Received: from localhost ([::1]:35724 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1akyBo-000288-3I; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:28 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]:35785) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1akyBg-00027s-1X for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:24 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id e6so30245193vkh.2 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=nhhEed+ti16cp80SB2qhSGl8ZihdAjQm23Hgy9buMFc=; b=ZoY0A0GQS/J5OO82rU2Va4U1bg26VoSJDAvPSCjoyMwZEKhrklkYGVHC9LK3RiM4fI 9HYAZ55K2DuwY9GdpDO4NMOPG4n4GVC6IgLxz4tuRhLdnR+tZHns4RV7syJYjKXiz1UF 4TMFWomqYUhWX8/g9GYsTlHOG9uOU/QCpcjKOLYybOkKSr1qHA4SVjJjUZE1AMACUelD y4BWzLSASIaBqr1K11XUWEzWztzZvEZe5brd1x7BCAgqv3kCY1OkeIWfQcLEEbNvq3RN 0t5xCyQYfkyUGH5chFGGKghkMfJamFsjqzjqZL08UvB16IEwfhOawAsOARZGbkY5zQS5 V9oQ== 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=nhhEed+ti16cp80SB2qhSGl8ZihdAjQm23Hgy9buMFc=; b=m1upQ3Nq25SQzBLbYrDfApflNmUu0ZPs1h2jlcMBEaWL+nPODwuARBZlMR24OXrEKc szC40fmsS/BxxLv3MpXEHGYrx29/wH1+XcYgFnGqg5mRPKX0eM5O+HnRuH4ROIhFaCLd EIzYhwLFzkvsuEtOHRCGGQg3IaDaNo/0Q65UFzRAfgjp7whOtTLg4n53kuJM8JsGXsUk JIt+hotPzyoHLNWQaVggCbeNIW65flOjY7wDHcGz9YRLKUpm/T84su+6wEs//Dm3OJ85 56v08zIBqOgQGGZA9E0VFg9ZvbGyY7bKCjqsPzNAJ7x4Y5924XKExEz30eRPg9HMcLeX 1qPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLcpWk0l1o5zIGLMYPCOLy4cz7Jd1XVkUQAXczfzO1sFjEMoLvcvBUQm4N/Bqb80tOOwIEeygwjp4MAxg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.2.23 with SMTP id 23mr2375962uas.100.1459275373826; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <56FA169C.8070702@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:16:13 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks 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] Voting on Curtis Frank's motion on BPFK and CLL 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="===============1795489285218833726==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1795489285218833726== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eca58496d8d052f34065c --001a113eca58496d8d052f34065c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I too think that I oppose it. I do not mind redundancy, but I find some of it somewhat dangerous or too vague. It's rejection is not particularly harmful absolutely or relative to the potential. The important thing is that something is there and I believe that the actual specifications for the BPFK along with the fact that this discussion took place accomplishes this purpose. On Mar 29, 2016 10:01, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" wrote: > I oppose the motion. I agree with its author that it is not necessary. > > =E2=80=94Riley no=E2=80=99u la mukti > > > On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - > LLG wrote: > > > > Discussion has gone silent. Craig's motion seems to fail for lack of a > second. > > > > Curtis has moved, and gleki has seconded the following. > >> In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever a BPFK exists, > >> whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have a= ny > >> 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 an= y > >> of its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to it= s > >> 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 fulfilli= ng > >> and conducting - as well as the implicit establishment of minimal powe= rs > >> 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. > > > > I am taking the second paragraph as dependent on the first, and thus th= e > whole as a single motion. That seems to be how gleki understood it in hi= s > second, which quoted the whole thing. > > > > And has voiced an objection, so we need to actually vote. I am allowin= g > until end of day Thursday for voting. But if a majority of the membershi= p > in favor or opposed has spoken before then, I will allow/encourage us to > move on without waiting for the end of the voting period (while still > accepting votes). So please speak up. > > > > lojbab > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --001a113eca58496d8d052f34065c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I too think that I oppose it. I do not mind redundancy, but = I find some of it somewhat dangerous or too vague. It's rejection is no= t particularly harmful absolutely or relative to the potential. The importa= nt thing is that something is there and I believe that the actual specifica= tions for the BPFK along with the fact that this discussion took place acco= mplishes this purpose.

On Mar 29, 2016 10:01, "Riley Martinez-Lync= h" <shunpiker@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
I oppose= the motion. I agree with its author that it is not necessary.

=E2=80=94Riley no=E2=80=99u la mukti

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - = LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrot= e:
>
> Discussion has gone silent.=C2=A0 Craig's motion seems to fail for= lack of a second.
>
> Curtis has moved, and gleki has seconded the following.
>> In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever a BPFK exists= ,
>> whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to ha= ve any
>> defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charged w= ith
>> maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language o= r any
>> of its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited t= o its
>> grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achie= ving
>> of these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (= the
>> LLG). This motion is not intended to make assertions as to the mer= its or
>> implementation of the existence or practice of any of these condit= ions;
>> it merely defines one of possibly many roles (for) which any
>> organization which is to act as a BPFK will be responsible in fulf= illing
>> 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 t= he
>> unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority purs= uant
>> to these goals.
>
> I am taking the second paragraph as dependent on the first, and thus t= he whole as a single motion.=C2=A0 That seems to be how gleki understood it= in his second, which quoted the whole thing.
>
> And has voiced an objection, so we need to actually vote.=C2=A0 I am a= llowing until end of day Thursday for voting.=C2=A0 But if a majority of th= e membership in favor or opposed has spoken before then, I will allow/encou= rage us to move on without waiting for the end of the voting period (while = still accepting votes).=C2=A0 So please speak up.
>
> lojbab
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-membe= rs
--001a113eca58496d8d052f34065c-- --===============1795489285218833726== 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 --===============1795489285218833726==--