Received: from localhost ([::1]:46666 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eW2Gm-0005G6-Qy; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 07:44:56 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]:36680) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eW2GE-0005Do-DA for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 07:44:25 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id j7so25768490ybl.3 for ; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 07:44:19 -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=hBy+qXaY76D9c5xJb+ziLb+Rcvkemg+GaZB6+zokl+M=; b=iC3zHxINCjwObwXZDYM3bAunm1E9Ro8KgkN6lpCtxGZZOVQIZ7DcWUKWTEAiYBn4Dd fOODI9H3nrsyUgjEkR3gxMdEbh2V29LXQ6EQ1cCkvvSpN4Lds5XOzFr10kgsInHL0Vlf ArNpdtidlhEp+007lrzpTQNdkvVBGbVp5KLAkUkt4K0EZhkr0ls2aQ83qG2iOo7Pi2Ql M+60KeFT6h9PyoZ6ZT9SY4nCiSK95VCSrq0k4HksspZdemLUvEcdv/RFjXN+OT6zYjcs bBH2LAG5D10jUQtMyMyzomk3CTAzkxxUqW4IWVZSy67AcI+oHHiAlhfKRC8qFexpjVql YAmw== 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=hBy+qXaY76D9c5xJb+ziLb+Rcvkemg+GaZB6+zokl+M=; b=V9P/L9A1Bqu6bGTXBNYw54w8p/aRHvpbOFNfdKQ2aWXbZhtr04cxIupincP5IYfAdb imwQ63Wfa/RFTsuRn2WbX5gW12o40eBSD2Rwb+oQ0DpG1+v4C0mbFNcIslhL4k8sH+eO YF5fAWuZBKo8KgwFfaLoN/15tWazZ7V+KwJtPb3uzn0rQtD/wHCPcI2/PHDUI7/oSvpG KM5D8YybKXFrz5qwtMjJRck5PaCAx0JjdKXMK7FgjQrSTHb/b4k/DpElqLlXUpKezlMn SDRtvfm32eg84AOaaBpAWvQSPihs8hk5bsV0rnScyWzsirbK1ySRjLJfzz9S5nD2aX+o iwfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLh/+lYaBruUA4cFy2sA2Y2B1dVRq3/6ALskw/j5V4hkWcbnK0l r8sOZhcbtISJuLAtqWjJGywnirvLJi0S/8hdZ6c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovCkGh80Ck9/dMWpMSwPoJWPq7wJxS3EKlbXpviNPhuk3RBnC0dH94cY5PDcQv1IYjMySd/ijFwvYI3X3M9f1Q= X-Received: by 10.37.144.141 with SMTP id t13mr33057915ybl.249.1514821451001; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 07:44:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 07:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 07:44:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7323409f-da23-0d8b-a2ec-e7547a37781e@selpahi.de> From: Curtis Franks Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 10:44:10 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 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="===============5116530586113645536==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5116530586113645536== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08329c1c7c34940561b8da2a" --089e08329c1c7c34940561b8da2a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Decisions should be binary: "yes" or "no". ___ I think that the chair should have some power in determining the 'size' of a proposal and, thus, the threshold of votes it must receive if it is to be accepted. Small decisions could be decided by sheer majority. Medium decisions would be accepted iff, say, at least 3/5 of the (voting?) membership approves. Large decisions should require greater consensus. (What constitutes each gradation is purposefully left vague here, as the chair should make the determination in a case-by-case basis, although they should publish a general outline of how they will be making such determinations. For example: maybe expansion of definitions or functionalities which are compatible with the current version will normally be considered to be small decisions; larification or changing a definition in a way which is not back-compatible, or small tweaks to the grammar (such as dotside), may be medium decisions; sweeping changes, like xorlo or changing how connectives work, would be a large change; introduction of new words would be small or medium changes depending on some factors which I do not care to generate here. There can be more gradations too.) On Jan 1, 2018 08:31, "guskant" wrote: > 2018-01-01 3:50 GMT+09:00 selpahi : > > > > 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 > about > > the structure of the committee) > > > > The discussions in BPFK sometimes stop in midway. Such discussions are > buried under simple Questions and Answers about meaning of words that > do not directly produce any progress of the BPFK documents, and never > restarted. > > In order to obtain results from those discussions, it will be > effective to create rules of the process of discussion and the roles > of participants. I suggest the following rules, but any ideas of > improvement are welcome. > > > Roles. > 1. Proposer. > 1.1. Every member of BPFK has right to be a proposer at any time. > 1.2. The proposer creates a draft of definitions with usage examples > of words and phrases, or a draft of modification to the formal > grammar. > 1.3. The proposer submits to the scheduler the draft with priority of > discussion. > > 2. Scheduler. > 2.1. A scheduler is nominated by the chair. > 2.2. The scheduler receives from proposers a draft of proposal with > priority of discussion. > 2.3. The scheduler controls the order of proposals to be discussed, > and arranges the schedule of discussion considering the priority > suggested by the proposer. > > 3. Chair. > 3.1. A chair is elected by the members of BPFK. > 3.2. The chair calls for discussions and polls, and declares the decision. > > > Process. > 1. A proposer submits to the scheduler a draft of proposal with > priority of discussion. > > 2. The scheduler decides the date of beginning discussion of the > proposal considering the priority suggested by the proposer. > > 3. Every discussion should be concluded in one month. > 3.1. If members cannot reach an agreement in one month, the chair > should call for a poll. All the members including the chair and the > scheduler have right of voting. > 3.2. The poll should be closed in one week. > 3.3. If two or more alternative items obtain the most and equal number > of ballots, no decision is declared. The proposer has right of putting > the draft of proposal, modified or not, back to the scheduler for > rearranging the schedule of discussion. > > 4. In the case other than 3.3 above, the chair should declare the > decision of BPFK in one week after obtaining the result of the > discussion and the poll if any. > > 5. Any users of Lojban who have troubles with the decision of BPFK > have right of joining the BPFK and submitting to the scheduler their > own draft of proposal with priority of discussion. > > mi'e la guskant > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --089e08329c1c7c34940561b8da2a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Decisions should be binary: "yes&q= uot; or "no".
___
<= br>
I think that the chair should have some power in determining the &= #39;size' of a proposal and, thus, the threshold of votes it must recei= ve if it is to be accepted.

