Received: from localhost ([::1]:55342 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLBc3-0007Z6-QG; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:16:27 -0800 Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177]:46015) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLBbw-0007Yb-7c for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:16:26 -0800 Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id s11so2949183qcv.8 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:16:13 -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=zy7dQfLnWeAmwMOoAY2HVbcklca22ZkfOAiqe58Fklc=; b=uGIsqPurrbpnXTVQ5HHNzMX8oSmcRI1pq7frIbREVxjGL9ip3jc8EJtPIB02/RlYbB WIuLvfqguXAfeJ9NMDLHAwIOdVV3gVW7Ckm+J2HSXDt6HVDEH9X+tzqvzv7Tsvf8zGdQ 7NN1ZlToQWmqHhczabFel+CgUgR6ZAbdSdGtpRqhBl5w0KwikJgTGSegIp5lhlU9yGMs Rf2HOQ0dr9jAblceQEivMqRIBAFHDh+Q2yV7/ho/ymrZWXr+0S8MpJU6Nx+6Txdszw/E tasLLy8eYvbxjN6wauAqZfro/M9H8YhcViBsQTq5fOXlogRpYCOKZMRiqMdQ72AYlyut hEcg== X-Received: by 10.229.216.71 with SMTP id hh7mr54009536qcb.0.1423577773779; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:16:13 -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 11sm15282595qgt.41.2015.02.10.06.16.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:16:12 -0800 (PST) From: Riley Martinez-Lynch Message-Id: <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500 References: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> To: "llg-members@lojban.org" In-Reply-To: <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> 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: Thank you, lojbab, for your questions and comments. I agree that, under this proposal, the chair of BPFK will continue to play an important role. The proposal defines BPFK as a committee with a chair recognized by LLG, but otherwise says little about how the committee is run. This isn't meant to diminish the role of the chair -- e.g. to restrict the role to "primarily a communicator or coordinator" -- but to maintain a buffer between the authority of LLG and the authority of the chair of BPFK to organize the work of that committee. If the proposal were to include, for example, instructions about decision-making or order of business -- as the Baseline Policy of 2002-2003 does -- then the authority of the chair would be more limited than is assumed by parliamentary procedure: [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 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] 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 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 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="===============5524268710436960019==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5524268710436960019== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_591F2BC1-26EE-4836-AE92-1BC32AC639A6" --Apple-Mail=_591F2BC1-26EE-4836-AE92-1BC32AC639A6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thank you, lojbab, for your questions and comments. I agree that, under = this proposal, the chair of BPFK will continue to play an important = role.=20 The proposal defines BPFK as a committee with a chair recognized by LLG, = but otherwise says little about how the committee is run. This isn't = meant to diminish the role of the chair -- e.g. to restrict the role to = "primarily a communicator or coordinator" -- but to maintain a buffer = between the authority of LLG and the authority of the chair of BPFK to = organize the work of that committee. If the proposal were to include, = for example, instructions about decision-making or order of business -- = as the Baseline Policy of 2002-2003 does -- then the authority of the = chair would be more limited than is assumed by parliamentary procedure: Occasionally the organization through its rules, dictates committee = procedure, but in the absence of such direction, a committee may = determine its own procedures and level of formality under the guidance = of the committee chair. ("American Institute of Parliamentarian's = Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure", 2012) On the other hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assume = (as I wrongly did) that the chair is authorized to appoint or remove = members of the committee. The default assumption is that committee = members are appointed by the president, adding that it is "often = advisable" to consult the committee chair. In light of this oversight, = and in response to the questions that lojbab raised about membership, = I'd like to propose an amendment to correct that oversight. I have not = drafted one yet and am sending this message without one in order to keep = the discussion moving. Finally, regarding the question of the initial chair, there are a few = people whom I personally think could do very well in the position. But I = do not know if any of them are in fact inclined to take it up. It's not = hard to understand why someone might hesitate to step into that role. To = address that issue, I've tried to make a study of what the two chairs we = have had so far have said about their tenures, and to craft the policy = accordingly.=20 I'd prefer to steer clear of discussing the proposal with reference to = particular candidates for the reason that I want to be sure that we have = a policy that does not depend on a particular chair taking up the job. = The old policy names the chair and has no provision for anyone else = assuming the role: This is a template of what I'd like to avoid.=20 That said, I'd like to do whatever is possible to avoid BPFK being = immediately suspended per this proposal for want of a chair. It seems to = me that in order for LLG to delegate its linguistic authority, BPFK must = be a committee, and that parliamentary procedure doesn't provide for a = committee without a chair, or without formal members for that matter. If = there are suggestions for how to amend the proposal so as to address = these issues, I'd very much like to hear them. Thanks, --Riley > No one else is commenting so I will speak up. >=20 > 1) If the motion passes, we will need someone to serve as initial = chairman, Do you, or does anyone in the membership, have a particular = candidate in mind. In the past the byfy has more or less been defined = by the jatna. The new idea this time around seems to be that the BPFK = as a whole will decide on its procedures, while the jatna is primarily a = communicator or coordinator. But I think that reality will still be that = the jatna will run things and it is hard to imagine how the BPFK will = work without considering the style of leadership that the jatna will = have. >=20 > 2) What are the qualifications for membership in the BPFK, (and = disqualifications, if any, that would cause someone to be removed)? What = if any commitments are we asking of members (possibly in the form of x = hours of work for the committee over y interval)? Depending on the = qualifications, how is the initial membership of BPFK established (since = the BPFK will determine its own procedures, this again will likely be = defining of the nature of the BPFK)? >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --Apple-Mail=_591F2BC1-26EE-4836-AE92-1BC32AC639A6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Occasionally the organization through = its rules, dictates committee procedure, but in the absence of such = direction, a committee may determine its own procedures and level = of formality under the guidance of the committee chair. ("American = Institute of Parliamentarian's Standard Code of Parliamentary = Procedure", 2012)

