
>
> 1.  Your "motion" in the cited message was posed during the roll call for
> the meeting at a time when I called for advance discussion of possible
> motions that would later be handled under old or new business.
>
> 2.  gleki did NOT second the motion.  He replied to your message in
> discussion, as did Curtis.  You recognized this at the time since in your
> next posting in reply to gleki you explicitly called for him to say "I
> second", which he hadn't and didn't.  It hardly matters since this was a
> discussion period, and formal motions were not in order, and so could not
> then be seconded.
>

His reply implies that he seconds the motion, therefore my motion was
implicitly seconded by Gleki.

It has become clearer by the last post by Gleki:
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-December/001687.html
A denotational definition of "the official contents" was mentioned in
my last motion, and Gleki requires creating actually the collection of
the official documents. In other words, his intention consists of my
motion and one more requirement, and therefore his intention implies
my motion.


> 3. On April 13th I posted the following.
>>
>> At this point, I will call for any other motions, for Old or New Business.
>> If you make a motion, please state whether you are willing to either a) have
>> the matter decided by the Board or b) allow the motion to be tabled until
>> the 2017 meeting (which will hopefully start earlier in the year, and be
>> based on mukti's and other's ideas to greatly expedite the meetings).
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> On the 20th you replied, asserting that gleki had "implicitly seconded" the
> motion, quoting his response which was about his perception that using
> Github as an official repository could be dangerous, and your response to
> him per 2 above asking him for a second.  He was merely discussing one
> aspect of one of your suggestions and did not in fact address your motion at
> all.  I found no place where he said that he seconded.
>
> You then said that you would delay discussion until the current meeting.
>
> On April 22, I posted:
>>
>> guskant has summarized a proposal which may be considered a motion, and
>> argues that gleki seconded it.  That discussion was in advance of the
>> Old/New business period, so if people want to consider it during this
>> meeting (as part of new business), I need a new explicit motion and second
>> at this time.
>>
>> No other motions have been proposed during the past week.  I will allow 3
>> days until end of the day 24 April for guskant's summary to be turned into a
>> motion (and seconded and possibly discussed).
>>
>> Other motions can still be made, seconded, and discussed during that time.
>
>
> So your claim that your motion was "ignored" is incorrect.
>
> There was no new explicit motion, nor any second, nor any disagreement with
> my ruling,  Karen requested clarification on how the agenda for the next
> (now current) meeting, and after some discussion made a motion that the new
> meeting would start last June 1, which was seconded and accepted.  Alas, the
> secretary and new president did not follow the agreed upon plan, perhaps
> because we were still in the process of transferring power from me to Karen
> on that date.
>

The other members kept silence about the motion, and then I had no way
to continue the discussion, and therefore agreed to postponing the
discussion.

That silence of people is indeed the fact that most members ignored my
motions. It is not your fault, Lojbab, but the fact. Whether the
motions were seconded or not, people could make some comments, but did
not. That is the death of the LLG. If any problems are raised but not
discussed and the meeting is just opened and closed every time, there
is no reason for the meeting and the board to exist.


> I don't recognize this motion as being the same as your motion of 20
> February, but in fact somewhat resembles the auxiliary suggestion that you
> mentioned in that post which was what gleki specifically opined *against* as
> dangerous.  So you were again incorrect in claiming agreement by others.
> And I doubt that anyone other than you remembers the two possible motions
> you proposed for discussion so many months after they were proposed; I
> certainly did not.
>

The message on September 30 is not a motion but a response to Karis's
message "I call for anyone with an item for the agenda" dated
September 18.


>
>> The official body has right to sue Gleki for his official pretending
>> activities.
>
>
> What official body?  BYFY, or LLG? What official pretending activities?
> (I've never seen gleki claim to be anyone other than himself).
>

I meant the LLG. The official-pretending activities of Gleki are
listed in the open letter.

>> The open letter
>> http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/open_letter.html
>> is therefore worth discussing the contents and making decision what to
>> do with the open letter. However, the discussion at that time achieved
>> nothing. Even whether the official body should reply or not was not
>> discussed. That is the death of the LLG.
>
>
> Since all discussion of the topic has been informal, I wouldn't say that
> anything at all has been concluded.  I don't think that I have seen anyone
> at all agree with your open letter (most of which I don't understand, since
> I make little use of social media), so I am not surprised if no official
> action has been taken.  It has not been brought up at any Lojban meeting
> (citing a web page that is not part of official proceedings is not in itself
> a motion to be discussed).
>

Since the topic was posted as a motion, I don't know why it is
regarded as informal:
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2016-April/001091.html

That motion was also ignored by all the members. No comment, no
second, no opposition, no discussion. That is the death of the LLG.


> It would probably be mukti who would take such official action, though the
> membership and the Board both can require him to take specific actions.  But
> again, that would take a formal motion.
>
>> I don't know the US law, but Gleki's activities described in the open
>> letter can be penalized in some countries.
>
>
> I doubt it with regard to the US.  "Free speech" trounces most such issues
> in this country, absent a violation of intellectual property laws which are
> very specific as to what is protected (and difficult to enforce against
> non-commercial activity).
>

Fortunately, there is a movement in the US toward defining laws of
penalizing for impersonation on social media. Here is the case of
California:
http://sfappeal.com/2010/12/online-impersonation-law-goes-into-effect-jan-1/
The LLG could consult lawyers about what to do with Gleki's
official-pretending activities.


> We as the organization "running" Lojban have avoided making unnecessary
> intellectual property claims as a matter of principle because of the
> circumstances of our split from JCB's Loglan Institute version of Loglan.
> (I will note that I myself made statements about Loglan that JCB objected
> to, but he was unable to enforce his claims after the US government
> rescinded his trademark claim on the name.  LLG many years ago adopted an
> official policy that "Lojban is Loglan".  So we would have considerable
> difficulty making a big deal about gleki's postings, even if we agreed that
> they were misleading, especially absent an official policy.)
>
> gleki is posting from Russia, so his actions would probably be primarily
> governed by Russia's laws.  I don't know much about those laws.  Again with
> reference to the current political situation in the US, Russian law
> apparently permits all sorts of Internet activity that others would consider
> improper, if not illegal. .uucai
>

I don't think the victim should always obey the laws of the
assailant's country. Even if the assailant is in Russia, the
impersonation occurred on Robin's server and the companies of the
social media that are in the US. The LLG could consult lawyers.


mi'e la guskant

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