Received: from localhost ([::1]:60236 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYSKD-0001jE-PI; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 23:58:29 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:33965) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYSJg-0001iD-29 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 23:57:57 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id y82so14636697wmg.1 for ; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 23:57:55 -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=DIh3PFKXNtNZBFzurJS8CTntLUse/6c4BvmbMfZ1DfE=; b=kTWcWgzcTbwdnWOm7rAYq6PjiKQdGuTeb/xiXxPb+X5gjQmRoUNzbjKx9gHniHHGqJ zv7sWTuWxg5Encx7rme94fNvn4T4p5H76wcXI6KEXX2F3G5MInlZSLnse2DlBpyHTGN8 OiucQbjXx1D8XyUvBNx8yjR6PzsTqg8PAs+l8AGgC9zoYr1oKtwEL4JPJAVB7sbBks/p RZZ5SRaGPGn7/n8rA4SoUNLahWUA1QN7rmZA00FDwHqYYTVqt8lhDIJsWhBoQNDoii12 E7CP+FbZTJF1OXxrhcPXnDmzd3ker8UfZqOKdelHzloRUO9ZziYxn71C4IfJ4y30KXZc dDZQ== 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=DIh3PFKXNtNZBFzurJS8CTntLUse/6c4BvmbMfZ1DfE=; b=k5zZhH/3l17UOQkp03vsRZP1VotMPBKaYriY/67qZjDZYZxTAaqLC9ui1jLjzvsYKl YrfgzusQc/V4mop+y2STzde9UsnizNRtH/7a3tyXZQXrmsSQoqLe5hFk/Oj8C+rROEVf mEnigZujF948NZWOqQ/Na6y1M3cMl6y3YGE5CL6CHHbt8dbbhYjBiuhR0zH9HeoBGBfW 3u4TLc8ctFnRovEhnRyeLXyJKjK5teuqiTj+XNXrf36BTV64VQj9bT+Kh78New9aMY0F j998ziMMVxuaXx/urnzBJz2fpswPSJAbwLMKbq6uFO9XHV8dME3Gk4TKFNhFmpHZsmvw Bcug== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIYyMRg82Vu5TqUg3TTZLztC4IrRI4C0ojphDcOolkEBcwmne8n PRgq+5EsSso+s+1rK+KQmEAeY1lLY/JOtHnJBw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotoz8NHPETSGvCs7nuGo4PlL7zQmUrjS2xnzBdmDpNef/ixOiWxTI9mLjyrJDL4vYsCad07K801Xa7avzlbJv0= X-Received: by 10.80.177.22 with SMTP id k22mr15230794edd.307.1515398269183; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 23:57:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 23:57:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> <2f305760-8dd9-79f4-2951-f7bf7d357616@selpahi.de> <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:57:08 +0300 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] 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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7297504232029060630==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7297504232029060630== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c4454872d8205623f27eb" --f403045c4454872d8205623f27eb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems there are several long time participants who seek backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and based on CLL. But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway. Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban. E.g. 1. confirm that CLL is the basement 2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in Robin's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL 3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL 4. confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement 2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some of > the material to which these comments were made. > > On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" wrote: > > Hello, > I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a few > years ago. > > > > I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, ther= e > is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already published in the > forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the identical free > documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents,= I > have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and placed > on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account t= o > edit the pages. > > > Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's > problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again to > let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. > Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not mu= ch > further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same > people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It was > all a waste of time. > > > Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involved with > this language for decades participating in this meeting. We haven't > abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original > publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' and > Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and efforts > to fix them. > > Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of peopl= e > learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency. The > baseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "Will > lojban be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learning. > Whether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did, a > shorter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan. > > > Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor > clarifications and improvements to explanations). > Some people want Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes, mak= e > the language more logical, fix issues, etc). > > > > > Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is > established to promote the scientific study of the relationships between > language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of languag= e > and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natural > language; to implement and experiment with such a language... > > Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the > LLG's purpose. > Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and > experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose. > Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial > improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose. > But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take bot= h. > > > I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language necessarily > want to prevent significant change all together, but want change by > evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a few people think > their new way is the way everyone should now speak. > > > My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and hope > over which option Lojban has/is/will take. > This is causing frustration: people wanting development, trying to > implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel lik= e > they're wasting their time. > This is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their work > using the language will be invalidated by changes to the language in the > future. > This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their > preferred direction. > > > True. > > I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict. > This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and > unmotivated. This conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged. > This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community. > Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems > threaten the LLG too. > > > > I think the path forward is: > > 1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG. > - Do all LLG members have the same understanding? > - Do all LLG members agree with them? > > 2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits > into the LLG goals. > > 3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development > elsewhere) or continuously developed. > > > Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're > describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant ways. > Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing significant > portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict. > > - This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone who > remains. > > 4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do. > - Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development? > - Can the LLG learn from other logical languages? > - Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical > language? > - Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future logical > language? > - Can the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in logical > language? > > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi wrote: > >> On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote: >> > IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how much >> > Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years: >> > >> > https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png >> > >> > 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it. >> >> Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they >> are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken >> (written) Lojban. >> > > These are still not all the written or spoken instances, and besides > fluctuations should be expected and have happened before. > > --- >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --f403045c4454872d8205623f27eb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It seems there are several long time participants who seek= backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and based = on CLL.
But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and si= nce BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway.

Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someon= e propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban.
E.g.
1. confirm that CLL is the basement
=
2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in Rob= in's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL
3. f= ix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL
4. confirm th= at this corrected CLL is the basement



2018-01-0= 7 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>= :
I want to resp= ond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some of the material to = which these comments were made.=C2=A0

On Jan 4, 2018 00:39,= "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net> wrote:
Hello= ,
I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an obse= rver a few years ago.


> I need r= eliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, there is not a b= ig problem about the CLL because it is already published in the forms of pr= inted and digital book. I wish only that the identical free documents were = managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents, I have more trou= ble with them because they are unstable contents and placed on a website ma= naged by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account to edit the pages.=

= > Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's = problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again to l= et some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progres= s. Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now n= ot much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those s= ame people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved"= ; Lojban. It was all a waste of time.

Actual= ly, no. There are at least three people who have been involved with this la= nguage for decades participating in this meeting. We haven't abandoned = the language and we are all involved before the original publication of CLL= , to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' and Board) included= discussions of the problems with the language and efforts to fix them.=C2= =A0

Certainly lojban has= problems, and one of them is limited number of people learning lojban to a= ny level of usability, much less any fluency. The baseline was one aspect o= f efforts to answer the basic question, "Will lojban be substantially = the same long enough for it to be worth learning. Whether efforts to stick = to it should have lasted as long as they did, a shorter time, or a longer o= ne has little agreement across lojbanistan.=C2=A0


Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor c= larifications and improvements to explanations).
Some p= eople want Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes, make the la= nguage more logical, fix issues, etc).


<= div>
> Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language = Group, Inc. is established to promote the scientific study of the relations= hips between language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature= of language and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineer= ed natural language; to implement and experiment with such a language...

Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful f= or accomplishing the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being a stable lan= guage is useful for learning and using and experimenting with the language = - furthering the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being further develope= d is useful for building substantial improvements to the language - also fu= rthering the LLG's purpose.
But it seems these options are mu= tually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both.

I don&#= 39;t see that those of us seeking a more stable language necessarily want t= o prevent significant change all together, but want change by evolution rat= her than pronouncement or because one or a few people think their new way i= s the way everyone should now speak.=C2=A0


My impression is there is disagreement an= d confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take.
This is causing frustration: people wanting development, tryin= g to implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel = like they're wasting their time.
This is causing doubt: peopl= e wanting stability are unsure if their work using the language will be inv= alidated by changes to the language in the future.
This is causin= g conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their preferred direction.<= /div>

True.=C2=A0

I think the A= nd Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict.
Th= is conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmoti= vated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the comm= unity.
Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these = problems threaten the LLG too.


=
I think the path forward is:

1) Ree= xamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do = all LLG members have the same understanding?
- Do all LLG members= agree with them?

2) Reevaluate how closely the LL= G is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits into the LLG goals.

=
3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do developme= nt elsewhere) or continuously developed.

Forever stable isn&#= 39;t the goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're describing = the conflict in opposing rather than significant ways. Continuously develop= ed in a gradual way over time vs changing significant portions of it all at= once is how I would describe the conflict.=C2=A0

- This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers every= one who remains.

4) Maybe consider what other work= the LLG would like to do.
- Should the LLG make a fork Lojban fo= r ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn from other logica= l languages?
- Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a pa= rticular logical language?
- Can the LLG do any work that would b= enefit all current/future logical language?
- Can the LLG explore= /document options and design decisions in logical language?



On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 = at 2:32 AM selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote:
> IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how much=
> Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years:
>
> https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png
>
> 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it.

Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they
are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken
(written) Lojban.

These are still not all the written or spoken i= nstances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened bef= ore.=C2=A0

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
---
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

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




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


--f403045c4454872d8205623f27eb-- --===============7297504232029060630== 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 --===============7297504232029060630==--