The following was posted by DarSaidin as this discussion = was just starting.

Hello,

I'm not = an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a few years ago.

<= br>

<snip>

Some people want Lojban to be sta= ble (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 between language, thought and human = culture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the require= ments for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and exp= eriment with such a language...

Both positions are valid and reasonable an= d useful for accomplishing the LLG's purpose.

Lojban being a stable langu= age is useful for learning and using and experimenting with the language - = furthering the LLG's purpose.

Lojban being further developed is useful fo= r building substantial improvements to the language - also furthering the L= LG's purpose.

But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban c= annot take both.

My impression is there is disagreement and confusion a= nd 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 thei= r time.

This is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their w= ork using the language will be invalidated by changes to the language in th= e future.

This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in the= ir preferred direction.

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also iden= tifies this conflict.

This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoy= ed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict also make beginners co= nfused and discouraged.

This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts w= ithin the community.

Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, thes= e 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 in= to the LLG goals.

3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do d= evelopment elsewhere) or continuously developed.

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

4) Maybe consider wha= t other work the LLG would like to do.

- Should the LLG make a fork Lojban fo= r ongoing development?

- Can the LLG learn from other logical n; v=C5=84= nnml languages?

- Can the LLG do work more meta than developing = a particular logical language?

- Can the LLG do any work that wou= ld benefit all current/future logical language?

- Can the LLG exp= lore/document options and design decisions in logical language?nn nnvv; nnn=

On Jan 5, 2018 4:21 AM, "Creative Care Services" <comcaresvcs@gmail.com= > wrote:

Curtis has made three related movements, all seconded (w= ithout the amendment Curtis made to number 3) by Selpa'i. Since Selpa&#= 39;i specifically=C2=A0 had not included Curtis' amendment to number 3,= that moron does not include the amendment I request that Curtis make this = amendment as an add on if he still wants it included.

Assuming there are no objections raised by ou= r parliamentarian, discussion shall continue until 12:00 noon GMT in Januar= y 9, 2018 subject to early termination is the discussion ends before then. = They will be discussed together, though we will vote on each separately. I = hope I don't need to say this. Please tarot discussion on these morons = to this thread and keep discussions here to these motions.=C2=A0

.karis.=C2=A0

Motio= n 1. The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any = other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of logic= al language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional framework = and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically = expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument structure (PAS), a = logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that (syntac= tically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs.= (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' property. The relevant bi= directionality is conversion both from PAS to phonological form and from ph= onological form to PAS.)

Seconded.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Motion 2. A principal = goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is promotion of Lo= jban (regardless of its status as a logical language) as defined by documen= ts endorsed by the LLG.

I likewise (same wording) so move, with = terms as described in my immediately previous motion in this message.

Seconded.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Motion 3. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal wit= h any other principal goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a l= ogical language.=C2=A0

Seconded.

My second= does not include Curtis' amendment, because I consider the definition = of loglanghood given by And adequate as is. A language that does not fulfil= l those (fundamental) requirements is not a logical language ("loglang= ").

On Jan 4, 2= 018 00:39, "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net> wrote:
Hello,
I'm not an LLG member, I aske= d to join this list as an observer a few years ago.

> I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic wor= ks. Actually, there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is alread= y 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 BP= FK documents, I have more trouble with them because they are unstable conte= nts and placed on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who h= ave account 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 again to let some crazy rules about= a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Respecting those peopl= e's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not much further than we w= ere then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same people didn't eve= n stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It was all a wa= ste of time.

Some people want= Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvement= s to explanations).
Some people want Lojban to be further develop= ed (substantial changes, make the language more logical, fix issues, etc).<= /div>

> Article 2 Secti= on 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to promote t= he scientific study of the relationships between language, thought and huma= n culture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requi= rements for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and e= xperiment with such a language...

Both positions a= re 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 im= provements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take bo= th.

My impression is there is disag= reement and confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/wi= ll 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 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 direc= tion.

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave als= o 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 conflict also = cultivate personal conflicts within the community.
Since Lojban i= s the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten the LLG too.<= br>

I think the path= forward is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm t= he purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members have the same u= nderstanding?
- Do all LLG members agree with them?
2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lo= jban fits into the LLG goals.

3) Decide if Lojban = should be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or continuously d= eveloped.
- This may drive away people who disagree, but it empow= ers everyone who remains.

4) Maybe consider what o= ther work the LLG would like to do.
- Should the LLG make a fork = Lojban for ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn from oth= er logical languages?
- Can the LLG do work more meta than develo= ping a particular logical language?
- Can the LLG do any work tha= t would benefit all current/future logical language?
- Can the LL= G explore/document options and design decisions in logical language?
<= /div>

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.

---
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

--001a1143d9266d9a76056404ac14-- --===============7727335511678221515== 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 --===============7727335511678221515==--