Sm= all decisions could be decided by sheer majority.
Medium decisions would be accepted iff, say, at l= east 3/5 of the (voting?) membership approves.

<= /div>
Large decisions should require greater consensus.

(What constitutes each gra= dation is purposefully left vague here, as the chair should make the determ= ination in a case-by-case basis, although they should publish a general out= line of how they will be making such determinations. For example: maybe exp= ansion of definitions or functionalities which are compatible with the curr= ent version will normally be considered to be small decisions; larification= or changing a definition in a way which is not back-compatible, or small t= weaks to the grammar (such as dotside), may be medium decisions; sweeping c= hanges, like xorlo or changing how connectives work, would be a large chang= e; introduction of new words would be small or medium changes depending on = some factors which I do not care to generate here.
<= br>
There can be more gradations too.)



On Jan 1, 2018 08:31, "guskant&qu= ot; <gusni.kantu@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
2018-01-= 01 3:50 GMT+09:00 selpahi <selpahi= @selpahi.de>:
>
> guskant expressed the following (on the main list):
>>
>>=C2=A0 I think the problem is caused by the structure of the commit= tee.
>
>
> (and I would like to hear from her what she thinks could be improved a= bout
> the structure of the committee)
>

The discussions in BPFK sometimes stop in midway. Such discussions are
buried under simple Questions and Answers about meaning of words that
do not directly produce any progress of the BPFK documents, and never
restarted.

In order to obtain results from those discussions, it will be
effective to create rules of the process of discussion and the roles
of participants. I suggest the following rules, but any ideas of
improvement are welcome.


Roles.
1. Proposer.
1.1. Every member of BPFK has right to be a proposer at any time.
1.2. The proposer creates a draft of definitions with usage examples
of words and phrases, or a draft of modification to the formal
grammar.
1.3. The proposer submits to the scheduler the draft with priority of
discussion.

2. Scheduler.
2.1. A scheduler is nominated by the chair.
2.2. The scheduler receives from proposers a draft of proposal with
priority of discussion.
2.3. The scheduler controls the order of proposals to be discussed,
and arranges the schedule of discussion considering the priority
suggested by the proposer.

3. Chair.
3.1. A chair is elected by the members of BPFK.
3.2. The chair calls for discussions and polls, and declares the decision.<= br>

Process.
1. A proposer submits to the scheduler a draft of proposal with
priority of discussion.

2. The scheduler decides the date of beginning discussion of the
proposal considering the priority suggested by the proposer.

3. Every discussion should be concluded in one month.
3.1. If members cannot reach an agreement in one month, the chair
should call for a poll. All the members including the chair and the
scheduler have right of voting.
3.2. The poll should be closed in one week.
3.3. If two or more alternative items obtain the most and equal number
of ballots, no decision is declared. The proposer has right of putting
the draft of proposal, modified or not, back to the scheduler for
rearranging the schedule of discussion.

4. In the case other than 3.3 above, the chair should declare the
decision of BPFK in one week after obtaining the result of the
discussion and the poll if any.

5. Any users of Lojban who have troubles with the decision of BPFK
have right of joining the BPFK and submitting to the scheduler their
own draft of proposal with priority of discussion.

mi'e la guskant

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members
--089e08329c1c7c34940561b8da2a-- --===============5116530586113645536== 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 --===============5116530586113645536==--