Received: from [::1] (port=55366 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWBc3-0002MI-GT; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 17:43:31 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:42817) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWBbV-0002K8-Rt for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 17:42:59 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q22so21951105uaa.9 for ; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 17:42:57 -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=X6u7cWwjn4dJ07V8ip/aAM0ZYVNTl1FoCQE8QxhM+ek=; b=L6UXXnolzkEyMw+a6NkYs5pUyQ3QWqvzKSonsbLgsNComwOugdLv9xlKZ7plzSd84Q 1OVsX+TOZXZwX5ww0uqC0JaoKsNF51SWvP6w3jpaCgz4fojECa3M0U8x1djtVnbG9qfb G4kwiwNAVXfeXjLYZw1KZd3xBWO+EBw2fYhzchrg0mqVOGbv0tcj5rmv0iNabYk0LG9e 1ZZlKimTK5rwnAUpHWmAZ+TVEsddA+DBNSM5lcgjuUXd4oyuz1WmbgoqY2YZQyBIJzsL I/Q0wTy0phelf4gO0FKIS/XweJFXq/YsB02rzQ6+/VcQhubtqXaBJ0DZS4hmS7jWsIfy jOcw== 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=X6u7cWwjn4dJ07V8ip/aAM0ZYVNTl1FoCQE8QxhM+ek=; b=rKw4+ijRxai0jewEbFCXVbTX1VhH+go/0qDlhZNH5UJrmjvIEmERBMIxOUiVvs5cjE 5X+OO19TivowcNCwP54aiN+yClvcBsZCFqjrRAyeAVll71aSKJD8iGrCY9YBYfxEFKV0 /whUvDQ3Sy3fhUBAb9BuvwIp3yffrd+KM3rRYOMQb4vXogjR2qThP0nBfQPv0cSySfry /+GE5R89NgrCdV8ty79WJuIjsVkQAgePpvZceTG7ep5VVwhhra+osCrTY1Y0GGPlAZXd icTCFrxOd/JoNYeGjTEm02tZn9A7Cm7g2dmh3f0eG9FUZYAm91ACDWBhO3mcYi4jAYRG GNXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL7jETT9b4NWXfiIc9Pr86EZ+5EFg4u5HTIIt4UootSCf26Z1e3 Klvn0FxWj1WnGwKA5lXTfilv2K9lS5yX+gkvdZzfZw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovhFHXNyR62MekBHiTqvqxZo7TbN1IF4RNQlt/db7lgUdZj+tBp6iKXQMUGDWgMwJpmPqGH5bGj6QEG7oYakLQ= X-Received: by 10.159.48.11 with SMTP id h11mr14674683uab.119.1514857370786; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 17:42:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 17:42:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 17:42:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Creative Care Services Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 20:42:50 -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: Elephant 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="===============2720683363783204637==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2720683363783204637== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045dcb8278a0930561c1374d" --f403045dcb8278a0930561c1374d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can see many uses of the Elephant system beyond BPFK decisions, one of which is how to run these meetings in the future. That is why I ask that further discussion on this topic transfer to this new thread. .karis. 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 > --f403045dcb8278a0930561c1374d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I can see many uses of the Elephant system beyond BPFK de= cisions, one of which is how to run these meetings in the future. That is w= hy I ask that further discussion on this topic transfer to this new thread.= =C2=A0

.kari= s.=C2=A0

On Dec 31, 2017 13:51, "selpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
The BPFK was empowered t= o determine its own decision-making process by the BPFK reauthorization cha= rter [1]. In 2015, when that motion passed, the BPFK was coming out of a lo= ng "bureaucratic blockade" and the new BPFK membership was happy = to work under less bureaucracy. This worked quite well for the first year o= r 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 = 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
--f403045dcb8278a0930561c1374d-- --===============2720683363783204637== 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 --===============2720683363783204637==--