Received: from localhost ([::1]:36566 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YIZlP-0002IA-K0; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:27:19 -0800 Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52]:42612) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YIZlM-0002I4-8x for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:27:17 -0800 Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so32912834qac.11 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:27:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=lVxSPMTEk/IaJk9P/n0sJL4zB/3cp3hUn/Tywu/ouIk=; b=Bt6wkN5QhfyEZ8uMUWg1euXMV3gZtklQQaQNLAEB1Ehu+SUTyo0YVAjTiZJRPzVBNk gzZQRUEEZIXpd4j+90ve3P86fMCTYlvTvcQ/8Psow3mKxmmz/4MYH/GWBufRLq8hrkZx T1qDahl/4VwuN0JlS3m/iPzCRHOwqLj9K4PBv6v0bUATWpkLXNuHECa8QUpruzAoBJll MTFFqLCQ/YdgStk2V8JO4QqjF8jX2GEmTqZbwCG1y1BFwYXqOEvNLABHhowGBBv2ERxM 33/mIDK6Lj7f2PgJkPvKNiKOFTAaMv4lgmiVSOdwYMy6dkXim4PdaPxxrb5ZKqz8pZHp 51sw== X-Received: by 10.224.71.206 with SMTP id i14mr49462586qaj.7.1422955629684; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from caliban.fios-router.home (pool-100-33-73-219.nycmny.fios.verizon.net. [100.33.73.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q10sm19538505qaq.9.2015.02.03.01.27.08 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:27:08 -0800 (PST) From: Riley Martinez-Lynch Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 04:27:07 -0500 References: To: llg-members@lojban.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: I think the proposal in its current form could be used to amend the "interim baseline" / {zasni gafyfantymanri} (ZG), if there was a will to do that. Here's how I imagine it would work -- and if anybody has a different interpretation, please raise it. [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.216.52 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (shunpiker[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Motion: BPFK Reauthorization X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 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="===============8771372794587739393==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8771372794587739393== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BC45578A-7AB9-4170-B1DC-5C70ACF0ACDD" --Apple-Mail=_BC45578A-7AB9-4170-B1DC-5C70ACF0ACDD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think the proposal in its current form could be used to amend the = "interim baseline" / {zasni gafyfantymanri} (ZG), if there was a will to = do that. Here's how I imagine it would work -- and if anybody has a = different interpretation, please raise it. Per the current proposal: BPFK is authorized to propose standards for the lojban language I understand the "interim baseline" to be such a standard of the = language. The proposal continues: which may include lists of words, definitions in various languages, = human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional or = reference texts In defining the "interim baseline" to include "xorlo", it seems to me = that the 2007 Annual Meeting was making a general reference to = definitions and "human specifications of the grammar", and possibly = specific reference to the BPFK "gadri" document that was formally = approved by BPFK in December 2004. However, to dispel any doubt on the broadness of the term "standard of = the language, "which may include" should be amended to read "which may = include, but is not limited to". [ACTION] I'd like to propose that = language as an amendment to the initial proposal. Under the current proposal, BPFK is charged with formulating such = proposals, but LLG reserves the privilege of granting them official = recognition: Standard documents may be reported to the Annual Meeting for = ratification by a two-thirds majority of the general membership. This is modeled after ZG's procedure, which also requires a 2/3 vote of = the membership. I'm noticing that the proposal makes a number of references to the = Annual Meeting which are unnecessarily restrictive: The 1st, 2nd, and = 5th occurrence of "the Annual Meeting" and the final occurrence of = "Annual Meeting" ought to read, respectively "an Annual or Special = Meeting of the membership" and "Annual or Special Meeting of the = membership". [ACTION] I'd like to amend the proposal accordingly. Now, there are a number of important differences with ZG, which I think = are for the better, but I'd like to call them out in order to clarify = them and to get others' opinions: 1. ZG added procedures for BPFK to the existing body of procedures -- = presumably, those specified by the Official Baseline Statement of = 2002-2003. The current proposal explicitly empowers BPFK to determine = its own procedures. 