Received: from localhost ([::1]:33640 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVsX3-0007hz-Ls; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:21:05 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f196.google.com ([209.85.213.196]:40564) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVsWX-0007fc-Uq for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:20:35 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f196.google.com with SMTP id s10so2758193ybl.7 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:20:33 -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=YJjORJ/piZgCFMFoFo/XR6GY3skeNrskz2zKmuJKQjA=; b=A0s2LPaYzceUoruuUwSHQbKkz60IguWnE58H+o3sp1AN40K0uB06z3W7B/YOej8pKb OKBVp8SHCC0ldk5KiwiByOD9fg7UqLYStV0azQPhLn9YWLZKGws7mZg4jnmmnj9DH3IO w8oSXlKsPzst6siUbvdDdbqzxkCmZ6y/juw8fd7wSkxPOpWX3Sz5mt77UH7BFdjkeQhq m0vZTpBkxtpMYVMGHhSc98I+3qVvK1IiEpYVB8SRpqrK9SDHqcIB+swBpc9RAN+y77y6 FXqIvnkBjt3nzC4DMJLJLxYEbiVMtHnHYW4GBo5i05c2ZrjoUWaqfdCnoDdbLlox/3sB 1VAw== 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=YJjORJ/piZgCFMFoFo/XR6GY3skeNrskz2zKmuJKQjA=; b=nndpKLLR27kZncCuIIt6QZ+zIPqoo42gnsIxwSuhVoz6aafia9mVVHE2QTCp3fNFBu VtrbSQsHTYEJGR1NF44M/TQGvRxali3gi+k9lEmdMdo3FhIsjf/ecTv4F8NIXYg37ujw o4D77OFb1dYGPsx4cDPi2YhU3fGgrTfPFe2m3Fpo27BSCm9X/XWjkoBYO03FicLa7dzk gN+QTBmiG5jkfUWYal4j96JTyq/NKksoqvA9tfOZgZoVy2agru6dF7gh7mJfNarfO53D 1fgLRWSaJIFhZ0VY0LuImE0hNjT/92u+3QEQOMSTtseberJgW58Wtnz0pN4jcI0TC/q0 fpIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL7b6zycOJ1Xe7j0b7ubnECngSXUdJDhuuQmmQS7Wpai8P4m9wD IleOhCNvgGJuOWQj0NPBYNc5rBc89tkwUjymb2c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotlbPuKpLe35REQ41uSqgSopew/SBvfDn2/tGZQDTvSONb4Dq9l2i9Pkcn9/YZLdQuqMbBuI+DPcy5Im9/b2/I= X-Received: by 10.37.144.141 with SMTP id t13mr31798328ybl.249.1514784026673; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:20:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:20:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:20:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7323409f-da23-0d8b-a2ec-e7547a37781e@selpahi.de> References: <7323409f-da23-0d8b-a2ec-e7547a37781e@selpahi.de> From: Curtis Franks Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 00:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK procedures 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="===============4983308060835820569==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4983308060835820569== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08329c1cd248130561b023b4" --089e08329c1cd248130561b023b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What are the broad classes of issues which lead to decisions which must be made? For example, administrative reform maybe can/should be able to be done at the unilateral will of the chair, but a total overhaul of Lojban should require the highest degree of community consensus possible (and possibly other things too). ___ For things which are not one-off decisions, maybe consider this: =E2=80=A2 if consensus cannot be reached, then the chair decides the matter= , but the matter shall be reconsidered if any of the following conditions are true: three years elapse, a different person comes to act as or possess the role of chair, the membership of the BPFK (excluding the chair from consideration) changes by more than 1/4 and exactly six months have elapsed since the decision was made, the membership or community or chair formally requests the reconsideration of the matter after the elapse of at least six months, an emergency which is somehow related to the matter or the decision or the chair arises. (These details are mutable. The abstract point is what is important here. In fact, the deadlines maybe should vary by subject matter). That gives the chair some power, but it is checked. It also allows matters to be temporarily resolved (it is good that it is resolved and good that it is a temporary state) and have the chosen solution tested; meanwhile, new consensus or proclivities are given time to form and, in fact, their condensation automatically triggers reconsideration after enough time to give the decision some justice and practical testing. On Dec 31, 2017 13:51, "selpahi" wrote: > The BPFK was empowered to determine its own decision-making process by th= e > BPFK reauthorization charter [1]. In 2015, when that motion passed, the > BPFK was coming out of a long "bureaucratic blockade" and the new BPFK > membership was happy to work under less bureaucracy. This worked quite we= ll > for the first year or so, but it started to show deficiencies as the > honeymoon phase