Received: from localhost ([::1]:60458 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aknat-0000NN-GU; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:57:39 -0700 Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]:35866) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aknal-0000NB-F0 for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:57:36 -0700 Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id u110so5039699qge.3 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:57:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=disposition-notification-to:return-receipt-to:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date :to:message-id; bh=x8eO4SG2vZPFyuJAo+3UeKXFR4iF/JNndykr7v4PHeU=; b=Sv3PdMOK077uU6ymCMcNp2cN9v4TT4ecghYk9wXCPdp5k2vgsEPX8GFGSpmBPYOK0a sho8hS+C1ME39gy4g9hDfG4IjlBjMRyaFtvgLV7j0A/aSxrN2FDK+/cVoecqc2NVdfiA XFK75OppwOfqmDbaIK8XulLjTB1LSGb0TMBx3JuD5XWy68mJLrcG66lX4d9junv+wLRI eyINVUIdxGDBJBg7McvNQLqulwwzmdvkJF2+i/G0geuofxwqGXnVLtEfR65H73SAadPg u7Zk6RnNk+QB9rpiJNO0W8TdjDdT83b0vu05VsqxIV5f8jQzr3yOJ49McEyCRNoniiDe 0Awg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:disposition-notification-to:return-receipt-to :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :subject:from:date:to:message-id; bh=x8eO4SG2vZPFyuJAo+3UeKXFR4iF/JNndykr7v4PHeU=; b=N5RlhHxqIsvTomVHpEMhOe3ZkcoLT0L6rRLwDk21xx4XpZPaT55xUAWkMyLekK541m WjyXPuWyLtFZVGos1c3neC4QX7q/OA+ZkcSRBD8uIVSrCFO5gYitYRT9iRcV/9rBDLgo Vmmlr3Y6U+a2FUqHZ9GIsA+pJxw0G0W+OJ+8ycYVV8kgZg7TU6dgz1OdKZQryWqyTwyu VZKp7avES6SjtOUMaap3tCIVxNMkNX+qAJVW3oWhWxV+wPLCx5YEkA7ZBxetiSCyrtqF YToIWX/VN7c6mOL+yMjvOSoXpwOCyMkBVeHSKlt9DziHigmtPF0KZPM2USPLh/5D/ZJI d91w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLeomL3jQ8tLlJtZiuir4rsc3+BpKVWQUPL88E3cGKBo84oIQqZkalCH9PkfQhlog== X-Received: by 10.140.106.11 with SMTP id d11mr685494qgf.80.1459234645341; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:5c0:c000:25f9:facf:c5ff:fea0:db80? ([2601:5c0:c000:25f9:facf:c5ff:fea0:db80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b67sm13255942qhd.11.2016.03.28.23.57.24 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:57:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org> <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com> <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org> <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org> <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Karen Stein Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:57:21 -0400 To: llg-members@lojban.org Message-ID: <4D1FB08E-DAAF-452D-936E-C089EE050B87@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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="===============5522400620387626671==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5522400620387626671== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----CSEDRW6H8BWXU9NTWSTP5TJT3K1CLL" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ------CSEDRW6H8BWXU9NTWSTP5TJT3K1CLL Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My only real objections to this proposal are that after all the discussion I'm left wondering why it is necessary and how it will be of any use if the wording is so complex it took so much discussion to even understand it. I therefore vote against this notion unless it can be rewritten for clarity or an explanation be amended to it. karis ------CSEDRW6H8BWXU9NTWSTP5TJT3K1CLL Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit My only real objections to this proposal are that after all the discussion I'm left wondering why it is necessary and how it will be of any use if the wording is so complex it took so much discussion to even understand it.

I therefore vote against this notion unless it can be rewritten for clarity or an explanation be amended to it.

karis

On March 24, 2016 10:13:12 PM EDT, Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that it can be safely understood that the BYFY is charged with maintaining CLL as the defining standard for the language as a whole and its grammar.

In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charged with maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language or any of its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to its grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achieving of these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (the LLG). This motion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or implementation of the existence or practice of any of these conditions; it merely defines one of possibly many roles (for) which any organization which is to act as a BPFK will be responsible in fulfilling and conducting - as well as the implicit establishment of minimal powers associated with its acting in that capacity.

Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPFK is the unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority pursuant to these goals.



Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members
------CSEDRW6H8BWXU9NTWSTP5TJT3K1CLL-- --===============5522400620387626671== 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 --===============5522400620387626671==--