Received: from localhost ([::1]:57521 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YbJFe-0006UE-BL; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:39:58 -0700 Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:33319) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YbJFY-0006Ty-RI for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:39:57 -0700 Received: by pdnc3 with SMTP id c3so80510754pdn.0 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:39:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Qqt1XwqXhMc30QlL6KFsF7zdj4qrqnXHlh87ishsEOY=; b=wKu9olft7bp7GXTV/FEN0lrfhBiEIaF6DlA4CGerBjEf3C7rWNmlfo7qD+qQSqlViX kiVWpLkUgvGx5xczDg03WPcNi5SwOduVR+8CJyjWxDGOybnQ9K48zBOnPOGG10JIeBFH yqE66wQq7urrYcXm9QH061pVVcW2cb/5tMI9SjGjaURnPLKFPerCARpyt38H977/gtFb GIb81G1U0xR3h0rthvZfOOnFlaO/hjXI8cOBR6b0skbVu8RisZ5VYUxZJrzaO1B2uzYz JLfBL+4bQ8GCFCenZLlETHHFGSv8eur328gEnypSxWNNPVx63PntnYJXxV1hUDuekDgn EagQ== X-Received: by 10.68.239.229 with SMTP id vv5mr31536009pbc.39.1427420386460; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:39:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> <5A14A249-2461-4CA7-8CBA-4E27840BB4F3@gmail.com> <5514AD53.8030509@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <5514AD53.8030509@lojban.org> From: Craig Daniel Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:39:45 +0000 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] Motion: BPFK Reauthorization (amendment) 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="===============4505009808605841167==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4505009808605841167== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d18c148b1605123b352e --047d7b33d18c148b1605123b352e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The last time the BPFK formally made it clear they wanted LLG approval for something, the LLG membership literally rewrote the rules to be able to say yes. I do not anticipate stonewalling of clearly needed progress to be an issue in the future. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 PM Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG wrote: > On 3/23/2015 6:10 PM, DerSaidin wrote: > > 1) To clarify, "the general membership" refers to the members of the > LLG, not the members of the BPFK? The meetings mentioned are meetings of > the LLG? > > Yes. > > > 2) If the BPFK's work must be accepted by the LLG, will the LLG now > issue any statements/guidance on what changes it would accept and what > changes it would not accept? > > Only if someone proposes such a statement for voting. None has been > suggested to my knowledge. > > > This would help avoid the possibility of the BPFK doing some work, the > LLG rejecting it, and the BPFK loosing enthusiasm and momentum. > > I hope and believe that the LLG membership as well as the BPFK > membership is quite aware of this possibility, so that the BPFK will not > propose anything too extreme, and the LLG membership will not reject > anything without a really good reason, precisely because we don't want > such a loss of momentum or enthusiasm. > > lojbab > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --047d7b33d18c148b1605123b352e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The last time the BPFK formally made it clear they wanted = LLG approval for something, the LLG membership literally rewrote the rules = to be able to say yes. I do not anticipate stonewalling of clearly needed p= rogress to be an issue in the future.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 PM Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder -= LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wro= te:
On 3/23/2015 6:10 PM, DerSaidin wrote= :
> 1) To clarify, "the general membership" refers to the member= s of the LLG, not the members of the BPFK? The meetings mentioned are meeti= ngs of the LLG?

Yes.

> 2) If the BPFK's work must be accepted by the LLG, will the LLG no= w issue any statements/guidance on what changes it would accept and what ch= anges it would not accept?

Only if someone proposes such a statement for voting.=C2=A0 None has been suggested to my knowledge.

> This would help avoid the possibility of the BPFK doing some work, the= LLG rejecting it, and the BPFK loosing enthusiasm and momentum.

I hope and believe that the LLG membership as well as the BPFK
membership is quite aware of this possibility, so that the BPFK will not propose anything too extreme, and the LLG membership will not reject
anything without a really good reason, precisely because we don't want<= br> such a loss of momentum or enthusiasm.

lojbab

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members
--047d7b33d18c148b1605123b352e-- --===============4505009808605841167== 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 --===============4505009808605841167==--