Received: from localhost ([::1]:47874 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYiPq-0004Ca-5P; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:09:22 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]:41418) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYiPJ-0004Bf-NH for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:08:51 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id v70so8478722vkd.8 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:08:49 -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=OEzLlKkLD1x15MITR+ElcuDdoQpWwPm8/4mEE8EnCCc=; b=kt2Ec5cm/z3IvwcKVNt1y964dQcezpbmqAhDyRnbSpfCLTwEhALRpRSMno6lOaAQ26 MAujy8FAcnimc0c+xJ4/GrPoIdfL+PbjGh/lvgMWIQnyxFjhT+CypJd6zG4F7ydtpzaq n81KRyMeiwAq7lBcdjGPK7o60hC0Eru4QuA1MhLROHNXB/2EaHfjS8lTLMH4TsW2NXHJ h7VLM0LUN6m/Ion8xez8yUWjqq+NZ8tlfuFm29vuXJINoaLgWOx2DuqnfC0WgPCIDSzP AqKgOxSYbeQG3lX589BILwb+wDgNDWWV/qUFh3kDtqiYPz+ARbHKZ49bJYoa1cfwr3Cd A6BQ== 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=OEzLlKkLD1x15MITR+ElcuDdoQpWwPm8/4mEE8EnCCc=; b=VitTYMNxAQTFERCXIQsywK47geW1oiOC/sP7nSAyOqWh5vHBu/tIX5ubWSB8yDEVlM c5KwxYYLwkROk7r4Y9BVsp7Aks4065C0Afv8mX3bqgxFo/M2Xyof+L/GAeEl0z46d70p /sgjg2uqRHtC9lP/qwwfCe0IkhQVVlqHfiESpNLU4Ph0EN6Ea2kE93qn4o9OgqKZKiu+ EV4PmtDGcQDnx2kLMujrUeshMpBdWcThiUeg32Qro9mbWLXe/l4hKppxRn3fWd2vJsIQ Jg3lZgm+v1QT5ATV3SdQP1YavBdNSqtAdjM0CrMCZcs9iJjqWNEB28FOg4/Rojvuyr2a HwFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfto2fnYffhBrPzEmPkYVvM3llPGZ1rraOWN4WUEaXGWcblCXx9 7tA8QAmSti/lB55i9OiNjZJ5ovt2eeQ3LKjNcog= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou0uS60YGYT7vg9lhdABCrdy9UkprriP9E2Czlmbzh60ueB3sqmJ4v5VdOT5XY6ZZsOtfsJ/9lo418VEqVhohI= X-Received: by 10.31.223.129 with SMTP id w123mr11759806vkg.13.1515460122471; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:08:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:08:41 -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: Creative Care Services Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:08:41 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.8 X-Spam_score_int: -47 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="===============4860423178725192764==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4860423178725192764== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07dc9045711e05624d8efa" --94eb2c07dc9045711e05624d8efa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: 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 This makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of whether Robin's edition changes are deterioration or not. .karis. 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 > > _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --94eb2c07dc9045711e05624d8efa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:=
It seems= there are several long time participants who seek backward-compatible stab= le Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and based on CLL.
But those mem= bers do not participate in BPFK activities, and since BPFK has no rules suc= h participation would be fruitless anyway.

Karis. I sugg= est that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone propose an official pol= icy 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 b= ack to the original Cowan's CLL
3. fix obvious mistypes (most= ly in English text) of CLL
4. confirm that this corrected CLL is = the basement
This makes sense, though it will probably involve= discussion of whether Robin's edition changes are deterioration or not= .=C2=A0

.karis.

2018-0= 1-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com&= gt;:
I want to respond 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 observer a few years ago.


> I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic work= s. Actually, there 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 i= dentical free documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPF= K documents, I have more trouble with them because they are unstable conten= ts and placed on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who ha= ve account to edit the pages.

> Throughout all thes= e years the community has known about Lojban's problems and shortcoming= s, yet the same community chose time and again to let some crazy rules abou= t a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Respecting those peop= le's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not much further than we = were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same people didn't ev= en stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It was all a w= aste of time.

Actually, no. There are at lea= st three people who have been involved with this language for decades parti= cipating 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 fra= me. LLG meetings (Members ' and Board) included discussions of the prob= lems with the language and efforts to fix them.=C2=A0

Certainly lojban has problems, and one of the= m is limited number of people learning lojban to any level of usability, mu= ch less any fluency. The baseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the b= asic 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 a= cross lojbanistan.=C2=A0


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 L= anguage Group, Inc. is established to promote the scientific study of the r= elationships between language, thought and human culture; to investigate th= e nature of language and to determine the requirements for an artificially-= engineered natural language; to implement and experiment with such a langua= ge...

Both positions are valid and reasonable and = useful for accomplishing the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being a st= able language is useful for learning and using and experimenting with the l= anguage - 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 option= s are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both.

I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language necessaril= y want to prevent significant change all together, but want change by evolu= tion rather than pronouncement or because one or a few people think their n= ew way is the way everyone should now speak.=C2=A0


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 like they're wasting their time.
This is c= ausing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their work using the l= anguage will be invalidated by changes to the language in the future.
=
This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their pr= eferred direction.
True.=C2=A0
<= br>
I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies t= his conflict.
This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), a= nnoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make beginner= s confused and discouraged.
This conflict also cultivate pers= onal conflicts within the community.
Since Lojban is the major (o= nly?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten the LLG too.
=


I think the path forward is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goa= ls of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members have the same understanding?<= /div>
- 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 fore= ver 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 signific= ant ways. Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing sig= nificant 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 everyone who remains.

<= /div>
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 logica= l language?
- Can the LLG explore/document options and design dec= isions in logical language?


=

=
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM= selpahi <selpah= i@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 26.1= 2.2017 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

---
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@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


--94eb2c07dc9045711e05624d8efa-- --===============4860423178725192764== 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 --===============4860423178725192764==--