ended. > > The BPFK started to run into issues that weren't that easily decidable du= e > to there being different conflicting interests and ideals, and, there bei= ng > no clear decision-making process in place, it became hard to make progres= s > at that point. > > Even though the BPFK has the right to make up its own rules, it might be = a > good idea to ask the wider LLG membership for suggestions as to how a mor= e > effective decision-making process could be devised, and how the committee > could be structured more effectively. > > guskant expressed the following (on the main list): > >> I think the problem is caused by the structure of the committee. >> > > (and I would like to hear from her what she thinks could be improved abou= t > the structure of the committee) > > and gleki has expressed in this meeting a desire for clarification on the > BPFK's workings. > > There's also the question of what the role of the chair should be, and > more specifically, what powers the chair should have. > > A pertinent quote by Gregorio Guidi from the recent, very long, thread on > the main list called "CLL and modern Lojban" [2]: > > What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why not >> having him have the final word on what goes in and goes out, when consen= sus >> cannot be reached? >> > > That thread actually touched on the questions I'm addressing in the > present email. There were several interesting ideas presented in the > thread, but it was all mixed in with other somewhat unrelated topics and > there was no clear result. > > Some important points to me are: > > * How should the BPFK make decisions? This is a broader question than > which type of voting should be used. A fundamental set of rules that both > facilitates good decision-making and prevents premature decisions should = be > put in place. > * How can it be guaranteed that the wider community will accept their > decisions? I ask this because the BPFK members were not voted into the > committee by a community-wide election. How can the BPFK achieve a high > level of acceptance such that its decisions will be accepted by the > community and not be perceived as violence of a group whose power does no= t > seem justified. > * What are the powers of the chair? > > ... and probably more that I'm forgetting right now. > > Most of us probably know about the old "dream" of the Elephant, proposed > by John Cowan long ago: an issue-based information system that keeps trac= k > of all the open (and closed) questions of the language. See this link [3]= . > We still do not have such a system despite it obviously being a Good Thin= g > and despite the fact that it's probably not that hard to create (the > community probably has more programmers than non-programmers). > > Anyway, I recently re-visited the Elephant and looked into different > programs that would let me visualize the structure of an Elephant-like > program to see if it would make BPFK discussions more structured. I creat= ed > the following diagram and page as an example of what such a structure cou= ld > look like when applied to the kinds of problems the BPFK actually faces, = in > this case the ongoing issue relating to {lo nu broda ba brode}: > > http://selpahi.de/BPFK_lonubrOdababrOde.html > > (Disclaimer: This is not an official page of the BPFK and is solely for > demonstration purposes.) > > Such diagrams can easily be created by hand for each open issue that is > presented to the BPFK. This could either be done by the chair or by a > selected BPFK member. > > However, while this is nice, it does not by itself solve the problem of > coming to a satisfying conclusion. No matter how good the arguments for o= r > against a thing, there can and will be people who will not change their > minds. Those are the situations when we need clever rules to guide us to > the best possible solution (see the bullet points above). > > Please discuss. > > -- > [1]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization > > [2]: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/discussion > > [3]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Elephant > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --089e08329c1cd248130561b023b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What are the broad classes of issues which lead to decisi= ons which must be made? For example, administrative reform maybe can/should= be able to be done at the unilateral will of the chair, but a total overha= ul of Lojban should require the highest degree of community consensus possi= ble (and possibly other things too).

