Received: from localhost ([::1]:58828 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebiAS-0005KK-KG; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:29:52 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:40482) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebi9w-0005II-8y for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:29:21 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id v123so13501759wmd.5 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:29:19 -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=d5BTrvEo65TZLmessJMHbJ80AxddHro/069rnbbktWQ=; b=czquCm7WQEMKYh0C9QAkTJbJY5r9Sw2onftA8PUIk3YYh9RaP6agpxzQWuHBaQMOFH CNLiG5Oa31xhjXzyXOUvCODKLCkDNpYiTzIBWuMcYTqOVdsvxR0vL0+yIFGpYQkKUCC/ GhQ0gKBXjItLNVzjmCRyXCKwDn8aKgqodGcJe5TCXtUsuhmyjgQvi2eI7vhbAfio7Rbf DhzA9oLnsex602cNJOw52CVrdFDzjANz4wIQmQBR/01e1ewiWscgvrqOlv4GDT5PK5NW pARGn3dV0/+EbCDoS7S4FjflR6vQAbcLiDP1lQ31hpLnjpJ57Kc45mNliKXTUe/598vD RmSw== 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=d5BTrvEo65TZLmessJMHbJ80AxddHro/069rnbbktWQ=; b=ginq8bmQ0XLgbpMRQtKv+NrooqCChS6303Nnqx7hC2s7TCPyCPkwwhrTPnMKfePMrk 9xSAl9j3JIxV8fnlNn+wRP6f3sKBssDCr+t0DwlPQIPRerLYfKUetT55HGdIcoyo3Eb2 T/97c1U1La/+UnyXjkfnZjVkzGThrDi0jt14w6Say2rV5T1MZzWlqt4UebrT7f3aCcvs zOm7MnC1u9wMjXX1aFwnKUZHV4l/LStXKDzLnIWdptZ7BmgbXKzgQLBINwNnVdGyadcv Rt6U5HECCkXsACLf5U+0K69ID2a69yYu+litGL9dfmDhbAHpt4RrjLMmW7K/RWB6gNI9 Ytpg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdgJxjKgBtkp6xK5QpXwRPJnGmVpfeZUgMVPm195DkFUHdezZ0A 9s/slXHjIOcC1yQzi2PVaSvCiPkhp1gIZII6zg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouOdQlN9wOe2ilzA/rm5xRHkgZR6CmrdsyK+oXJ5MgHZmOuT48qJcICNQ+fQU0o+6iE3oqm0rpti0vw+Qg3F8Y= X-Received: by 10.80.244.154 with SMTP id s26mr1581600edm.17.1516174152964; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:29:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:28:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:28:32 +0300 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="===============0939096176560332253==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0939096176560332253== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fa554ce1fea0562f3cd9e" --001a114fa554ce1fea0562f3cd9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for the summary but I think full text of each motion without references to other motions is necessary. 2018-01-17 10:25 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a114fa554ce1fea0562f3cd9e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the summary but I think full text of each motio= n without references to other motions is necessary.

2018-01-17 10:25 GMT+03:00 Curtis F= ranks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:
I can summarize them for now because I w= as 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 p= olicy that the LLG shall advocate for and support loglangs. It exactly defi= nes "loglang" for the purposes of this motion and the subsequent = two separate motions.

Mo= tion #1 amended-version: Same as Motion #1 proper, except the definition (r= eally, a description) of "loglang" is broader and left vague; the= precious criterion is sufficient here but would not necessarily be necessa= ry. This description would propagate to the next two separate motions as we= ll.

Motion #2:=C2=A0Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advo= cate for and support Lojban, regardless of its categorization as a loglang = according to any given definition (particularly that of either version of M= otion #1). Presumably, we would have to find some consensus on which Lojban= is meant.

Motion #3:=C2=A0Adopt the= policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support the development of some= loglang which is derived from Lojban, where "loglang" would alig= n 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 dis= claim their lack of affiliation=C2=A0with the LLG and of support/grant of o= fficialness therefrom. Exactly who would oversee this effort was not addres= sed.

Motion #5: Adopt a policy in= which unofficial content on *.lojban.org will be disclaimed as such. Exactly who would oversee th= is effort was not addressed.

Moti= on #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 t= o directly oversee). The wording was a bit problematic in regard to which o= f 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 prop= er in spirit, but with the aforementioned=C2=A0wording problem fixed, impro= ved=C2=A0presentation/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-explana= tory in my original description.


On Jan 17, 20= 18 00:34, "Thomas Porter" <osiris_hades_deathland@hotmail.co= m> 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



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


--001a114fa554ce1fea0562f3cd9e-- --===============0939096176560332253== 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 --===============0939096176560332253==--