Received: from localhost ([::1]:33756 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUbyn-0005MJ-Gd; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:28:29 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]:39119) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUbyH-0005KD-9m for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:27:58 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id f201so3184890ybg.6 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:27:56 -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=6WVDY0TOJKrCr8oHWT1j1qtENF2UMXMOj0yXMjqhksQ=; b=LPJ2bX1MzB00l3gD0dUytTNvcP9d8VJlRv4UBmWKDVn/PfQDaPne4s/tHIwt0SZz0u deHcPYxLPaECqWYzBupQvEBVDQ+9SVXMzHg9h5eNYhdj8sCWN+zh0piWHZ0DMLAoHKKi VVgL/uLAN+pL+MNXVJbbBe8VnUtuaYA+jVpek3pqO7ob8PDimK1oeajORXOCNoCSD5q9 22kw4Q7f3kVA7GGb+PRfW66zsyl4WibCaWfq32BnFJJ1QJqrvns6jlAzkKTzUx0qGY6l CBDoz8T1q4CzRdklpMrxsWnbATOPsqRytsFl1gdi/zRRxUS+FNk5/fYeFguHs5yxphhV QoCA== 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=6WVDY0TOJKrCr8oHWT1j1qtENF2UMXMOj0yXMjqhksQ=; b=OeRN1yMHjf8Sy9ys6sBXtnVKVVJAlibHY/8XoYcLakpT2rml26GNlhkjmO3tzJapfJ 909xSZiJwecTj5tfqxVQVF8zEXXX0vSrcM/ni1++i+gkknQ4Xo5rAwwFBROCxfHhF3XV RxjaCAaEoLcoTUAQrV8Q8O4Yd+kw5ndyq+huRVonz+dVMrT6v0gI9oTGc/1sOzKKQx3N 5h0Pu6LDppPi8w7NY8KRonTKDWGpDSUA0FDgLuslsXWpmWSyC4TsjfjV368GyKGcTQzz 7GWkdFd0/KJoALKJVXYqGMyq8YHW2ZX+BvJTsAbP1u3TddcCmRx2x87ONyoQFW9CgXKk SyRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ1hAI/8Yy9BrmFJ01YJMFrg1xMG+OAumoEo56FoCNm3kwzs22O tXiyRijqjyb6sdJqhKpoB4lp65Ll06H2U2vjNvU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotc60uypoW9k7vuIsUtQaUQLMhpFSwJyz3tjVOSaLUDG1RNaedHSu1Zj4i6V5V2mieAAxV0IZYXVuwqAIrH2Zk= X-Received: by 10.37.3.147 with SMTP id 141mr22293917ybd.230.1514482070434; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:27:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:27:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7E5AA1ED-DBBB-4E01-ADF6-CE16E49FA6E0@gmail.com> References: <7E5AA1ED-DBBB-4E01-ADF6-CE16E49FA6E0@gmail.com> From: Curtis Franks Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:27:50 -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] What to vote on 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="===============0822039944035495691==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0822039944035495691== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c07b0cd3b954056169d53d" --001a11c07b0cd3b954056169d53d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" For the record, I want to be counted as a vote against any proposed dissolution of the LLG until further notice. On Dec 28, 2017 07:03, "Riley Lynch" wrote: > 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 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 > --001a11c07b0cd3b954056169d53d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For the record, I want to be counted as a vote against an= y proposed dissolution of the LLG until further notice.

On Dec 28, 2017 07:03, "Ri= ley Lynch" <shunpiker@gmail.= com> wrote:
M= y 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 m= eeting 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 accompli= sh within the context of a meeting from unbounded informal discussions that= do not require being on-the-record or subject to parliamentary procedure.<= br>
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 woul= d be helpful to broach that subject yet.

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

I have seen the motion discussed, but I'm not sure if it was formally r= aised 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 pa= rt of the agenda of the meeting it is to be raised within. This kind of thi= ng 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 w= hich would do more harm to the advancement of our shared goals than to disb= and 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 resta= ted at a call for seconds or for a vote or to announce the results of a vot= e, so that if this problem recurs, people know what has been discussed and = voted on.=C2=A0 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
--001a11c07b0cd3b954056169d53d-- --===============0822039944035495691== 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 --===============0822039944035495691==--