Received: from [::1] (port=48852 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZFok-0002bH-I9; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:49:18 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:42215) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZFoD-0002Zm-9w for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:48:47 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q22so11430596uaa.9 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:48:45 -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=H/aJHCHKpXmTP9zmP92lJ9Gmyfa/eqVlUF46hl/GeAI=; b=N7SX5wmMMA7dQhh6k/41nKefyaGZx/tTfvcejYgceDAN+gV5NsTJSo10tlLDUEhGr7 4QXK/UR3i7hIbBFYKgw4c9JRkCOq00NxFTY6L+Kf1/tNyWjeWZRd/eMwjFGjdW3Mwr5i n6NMxI9+Ay6V2WV1W/kdYH3JaYqmQelqf2/8VVr+JBsZMesBmUEmWi8qIqcAE1spKpg1 QbFQ3tL2ANCUNcmsI4KkyugUFXNY/SNeyncOn4Lbeta/76NA6X7B41SQa8Xe3geY/NCL phCbPjM6NGmfTZnEOI7HvyGpIP2nZmns8IUmfECSlOhRP4vgffaHC8GrpASMJ5vch4eD 9g+Q== 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=H/aJHCHKpXmTP9zmP92lJ9Gmyfa/eqVlUF46hl/GeAI=; b=cRFdx2ULirwgzUgq8w5oK6a8NCu8G9Frp+ZxAiHmTpZc6QdVa3bX6HrWbhwfkm6iFG Hd7kU57VWZI+RIGsml9C25L2UmG/ZucyTarW+UEUBDxcp+H2jXALQrAaqeQE+K8Exx6U SirGCjTq0OBFd8/lWHqFgPDPicEk/BVMxp26ktsuJNU+dqLORXKiBM0uqGbyJQ6Dg60a Cfd67XVTQDMd8giVfcqAEzR9IZaBUbPKf4GvQQfT1CaiTukd2o6EyFIyftzQkGqVmaQE JlS2zCqxTiUxO/0ZfWl1qUxuVRp6RY4fHowZQz3R7MDOeqyH548um9MenGw7l5KdeAWM JfCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdTljQvcvMiFwgTfaeiU6vlmTABAeSYQTZd+EXEMyo9HcLnSJA3 HxD0XeqsE0dbvTBYukEJSHvVBrKCidIOGQEe3TE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotYYyRDOMX1zXHyhJ9QsUyTagMA+R6ajq/kNu8SEdyY2zX1h0vWx7ACdLaXCo4AykK6zTHRa+AXSpAe0ojfgbo= X-Received: by 10.176.96.4 with SMTP id j4mr4527478ual.180.1515588518419; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:48:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:48:37 -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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 07:48:37 -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] 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="===============7380263553828483000==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7380263553828483000== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082f200044287805626b7327" --089e082f200044287805626b7327 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, now that we have some basics of the difference explained, instead of going further into details of the two versions of CLL can we discuss the specific proposals, please. How we deal with the issues between the versions may or may not be so important after we vote. We can do into them more later as needed. .karis. On Jan 10, 2018 07:39, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2018-01-10 15:07 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services = : > >> Thanks for the links. I knew the newer version was fairly easy to find >> online, though we all now have the links right in front of us. >> > > Most new internal contradictions that I can see come from adding a > dictionary at the end of Robin's CLL. They were added automatically by > importing from jbovlaste.lojban.org and require manual comparison of > definitions to explanations in the older part of CLL. The older part itse= lf > in certain places was patched such that new contradictions were introduce= d > (most likely in an attempt to fix other contradictions) but those are few > in number. > > > >> .karis. >> >> On Jan 10, 2018 00:54, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services >>> : >>> >>>> Is Cowen's edition available online? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Probably here https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince/orig >>> but better to scan it to be absolutely sure. >>> >>> >>> >>>> For me the issue will be accessing the newer version >>>> >>> >>> >>> it's sold in paper form. It's available online. >>> >>> https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Complete_Lojban_Language >>> >>> >>>> since the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the >>>> issue is the opposite. >>>> >>>> In any case we are faced first with questions of how we want the LLG t= o >>>> function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the path includes a mor= e >>>> gradients lojban then we can discuss what standard we will use as a ba= se. >>>> >>>> .karis. >>>> >>>> On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services < >>>>> comcaresvcs@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it first. >>>>> Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically >>>>> without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduc= e lots >>>>> of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL a= nd >>>>> "Robin's" ones. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> .karis. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services < >>>>>> comcaresvcs@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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= , >>>>>>> there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already publ= ished in >>>>>>> the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the identic= al free >>>>>>> documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK docu= ments, 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 acc= ount 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 ag= ain 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 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involve= d >>>>>>> with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We ha= ven'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 e= fforts >>>>>>> to fix them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of >>>>>>> people learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any flu= ency. >>>>>>> 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 lea= rning. >>>>>>> Whether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they d= id, a >>>>>>> shorter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanist= an. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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, make 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 be= tween >>>>>>> language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of l= anguage >>>>>>> and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered na= tural >>>>>>> language; to implement and experiment with such a language... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishin= g >>>>>>> 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 both. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language >>>>>>> necessarily want to prevent significant change all together, but wa= nt >>>>>>> change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a f= ew >>>>>>> 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 fe= el like >>>>>>> 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 langu= age 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 communit= y. >>>>>>> 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 signi= ficant >>>>>>> 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 logica= l >>>>>>> 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 ho= w >>>>>>>> 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 beside= s >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --089e082f200044287805626b7327 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok, now that we have some basics of the difference explai= ned,=C2=A0 instead of going further into details of the two versions of CLL= can we discuss the specific proposals, please. How we deal with the issues= between the versions may or may not be so important after we vote. We can = do into them more later as needed.

