Received: from localhost ([::1]:33558 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aku9j-0007xt-QM; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:58:03 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:34417) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aku9a-0007wx-QJ for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:57:59 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id e185so19030206vkb.1 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:57:54 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=nJahvjOZWDNupedILASN31j9mZ4Hky9elwVO11SbAUo=; b=awHUWt6r2ONYVbVXDa+qFM3g1JijTl87jYssE+/ntE6qRyf9DXzaIUGswkxjPwukxT 2qIN7A2ydIWEKeYJ7B23dr6hu312xjEsdBB3edpVonNSBV6BVKPwWXXMWEpFhoPq366t gCRBAxg8yZW+qw1hsfp6EYzQxCPcYjEu4qV1xtjIi1uKpiKa6oxqE4h6cfMs9gq9qVJC GO1RE6+znDJFH8wMsbr0wH3v2HQXOeyLEyV7hFgO3swm4pvQS9rUfhQUYq8Yp6ffFNlL RL/e9sAsn/OSCSA19Kpi0T0LhH6yLa0IM1edZPt/EXRALoAXBobJEvJXijRLsExkeqCl aLrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nJahvjOZWDNupedILASN31j9mZ4Hky9elwVO11SbAUo=; b=FS5hvIVkh2HBvsYakEpxKwT3FFnVOsKyTszLvSsCF06Y50U09pPEW9FM3OiluFhudY hl0FQRzFIceTE8TQygNZmSR5CaEzeVH/GgT3wgktVjI4kDYeUKzv7s5DyxJfF+9ZvqX3 xloAIKAxcwkEXRjMM2ykBrIAIo3c7Qnls1cFBzFBMt85zot4cUSDdPTfHqFViVs5KDYs QPQzhSLZuBMfKQpXw/Iv8MVdMCQ7PnR5Fu5LpVbpflHFjs+whsVxoCa+IkP44GVZ/L3o x7Vo6XYfy8JpojO6EA30kto4oUbUp0LgKSf7353Q7D9P1f0UgTh/JdHecc+zuVZXuX96 RiHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIdnXk8eKNImMX7I760uouQkrPHu8yNRJnzA15xL0RI9oeyCuPP5WwqFGz1AXbilcj+6dkbypZxK6odAw== X-Received: by 10.31.8.68 with SMTP id 65mr1276160vki.150.1459259867118; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.55.138 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:57:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D1FB08E-DAAF-452D-936E-C089EE050B87@gmail.com> 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> <4D1FB08E-DAAF-452D-936E-C089EE050B87@gmail.com> From: Adam Lopresto Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:57:27 -0500 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] 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="===============3806979443182484959==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3806979443182484959== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440f6203c42b052f306a32 --001a11440f6203c42b052f306a32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I, too, vote "nay", for the same reasons. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Karen Stein wrote: > 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a11440f6203c42b052f306a32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I, too, vote "nay", for the same reasons.
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Tue, Mar 29, 20= 16 at 1:57 AM, Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com> wrote= :
My only real objections to this pr= oposal are that after all the discussion I'm left wondering why it is n= ecessary 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 a= s 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 hav= e 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 gramm= ar. 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 mot= ion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or implementation o= f the existence or practice of any of these conditions; it merely defines o= ne 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 imp= licit establishment of minimal powers associated with its acting in that ca= pacity.

Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPF= K is the unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority purs= uant to these goals.


Llg-members mailing listLlg-members@lo= jban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members<= /a>


__________________________= _____________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs


--001a11440f6203c42b052f306a32-- --===============3806979443182484959== 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 --===============3806979443182484959==--