On the other = hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assume (as I wrongly = did) that the chair is authorized to appoint or remove members of the = committee. The default assumption is that committee members are = appointed by the president, adding that it is "often advisable" to = consult the committee chair. In light of this oversight, and in response = to the questions that lojbab raised about membership, I'd like to = propose an amendment to correct that oversight. I have not drafted one = yet and am sending this message without one in order to keep the = discussion moving.

Finally, regarding the = question of the initial chair, there are a few people whom I personally = think could do very well in the position. But I do not know if any of = them are in fact inclined to take it up. It's not hard to understand why = someone might hesitate to step into that role. To address that issue, = I've tried to make a study of what the two chairs we have had so far = have said about their tenures, and to craft the policy = accordingly. 

I'd prefer to steer clear of = discussing the proposal with reference to particular candidates for = the reason that I want to be sure that we have a policy that does not = depend on a particular chair taking up the job. The old policy names the = chair and has no provision for anyone else assuming the role: This is a = template of what I'd like to avoid. 

That = said, I'd like to do whatever is possible to avoid BPFK being = immediately suspended per this proposal for want of a chair. It seems to = me that in order for LLG to delegate its linguistic authority, BPFK must = be a committee, and that parliamentary procedure doesn't provide for a = committee without a chair, or without formal members for that matter. If = there are suggestions for how to amend the proposal so as to address = these issues, I'd very much like to hear = them.

Thanks,

--Riley

No one else is commenting so I = will speak up.

1) If the motion passes, we will need someone to = serve as initial chairman,  Do you, or does anyone in the = membership, have a particular candidate in mind.  In the past the = byfy has more or less been defined by the jatna.  The new idea this = time around seems to be that the BPFK as a whole will decide on its = procedures, while the jatna is primarily a communicator or coordinator. = But I think that reality will still be that the jatna will run things = and it is hard to imagine how the BPFK will work without considering the = style of leadership that the jatna will have.

2) What are the = qualifications for membership in the BPFK, (and disqualifications, if = any, that would cause someone to be removed)? What if any commitments = are we asking of members (possibly in the form of x hours of work for = the committee over y interval)?  Depending on the qualifications, = how is the initial membership of BPFK established (since the BPFK will = determine its own procedures, this again will likely be defining of the = nature of the = BPFK)?


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

<= /body>= --Apple-Mail=_591F2BC1-26EE-4836-AE92-1BC32AC639A6-- --===============5524268710436960019== 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 --===============5524268710436960019==--