.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 10, 2018 07:39, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> w= rote:


2018-01-10= 15:07 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>= :
Thanks for the= links. I knew the newer version was fairly easy to find online, though we = all now have the links right in front of us.

Most new internal contradictions that I can see come from adding a = dictionary at the end of Robin's CLL. They were added automatically by = importing from jb= ovlaste.lojban.org and require manual comparison of definitions to expl= anations in the older part of CLL. The older part itself in certain places = was patched such that new contradictions were introduced (most likely in an= attempt to fix other contradictions) but those are few in number.



.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 10, = 2018 00:54, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

=

2018-01-10 3:05 G= MT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:=
Is = Cowen's edition available online?


Probably here=C2=A0https://github.com/lojban= /cll/tree/docbook-prince/orig but better to scan it to be absolutely su= re.

=C2=A0
For me the issue will be accessing the n= ewer version


it's = sold in paper form. It's available online.

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Complete_Lojban_Language<= /div>
=C2=A0
since the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I = expect the issue is the opposite.

In any case we are faced first with questions of how we want the LLG to= function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the path includes a more gr= adients lojban then we can discuss what standard we will use as a base.

.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.c= om> wrote:


2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna= " <= gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems there are several long time par= ticipants who seek backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being doc= umented and based on CLL.
But those members do not participate in BPFK = activities, and since BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitle= ss anyway.

Karis. I suggest that during this or next mee= ting we/you/Someone propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lo= jban.

E.g.
1. confirm that CLL is the ba= sement
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 Ro= bin's edition changes are deterioration or not.=C2=A0

Well, we can't just approve CLL without read= ing it first.
Robin's edition added lots of new information t= o CLL mechanically without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion = did) introduce lots of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan'= ;s) parts of CLL and "Robin's" ones.



.karis.

2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Cr= eative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
I want to respond= to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some of the material to whi= ch these comments were made.=C2=A0

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


&g= t; I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. 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 identical free docu= ments were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents, I hav= e more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and placed on a= website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account to edit= the pages.

> Throughout all these years the community has known abo= ut Lojban's problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose tim= e and again to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any c= hance of progress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformi= ty, we are now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle p= rogress, 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 invol= ved with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We haven&= #39;t abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original pu= blication 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

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


Some people want Lojban to be= stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvements to explanat= ions).
Some people want Lojban to be further developed = (substantial changes, make 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 c= ulture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requirem= ents for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and expe= riment 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.
<= div>Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial impro= vements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose.
= But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both.=

I don't see that those of us seeking a more s= table 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.=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 fr= ustration: people wanting development, trying to implement improvements, ar= e blocked in the name of stability and feel like 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 lang= uage in the future.
This is causing conflict: people are trying t= o pull Lojban in their preferred direction.
<= /div>

True.=C2=A0
=

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
I think the And Rosta quote sel= pahi gave also identifies this conflict.
This conflict makes = everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This = conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged.
This c= onflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community.
S= ince Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten = the LLG too.



I t= hink the path forward is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, a= nd reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members ha= ve the same understanding?
- Do all LLG members agree with them?<= /div>

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

3) Deci= de if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or c= ontinuously developed.

Forever stable isn't the goal I= 9;ve heard from anyone and I think you're describing the conflict in op= posing rather than significant ways. Continuously developed in a gradual wa= y over time vs changing significant portions of it all at once is how I wou= ld describe the conflict.=C2=A0

- This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone w= ho remains.

4) Maybe consider what other work the = LLG would like to do.
- Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ong= oing development?
- Can the LLG learn from other logical lan= guages?
- Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particu= lar logical language?
- Can the LLG do any work that would benefi= t all current/future logical language?
- Can the LLG explore/docu= ment 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

---
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@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@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

--089e082f200044287805626b7327-- --===============7380263553828483000== 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 --===============7380263553828483000==--