Received: from localhost ([::1]:44657 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJSFh-0001U8-19; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:38:13 -0800 Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]:56383) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJSFe-0001Tp-Ao for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:38:11 -0800 Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so99121igd.4 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:38:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=hkkiAuVhM1q/tCgFFiO92W8H5k5J8iX7b4XXnJQGkA0=; b=dK7NdCbrm9jF32snu1hz2uVk+K02fd0h9UAK0ke9fbMfCfnQ+qJjMVL2F67A9pe/N4 dywyVk2lydTvuYgP8qdKFlwgJyoCv/fvN20BXVYz4QDUyZpSQFtolkqzBvChMEsCtQ/L AWIjz+5RxKkGniVlQF8zVe6XymHQVzt7qqX+JSXvdzsKDhvOmZXiDMXhT4lhcZwrR8CH 4EgHQPixtaf7setgvE0R895mlyJSbIh72BlnGczz35GfnQNAjI7oN8xehwzxb0SAYA8g uVYejzBUc9dSV82lE7RlSBic0zJMjJWy7TS2+lxiQBRRZGA4LjaOykcEfruwi8m++zBM tDig== X-Received: by 10.107.13.76 with SMTP id 73mr6705794ion.24.1423165084084; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:38:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.33.210 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:37:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Adam Lopresto Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:37:43 -0600 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org 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: If this needs to be seconded again with the proposed amendments, then I second it. If it does not, then I vote "Aye". On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > 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 [...] 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 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.213.171 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 (adamlopresto[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 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="===============9187909919607482195==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============9187909919607482195== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ffd404b3219050e5c71d2 --001a113ffd404b3219050e5c71d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 If this needs to be seconded again with the proposed amendments, then I second it. If it does not, then I vote "Aye". On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > 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? > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a113ffd404b3219050e5c71d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If this needs to be seconded again with the proposed amend= ments, then I second it. If it does not, then I vote "Aye".
=

On Tue, Feb 3, 20= 15 at 3:27 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com> = wrote:
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 h= as a different interpretation, please raise it.

Pe= r the current proposal:

BPFK is authorized t= o propose standards for the lojban language

I understand the "interim baseline" to be such a st= andard of the language. The proposal continues:
=
<= div>which may include lists of words, definitions in various languages, hum= an or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional or refere= nce 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=C2=A0the BPFK "gadri" document that was formally app= roved by BPFK in December 2004.

However, to = dispel any doubt on the broadness of the term "standard of the languag= e,=C2=A0"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,=C2=A0BPFK is charged with=C2=A0formulatin= g such proposals, but LLG reserves the privilege of granting them official = recognition:

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

This is mo= deled after ZG's procedure, which also=C2=A0requires a 2/3 vote of the = membership.

I'm noticing that the proposal mak= es a number of references to the Annual Meeting which are unnecessarily res= trictive: The 1st, 2nd, and 5th occurrence of "the Annual Meeting"= ; and the final occurrence of "Annual Meeting" ought to read, res= pectively "an Annual or Special Meeting of the membership" and &q= uot;Annual or Special Meeting of the membership". [ACTION] I'd lik= e to amend the proposal accordingly.

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

1. ZG added procedures for BP= FK 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.= =C2=A0 ZG includes notions of "correctness" (e.g. "the propo= sal will be considered correct Lojban") and "preference" (e.= g. "usage according to the ZG will be=C2=A0preferred"). The curre= nt proposal does not assume a determination of=C2=A0correctness or preferen= ce among standards. If this proposal passes, LLG might consider a resolutio= n similar to one of the=C2=A0amendments to ZG -- successful, I think, thoug= h missing from the 2007 minutes --=C2=A0to the effect that=C2=A0"self-= consistent use" of any standard which achieves recognition via this pr= ocedure "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 wr= itten". The current proposal doesn't provide for the amendment, an= nulment or deprecation of previously approved standards, although it doesn&= #39;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 alte= red since that time,=C2=A0I 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=C2=A0pedag= ogical contexts, and in all Lojban conversation") which seems anachron= istic. ZG's language is understandable as an echo of the Baseline State= ment published several years before ("LLG must strongly encourage peop= le to adhere to the baseline as defined, in the interest of unity of the=C2= =A0language community"), but these days do people want anybody, let al= one LLG,=C2=A0exhorting adherence to a reductively unitary definition of th= e language?

It's my hope that the reauthorizat= ion proposal for BPFK will empower the community to realize on what seems t= o be the goals of ZG: To recognize evolution in the language, while keeping= faith with the traditions that gave birth to those changes.=C2=A0If we can= agree that, per ZG,=C2=A0"self-consistent use" of recognized sta= ndards=C2=A0"should not be considered incorrect [or] subject to correc= tion", I think we could replace ZG with something rather less {zasni}.=

I'd be glad to hear what others think.
<= span class=3D"HOEnZb">

--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 base= line protocol?

The current version's intent is somet= hing I still stand behind and suspect much of the LLG does too - if the BPF= K feels that something needs to be changed *now*, and its members are in st= rong agreement about this fact, the proposal can be presented to the LLG me= mbership for ratification as interim baseline, but it should requires near = consensus among those doing BPFK work and acceptance from the members in ge= neral. However, as currently written it's literally impossible, because= the current version reflects BPFK procedures as they existed when it was w= ritten, 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, b= ecause I want the BPFK to have the power to do whatever it's clear they= have to.

=C2=A0- .kreig.


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


--001a113ffd404b3219050e5c71d2-- --===============9187909919607482195== 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 --===============9187909919607482195==--