___

For things wh= ich are not one-off decisions, maybe consider this:
= =E2=80=A2 if consensus cannot be reached, then the chair decides the matter= , but the matter shall be reconsidered if any of the following conditions a= re true: three years elapse, a different person comes to act as or possess = the role of chair, the membership of the BPFK (excluding the chair from con= sideration) changes by more than 1/4 and exactly six months have elapsed si= nce the decision was made, the membership or community or chair formally re= quests the reconsideration of the matter after the elapse of at least six m= onths, an emergency which is somehow related to the matter or the decision = or the chair arises.
(These details are mutable. The= abstract point is what is important here. In fact, the deadlines maybe sho= uld vary by subject matter).

That gives the chair some power, but it is checked. It also allows mat= ters to be temporarily resolved (it is good that it is resolved and good th= at it is a temporary state) and have the chosen solution tested; meanwhile,= new consensus or proclivities are given time to form and, in fact, their c= ondensation automatically triggers reconsideration after enough time to giv= e the decision some justice and practical testing.

On Dec 31, 2017 13:51, "s= elpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
The BP= FK was empowered to determine its own decision-making process by the BPFK r= eauthorization charter [1]. In 2015, when that motion passed, the BPFK was = coming out of a long "bureaucratic blockade" and the new BPFK mem= bership was happy to work under less bureaucracy. This worked quite well fo= r the first year or so, but it started to show deficiencies as the honeymoo= n phase ended.

The BPFK started to run into issues that weren't that easily decidable = due to there being different conflicting interests and ideals, and, there b= eing no clear decision-making process in place, it became hard to make prog= ress at that point.

Even though the BPFK has the right to make up its own rules, it might be a = good idea to ask the wider LLG membership for suggestions as to how a more = effective decision-making process could be devised, and how the committee c= ould be structured more effectively.

guskant expressed the following (on the main list):
=C2=A0I think the problem is caused by the structure of the committee.

(and I would like to hear from her what she thinks could be improved about = the structure of the committee)

and gleki has expressed in this meeting a desire for clarification on the B= PFK's workings.

There's also the question of what the role of the chair should be, and = more specifically, what powers the chair should have.

A pertinent quote by Gregorio Guidi from the recent, very long, thread on t= he main list called "CLL and modern Lojban" [2]:

What if there is no consensus? Well, the BPFK has a formal Chair. Why not h= aving him have the final word on what goes in and goes out, when consensus = cannot be reached?

That thread actually touched on the questions I'm addressing in the pre= sent email. There were several interesting ideas presented in the thread, b= ut it was all mixed in with other somewhat unrelated topics and there was n= o clear result.

Some important points to me are:

* How should the BPFK make decisions? This is a broader question than which= type of voting should be used. A fundamental set of rules that both facili= tates good decision-making and prevents premature decisions should be put i= n place.
* How can it be guaranteed that the wider community will accept their decis= ions? I ask this because the BPFK members were not voted into the committee= by a community-wide election. How can the BPFK achieve a high level of acc= eptance such that its decisions will be accepted by the community and not b= e perceived as violence of a group whose power does not seem justified.
* What are the powers of the chair?

... and probably more that I'm forgetting right now.

Most of us probably know about the old "dream" of the Elephant, p= roposed by John Cowan long ago: an issue-based information system that keep= s track of all the open (and closed) questions of the language. See this li= nk [3].
We still do not have such a system despite it obviously being a Good Thing = and despite the fact that it's probably not that hard to create (the co= mmunity probably has more programmers than non-programmers).

Anyway, I recently re-visited the Elephant and looked into different progra= ms that would let me visualize the structure of an Elephant-like program to= see if it would make BPFK discussions more structured. I created the follo= wing diagram and page as an example of what such a structure could look lik= e when applied to the kinds of problems the BPFK actually faces, in this ca= se the ongoing issue relating to {lo nu broda ba brode}:

http://selpahi.de/BPFK_lonubrOdababrOde.html
(Disclaimer: This is not an official page of the BPFK and is solely for dem= onstration purposes.)

Such diagrams can easily be created by hand for each open issue that is pre= sented to the BPFK. This could either be done by the chair or by a selected= BPFK member.

However, while this is nice, it does not by itself solve the problem of com= ing to a satisfying conclusion. No matter how good the arguments for or aga= inst a thing, there can and will be people who will not change their minds.= Those are the situations when we need clever rules to guide us to the best= possible solution (see the bullet points above).

Please discuss.

--
[1]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthori= zation

[2]: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/discussion

[3]: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Elephant

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members
--089e08329c1cd248130561b023b4-- --===============4983308060835820569== 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 --===============4983308060835820569==--