2. ZG includes notions of "correctness" (e.g. "the proposal will be = considered correct Lojban") and "preference" (e.g. "usage according to = the ZG will be preferred"). The current proposal does not assume a = determination of correctness or preference among standards. If this = proposal passes, LLG might consider a resolution similar to one of the = amendments to ZG -- successful, I think, though missing from the 2007 = minutes -- to the effect that "self-consistent use" of any standard = which achieves recognition via this procedure "should not be considered = incorrect [or] subject to correction". 3. ZG is explicitly proposed as subject to replacement -- "ZG will last = only until the entire new baseline is written". The current proposal = doesn't provide for the amendment, annulment or deprecation of = previously approved standards, although it doesn't exclude the = possibility that LLG could pursue such a measure, either independently = or as a result of a request from BPFK. I think this last point may be the most relevant to your question, = Craig. You describe a situation where "the BPFK feels that something = needs to be changed". That makes sense to me historically, having read = some of the discussions that culminated in ZG, but given how attitudes = have altered since that time, I submit it as an open question whether it = makes the same sense today. Is there a constituency for "changing" things? There's a prescriptive = aspect of ZG (e.g. "the membership is encouraged to use the ZG standard = in all pedagogical contexts, and in all Lojban conversation") which = seems anachronistic. ZG's language is understandable as an echo of the = Baseline Statement published several years before ("LLG must strongly = encourage people to adhere to the baseline as defined, in the interest = of unity of the language community"), but these days do people want = anybody, let alone LLG, exhorting adherence to a reductively unitary = definition of the language? It's my hope that the reauthorization proposal for BPFK will empower the = community to realize on what seems to be the goals of ZG: To recognize = evolution in the language, while keeping faith with the traditions that = gave birth to those changes. If we can agree that, per ZG, = "self-consistent use" of recognized standards "should not be considered = incorrect [or] subject to correction", I think we could replace ZG with = something rather less {zasni}. I'd be glad to hear what others think. --Riley On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > Would you be open to a friendly amendment further granting the BPFK = and/or its chair the ability to alter the details of the interim = baseline protocol? >=20 > The current version's intent is something I still stand behind and = suspect much of the LLG does too - if the BPFK feels that something = needs to be changed *now*, and its members are in strong agreement about = this fact, the proposal can be presented to the LLG membership for = ratification as interim baseline, but it should requires near consensus = among those doing BPFK work and acceptance from the members in general. = However, as currently written it's literally impossible, because the = current version reflects BPFK procedures as they existed when it was = written, because in writing the wording that ultimately got passed I = failed to take into account the fluidity of those rules (which were set = up by the jatna and could always be changed by the jatna). I want to fix = this fact, because I want the BPFK to have the power to do whatever it's = clear they have to. >=20 > - .kreig. --Apple-Mail=_BC45578A-7AB9-4170-B1DC-5C70ACF0ACDD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Per the current = proposal:

BPFK is authorized to propose = standards for the lojban = language

I understand the "interim = baseline" to be such a standard of the language. The proposal = continues:

which may include lists of words, = definitions in various languages, human or mechanical specifications of = the grammar, and instructional or reference = texts

In defining the = "interim baseline" to include "xorlo", it seems to me that the 2007 = Annual Meeting was making a general reference to definitions and "human = specifications of the grammar", and possibly specific reference = to the BPFK "gadri" document that was formally approved by BPFK in = December 2004.

However, to dispel any = doubt on the broadness of the term "standard of the = language, "which may include" should be amended to read "which may = include, but is not limited to". [ACTION] I'd like to propose that = language as an amendment to the initial = proposal.

Under the current proposal, BPFK = is charged with formulating such proposals, but LLG reserves the = privilege of granting them official = recognition:

Standard documents may be = reported to the Annual Meeting for ratification by a two-thirds majority = of the general membership.

This is = modeled after ZG's procedure, which also requires a 2/3 vote of the = membership.

I'm noticing that the proposal = makes a number of references to the Annual Meeting which are = unnecessarily restrictive: The 1st, 2nd, and 5th occurrence of "the = Annual Meeting" and the final occurrence of "Annual Meeting" ought to = read, respectively "an Annual or Special Meeting of the membership" and = "Annual or Special Meeting of the membership". [ACTION] I'd like to = amend the proposal accordingly.

Now, there are = a number of important differences with ZG, which I think are for the = better, but I'd like to call them out in order to clarify them and to = get others' opinions:

1. ZG added procedures = for BPFK to the existing body of procedures -- presumably, those = specified by the Official Baseline Statement of 2002-2003. The current = proposal explicitly empowers BPFK to determine its own = procedures.

2.  ZG includes notions of = "correctness" (e.g. "the proposal will be considered correct Lojban") = and "preference" (e.g. "usage according to the ZG will = be preferred"). The current proposal does not assume a = determination of correctness or preference among standards. If this = proposal passes, LLG might consider a resolution similar to one of = the amendments to ZG -- successful, I think, though missing from = the 2007 minutes -- to the effect that "self-consistent use" = of any standard which achieves recognition via this procedure "should = not be considered incorrect [or] subject to = correction".

3. ZG is explicitly proposed as = subject to replacement -- "ZG will last only until the entire new = baseline is written". The current proposal doesn't provide for the = amendment, annulment or deprecation of previously approved standards, = although it doesn't exclude the possibility that LLG could pursue such a = measure, either independently or as a result of a request from = BPFK.

I think this last point may be the most = relevant to your question, Craig. You describe a situation where "the = BPFK feels that something needs to be changed". That makes sense to me = historically, having read some of the discussions that culminated in ZG, = but given how attitudes have altered since that time, I submit it = as an open question whether it makes the same sense = today.

Is there a constituency for "changing" = things? There's a prescriptive aspect of ZG (e.g. "the membership is = encouraged to use the ZG standard in all pedagogical contexts, and = in all Lojban conversation") which seems anachronistic. ZG's language is = understandable as an echo of the Baseline Statement published several = years before ("LLG must strongly encourage people to adhere to the = baseline as defined, in the interest of unity of the language = community"), but these days do people want anybody, let alone = LLG, exhorting adherence to a reductively unitary definition of the = language?

It's my hope that the reauthorization = proposal for BPFK will empower the community to realize on what seems to = be the goals of ZG: To recognize evolution in the language, while = keeping faith with the traditions that gave birth to those = changes. If we can agree that, per ZG, "self-consistent use" = of recognized standards "should not be considered incorrect [or] = subject to correction", I think we could replace ZG with something = rather less {zasni}.

I'd be glad to hear what = others = think.

--Riley

On = Feb 2, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> = wrote:

Would you be open to a friendly amendment further granting = the BPFK and/or its chair the ability to alter the details of the = interim baseline protocol?

The current version's = intent is something I still stand behind and suspect much of the LLG = does too - if the BPFK feels that something needs to be changed *now*, = and its members are in strong agreement about this fact, the proposal = can be presented to the LLG membership for ratification as interim = baseline, but it should requires near consensus among those doing BPFK = work and acceptance from the members in general. However, as currently = written it's literally impossible, because the current version reflects = BPFK procedures as they existed when it was written, because in writing = the wording that ultimately got passed I failed to take into account the = fluidity of those rules (which were set up by the jatna and could always = be changed by the jatna). I want to fix this fact, because I want the = BPFK to have the power to do whatever it's clear they have = to.

 - = .kreig.

= --Apple-Mail=_BC45578A-7AB9-4170-B1DC-5C70ACF0ACDD-- --===============8771372794587739393== 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 --===============8771372794587739393==--