Received: from localhost ([::1]:44532 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtBW-0006Im-1p; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:15:42 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]:34316) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtAy-0006Gu-Ni for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:15:10 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d1so6076822uak.1 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:15:08 -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=JGDnuqIxSr9RNjGasJ3tuY4iT2Nt+tKSs1/UV8ykyNY=; b=W/xx6nk6Gg7osklGx8RcwmHcobal2OWfJMbJYlzhZg4aes0KheEP8hvCdUr9K4e8KI sCkk84SwwtPpwEKPf4jmIEqWmdsf8ghvg648irhfLmnGBgQPrHRkMeKcL7hxykz5AxJz vK/49lDXg59DedC3B0R+TsaZIe8rCLzJKaSiX0SqA7GPmR8CsOKLCNCLEIOMOhT74SUQ +xvVVAmoTMRiTi92trVfSQtxdJwpK8pG5qShVSWcGOo5TaGAth0XqoQ39tRuzn8cLt8z seU1tiaY++QQmqCkjj2FKF4ZsHPkEAaDsi6t0IExNcwYX67ui8BfD/T3xVg6n7OmeTv1 O+iA== 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=JGDnuqIxSr9RNjGasJ3tuY4iT2Nt+tKSs1/UV8ykyNY=; b=OHq01kWgnyVjxNw9JGfWnCJIlitA5LSjlrJDWp5yvq+MxtzB/NTdGqDOZeE85biTVd 4e/+ifqSX0/pNy3V+UvruI2bjTUNHgOsS5oZxwefaXBKugcN3Ldh5LBwpLAG9F/NhDNh YieFIRrfVkj6omtygTDqy8vWEfIbfpwhA5SMfVO7kS5gQT9BMehcUVF++/ncFJ8P7bDo GAey7Gm2rbKr60Q4JNsT8p0P+J9yIE/kOAgSi44IY1aVmqx74CQ2sBR2WDOtbkgUkqnx 57IT7pTSTzhn2uMg6DIK63XuXHiRvcIS8A/S3MLDf4AZd6QanJ9Qiu/ZNCkOTEvFisz9 ZEsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfDej1M+b1omubpbZJt+8eWK6entXEZzQ/PSsrwFyWlb0g7YJ0j Ne8PvYyNTP4zMk+NZa88+M1XHU2yUNkRBKC8Bmw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotkt2ziohbH8Vx9mQF85mpXddXhsTECDqflbzRTgeEevn0GzFjf2vjSJ+H3xl6FqPlbV8LN1RiC9tKwcLxqBYI= X-Received: by 10.176.68.231 with SMTP id n94mr3173884uan.48.1516216502121; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:15:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.7.70 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.7.70 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Creative Care Services Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:15:01 -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="===============6482284554679811969==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6482284554679811969== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07e97e02fa610562fdaae9" --94eb2c07e97e02fa610562fdaae9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I apologize for the meeting becoming so hard to follow. I was so excited to finally be getting participation that I didn't rein it in sufficiently. Other thanI am posting the text of each motion separately when opening them for a vote with "Vote" in the subject, so a search ought to turn them up. As each proposal was officially announced for discussion its header included the word "Proposal". See if that helps, and leave a note here if you still have trouble. .karis. On Jan 17, 2018 02:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > 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" > l.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 >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c07e97e02fa610562fdaae9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I apologize for the meeting becoming so hard to follow. I= was so excited to finally be getting participation that I didn't rein = it in sufficiently. Other thanI am posting the text of each motion separate= ly when opening them for a vote with "Vote" in the subject, so a = search ought to turn them up. As each proposal was officially announced for= discussion its header included the word "Proposal". See if that = helps, and leave a note here if you still have trouble.
.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 17, 2018 02:29, "Gleki Arxoku= na" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:
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, th= en I would not be upset ( :P ).

Motion #1: Adopt the policy that the LLG shall advocate for and support l= oglangs. It exactly defines "loglang" for the purposes of this mo= tion and the subsequent two separate motions.

Motion #1 amended-version: Same as Motion #1 proper, = except the definition (really, a description) of "loglang" is bro= ader and left vague; the precious criterion is sufficient here but would no= t necessarily be necessary. This description would propagate to the next tw= o separate motions as well.

Motion #2:=C2=A0Adopt the policy= that the LLG shall advocate for and support Lojban, regardless of its cate= gorization as a loglang according to any given definition (particularly tha= t of either version of Motion #1). Presumably, we would have to find some c= onsensus 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 align with the adopted version of Motion #1.

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

Moti= on #5: Adopt a policy in which unofficial content on *.lojban.org will be disclaimed as such. Exac= tly who would oversee this effort was not addressed.

Motion #6: Sets up a separate body in order to implem= ent 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 proble= matic 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: Sa= me thing as Motion #6 proper in spirit, but with the aforementioned=C2=A0wo= rding problem fixed, improved=C2=A0presentation/organization, and some= protections put in place in order address fears and concerns which had bee= n raised.

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

=

On Jan 17, 2018 00:34, "Thomas Porter" <osiris_hades_deathland@= 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



_______________________________________________
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

--94eb2c07e97e02fa610562fdaae9-- --===============6482284554679811969== 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 --===============6482284554679811969==--