Received: from localhost ([::1]:58704 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebi7C-0005Ag-Lv; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:26:30 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182]:40364) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebi6g-00059L-Gj for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:25:59 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f182.google.com with SMTP id j128so4745581ywg.7 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:25:58 -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=kHCYWSXigzm5B9GtIN/Tq7je1vi8r9Zob8aIfmsY6WE=; b=VEKvw5hAdx9/p4iYBsFIiKSB0hd363OduImVTnEu/Cj9qAS6DX4kvqpqiSFCv8/PkF R8rGf3AWmbE5/FS7cMGkvsXe5SOclJC3AlsjZ1viecUSMwRo+tqRVs+TXLFhkQxwsmUF 8DQXk8UdR5rTcA7qW1lDC1zrUQXqnin8W72W6hbdFz3lmQcp1r/fiZ3f66Q40lfnAJIw Ota2aN5vthXyhM2xO4gp5vorbF1GDSrzfOmXQLDbtxQwIcYP742OMSyk9HkkbsdTd4Eo 6KDM76vd8turgSiqWwrHYKFjF6aDfQD1GKAIh4yp8YC7T+uKApJcclpfsW010xkOSpmo l02g== 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=kHCYWSXigzm5B9GtIN/Tq7je1vi8r9Zob8aIfmsY6WE=; b=ovbNTpn1VXw0p9C5AZhizzMZPTXrhCdN97TGPs7dRFuX4ZmeLBnZqpEVddAFXs/hbY KGNrtF514VgH2/XwwgLt3SytoGNF2wDaRR/O9+7u/EhEVO9bpCN3N0H3aACkDtgh34l0 to52AV7CFjb/HfCMURldmlpi3B0hzoPcfiuy88zEtBEu2js/rE0HFKETh+eTFqZfkXLG H1SkEpPom2otsT0LsNogZp+uOM/COYSobQpUgnS6LQ2UP0opO6Esb50UflcM4F4lRIaF XVK1xi0OTdCQFWfNAa9CIHlsvGRCkXdW8GUm63b60m2H49C8nQkcpf8Kz0AhDW8mwp3R k5OQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytct8Bdb5cz9vtbrO19DKIhIR0k6ZnnfByZjOaRYU2onbm7u3IPh Otde58uuFfA1lhu6nBnzEERDvG0qqqnpw/2offs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov8kHlI3THZm1lMO0fIgip35gvRYAY2b8CJF7puWo6lPImdBfbSJwvIPBaevSs4vY3Gs6kPKNJiOFORxvgw6Ys= X-Received: by 10.129.216.13 with SMTP id d13mr511763ywj.167.1516173951610; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:25:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:25:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 02:25:51 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Summary of Votes 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="===============2958931597294084674==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2958931597294084674== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0821f204cdb4fb0562f3c1bc" --089e0821f204cdb4fb0562f3c1bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I can summarize them for now because I was intending to go to sleep soon and it would take a decent amount of work to collect them. If someone else wants to do it, then I would not be upset ( :P ). Motion #1: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support loglangs. It exactly defines "loglang" for the purposes of this motion and the subsequent two separate motions. Motion #1 amended-version: Same as Motion #1 proper, except the definition (really, a description) of "loglang" is broader and left vague; the precious criterion is sufficient here but would not necessarily be necessary. This description would propagate to the next two separate motions as well. Motion #2: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support Lojban, regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to any given definition (particularly that of either version of Motion #1). Presumably, we would have to find some consensus on which Lojban is meant. Motion #3: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support the development of some loglang which is derived from Lojban, where "loglang" would align with the adopted version of Motion #1. Motion #4: Adopt a policy in which the LLG will search for so-called 'official-seeming' accounts and request that the disclaim their lack of affiliation with the LLG and of support/grant of officialness therefrom. Exactly who would oversee this effort was not addressed. Motion #5: Adopt a policy in which unofficial content on *.lojban.org will be disclaimed as such. Exactly who would oversee this effort was not addressed. Motion #6: Sets up a separate body in order to implement Motion #4 or Motion #5 (rather than leaving those policies toothless or leaving them to the LLG to directly oversee). The wording was a bit problematic in regard to which of those two motions would be covered by the body, but the intention was to only implement those policies which are adopted, if any. Motion #6 Amended 1ce: Same thing as Motion #6 proper in spirit, but with the aforementioned wording problem fixed, improved presentation/organization, and some protections put in place in order address fears and concerns which had been raised. The last motion which I mentioned is self-explanatory in my original description. On Jan 17, 2018 00:34, "Thomas Porter" wrote: >I'm totally lost. Can you post links to each of your motions? I, too, would like a link to all the current motions. Most of them got tossed into my spam folder and they seem to be in a very disorganized fashion. _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --089e0821f204cdb4fb0562f3c1bc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I can summarize them for now because I was intending to g= o to sleep soon and it would take a decent amount of work to collect them. = If someone else wants to do it, then I would not be upset ( :P ).

Motion #1: Adopt the policy that the = LLG shall advocate for and support loglangs. It exactly defines "logla= ng" for the purposes of this motion and the subsequent two separate mo= tions.

Motion #1 amended= -version: Same as Motion #1 proper, except the definition (really, a descri= ption) of "loglang" is broader and left vague; the precious crite= rion is sufficient here but would not necessarily be necessary. This descri= ption would propagate to the next two separate motions as well.

Motion #2:=C2=A0Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and su= pport Lojban, regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to an= y given definition (particularly that of either version of Motion #1). Pres= umably, we would have to find some consensus on which Lojban is meant.

Motion #3:= =C2=A0Adopt the policy that t= he LLG shall advocate for and support the development of some loglang which= is derived from Lojban, where "loglang" would align with the ado= pted version of Motion #1.

Motion #4: Adopt a policy in which the LLG will search for so-called= 'official-seeming' accounts and request that the disclaim their la= ck of affiliation=C2=A0with the LLG and of support/grant of officialness th= erefrom. Exactly who would oversee this effort was not addressed.

Motion #5: Adopt a policy in which unoffic= ial content on *.lojban.org will be discl= aimed as such. Exactly who would oversee this effort was not addressed.

Motion #6: Sets up a separate body i= n order to implement Motion #4 or Motion #5 (rather than leaving those poli= cies toothless or leaving them to the LLG to directly oversee). The wording= was a bit problematic in regard to which of those two motions would be cov= ered by the body, but the intention was to only implement those policies wh= ich are adopted, if any.

Motion #= 6 Amended 1ce: Same thing as Motion #6 proper in spirit, but with the afore= mentioned=C2=A0wording problem fixed, improved=C2=A0presentation/organizati= on, and some protections put in place in order address fears and concerns w= hich had been raised.

The last mo= tion which I mentioned is self-explanatory in my original description.


On Jan 17, 2018 00:34, "Thomas Porter" <osiris_hades_deat= hland@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm totally lost. Can you= post links to each of your motions?


I, too, would like a link to all the current motions. Most of them got= tossed into my spam folder and they seem to be in a very disorganized fash= ion.

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


--089e0821f204cdb4fb0562f3c1bc-- --===============2958931597294084674== 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 --===============2958931597294084674==--