Received: from localhost ([::1]:37132 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXORp-0003Xt-EE; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:37:57 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]:40859) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXORJ-0003Wz-0O for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:37:25 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id w75so2934563vkd.7 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:37:24 -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=QuDHuRp12pht+u06Q2Vcb97ziJtwT9Zwof2mwB5ggTM=; b=mgSrWX7s6LU7mB8WoLQbdviKE9alxW524xVRVx8FRmuV9+GUTrjtXzQAzJ+WPbXiUJ ILsfjYwbNI5LikLyTvmRk5uuQjF0GMgYcNGDOHhxydMr9wdRd4nxVVl/oFr/Ae2zkgky ReprBKkFb0rKsl4JvXdD5iwloKHTFc7DcTDRAkEJKgzGWDyjrSnFxvdA6Xa1PtqOxt7/ hF9FzF9nOpf3CUgOOjMUGDLBdc2nfrbsRmfCGECqmKSbpRRe1mUm1zDSetPbzc7cJxCl GwqdB6OIY9ucW2Vd7JIrYBUo3VIDFW30rUWYVM1IAzDzzkpiRCfq5GnVNzGhWzvglI5u CMXQ== 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=QuDHuRp12pht+u06Q2Vcb97ziJtwT9Zwof2mwB5ggTM=; b=cjTm2E5zAeL4r78vcpQeYmtw1Edd2mTMgYDhgOjDhuTkIdSWj+OcVaAssE1ZULkiHw IS0XaHDQ7CIsvsdBT+KKfiVv7Rz6Vbe0Ox0aH/5C90RlKF2OshY+/M8IsC6CKXZA3mbX SosLpi+IToX4Z+JTSenVrk9SMeiqA6YXIVQQdzs54MNOLwtfCKSG6MSysequ8auShz9X 060n/3ONRFzCHWXIOxfMlhjiBXlEFb3DSckjjuC9UXfrC8dE6ParYWKWMX+H47Y+6qrj uOHZxjJjum9KuRwi/9AT8G6XB1dcZZsloEJHGnlGmUSGZHSPkk87/hHfVChlKMUkmcf5 Pmzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcnSTqu+kFX9ei+bpFIyDCQGc/Yk3oY0SSYJlA8svNdlGZJJM8P XfA4U0LCWXF6t6AvWObH3ZEFNx52F02vAwST0SQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouu6okFN9+h2u/jmpkyUjgRwKusJiw20MsDVTYSdV9TNfh9acHf0Dls5zYPj4WVTTXhap//r56lSPEEoXKw+KU= X-Received: by 10.176.20.239 with SMTP id f44mr2498845uae.119.1515145038353; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:37:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:37:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7E5AA1ED-DBBB-4E01-ADF6-CE16E49FA6E0@gmail.com> From: Creative Care Services Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 04:37:17 -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="===============8193950106935619856==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8193950106935619856== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114530f8cb5aa005620431c8" --001a114530f8cb5aa005620431c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Dec 28, 2017 12:28, "Curtis Franks" wrote: 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 have not officially recognized a motion to this effect, and I specifically said possible dissolution should be an independent topic. 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. > If a movement to dissolve LLG is proposed as a separate entity I will call for discussion and a vote so no one feels we have not addressed the issue thoroughly. With, however, several board members already voicing their opposition I do not expect the issue to go much further as the board has to unanimously aprons doing so after a 2/3rds majority vote here. 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 I agree and am attempting to be as clear as possible while doing so, lojbab. .karis. --001a114530f8cb5aa005620431c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2017 12:28, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
For the record, I want to be c= ounted as a vote against any proposed dissolution of the LLG until further = notice.

On Dec 2= 8, 2017 07:03, "Riley Lynch" <shunpiker@gmail.com> wrote:
My travels are (sadly?) complete. T= he 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 have not officially recognized a motion to this effec= t, and I specifically said possible dissolution should be an independent to= pic.=C2=A0

I will only add that as a member o= f 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 adv= ancement of our shared goals than to disband and thereby formally abandon o= ur mission.

If a movement to dissolve L= LG is proposed as a separate entity I will call for discussion and a vote s= o no one feels we have not addressed the issue thoroughly. With, however, s= everal board members already voicing their opposition I do not expect the i= ssue to go much further as the board has to unanimously aprons doing so aft= er a 2/3rds majority vote here.=C2=A0

mi'= e la mukti
mu'o
<= div dir=3D"auto">

<= div class=3D"m_-2323336963326468058m_-4855637362805347318elided-text">
>> 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

I agree and am attempting to be= as clear as possible while doing so, lojbab.=C2=A0
=
.karis.=C2=A0
--001a114530f8cb5aa005620431c8-- --===============8193950106935619856== 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 --===============8193950106935619856==--