Received: from localhost ([::1]:47314 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUhgH-0006Ap-IR; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 15:33:45 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net ([68.230.241.217]:59520) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUhfj-00069N-Ot for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 15:33:13 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20171228233305.ZCJH3211.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net> for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:33:05 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with cox id rbZ51w0072869s801bZ5cv; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:33:05 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.5A457F31.0131, 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=HrcGIwbS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=PMayK-KgzlQA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=tp5eRiI1AAAA:8 a=DnHRSk1sAAAA:8 a=NpMlQf2pXsQIAMkwkCkA:9 a=5sXduuX73dOGkQb5:21 a=jlSquwOCg_ezJyp1:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=z1Cz8aXBBPMA:10 a=KNXMu-LoWNkA:10 a=iwh3BSu4myUNQlX_M7KP:22 a=pgW6OUOqri39hA24o4Ko:22 a=Of7ghu6qpvf_Gmlo8AOp:22 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <7f34c1b7-c8b5-ae5b-009c-88b6fed561de@lojban.org> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: <351cd560-c8a4-7430-197a-f16e422502c5@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:33:05 -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: -4.7 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.7 X-Spam_score_int: -46 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 12/28/2017 10:34 AM, guskant wrote: >> 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. To the extent that this motion would be applicable to solving the problem(s) you are referring to in your other motion(s), the chair might have no problem considering it germane to unfinished 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, It does not. 1. It was a open *discussion*, and your "motion" could not yet even be considered a motion that *could* be seconded. 2. I didn't (and don't) consider there to be such a thing as an "implicit second". gleki would have had to have used the word "second" for him to have been considered to have seconded a motion. That you requested that he explicitly say "I second" to me strongly implies that you also recognized this at the time. 3. In any event, my posting in April made clear that I as chair did not consider the prior discussion to have been a valid motion, and that a new motion and second were required. > 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. It was a discussion. There are no procedural implications in talking about something. > The other members kept silence about the motion, Rather strongly implying that they were not interested at the time. > That silence of people is indeed the fact that most members ignored my > motions. That is their choice. > It is not your fault, Lojbab, but the fact. Whether the > motions were seconded or not, people could make some comments, but did > not. Since you interpreted gleki's comment as an "implicit second", I myself would be wary of commenting if I were not particularly interested in deciding the issue at that time. > That is the death of the LLG. It is no such thing. It is people politely ignoring your motion, for whatever reason (and there are a variety of possible reasons that could have been applicable). If in fact the motion had been properly restated and then seconded after I called for same in April, then there would have had to be an explicit decision to table or vote on the motion. > 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 The rest of the membership may merely not consider your issue to be a problem. that warrants discussion or decision. The meeting necessarily exists because a Board must be elected each year. The Board (and officers) must legally exist to fulfill the requirements of a Virginia corporation. And as long as there are activities that require the significant expenditure/income of money (at least in the US), a non-profit organization is the best way to manage those activities. If the members aren't interested in making policy decisions, they can choose to leave all such decisions to the Board. That is not in any sense a "death of LLG". >> 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. You stated it as a motion, so I called it one. It was more clearly a specific motion than your February posting which had motion and suggestions and discussion all in one. >>> 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. They aren't official, and it is not clear to me that he was pretending anything. > Since the topic was posted as a motion, See above. It was no more posted as a motion than your response to Karen in September, which you just said was not a motion. And a topic is not 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. No. That is the disinterest of the members in getting involved in what seems to be your personal issues with gleki. >>> 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/ https://www.reputationdefender.com/blog/privacy/online-impersonation-laws discusses the topic more broadly (and updated more recently), noting that only 9 of the 50 states and not the federal government even have such laws. It also indicates that intent is a factor in whether an impersonation is subject to legal effects, and thus far I've seen no evidence of gleki's intentions (and legal proof of intention to deceive would be both necessary and difficult). It is not clear that anyone has actually been prosecuted under those laws, and such a prosecution might have to survive a "free speech" defense. > The LLG could consult lawyers about what to do with Gleki's > official-pretending activities. Having already dealt with the US courts on an intellectual property matter on behalf of LLG, I am quite aware of the option to go to a lawyer. I also know that even a simple consultation with a lawyer on this issue would probably cost thousands of dollars, with an actual court case costing tens of thousands. And there is essentially nothing that a court could do since gleki is not within US jurisdiction and probably has no financial assets within US jurisdiction. As I said, I've been on the receiving end of a legal accusation of deceptive intent, and I am within US jurisdiction, and yet JCB could not stop me/us from using the name "Loglan". And we went out of our way to make it *harder* to make legal claims regarding Lojban. > I don't think the victim should always obey the laws of the > assailant's country. What you think hardly matters. American courts hold no power over Russians > Even if the assailant is in Russia, the impersonation occurred on Robin's server We could sue Robin to block gleki's access (or we could simply ask him). It isn't going to happen. Your claim that it is an "impersonation" is apparently not an issue to most members. Also gleki is a member of the Board of Directors, and as you've noted was granted administrator privileges by Robin (at a time when he essentially had dictatorial powers over such matters as both BPFK jatna and website administrator). But this is irrelevant. LLG wants to encourage people to do more stuff, not to create roadblocks to prevent one of our most active people from doing things. > and the companies of the social media that are in the US. And neither Facebook nor Twitter has been forced by legal action to do much of anything with respect to their terms of service. Again the current American political situation shows this. > The LLG could consult lawyers. We could, if we were rich and wanted to waste a lot of money. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members