MIME-Version: 1.0
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:04:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJOOfWF=MrLrqugH0Wt-cjOoOS-D-0EnP+tir8a4gRj_1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Subject: [Llg-members] New buisiness: publicly responding to the open letter,
 or making the official website under control of LLG (was Re: Demand for
 depriving Gleki of his administratorship and of official-pretending
 accounts.)
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

I bring this topic again as a motion, because LLG has not yet publicly
respond to the open letter (I leave my errors in English non-corrected
in order to keep identity of contents):

http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/


2016-02-29 13:41 GMT+00:00 Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 7:39 AM Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG
> <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/28/2016 11:45 AM, Craig Daniel wrote:
>> > Are there any policies against doing the things described?
>>
>> I'll take this as a point of inquiry, and as I will indicate below, gets
>> to the heart of what LLG, its membership, and its Board, are supposedly
>> about.  I address specific comments to mukti and guskant below, and
>> Robin may wish to say something if he reads this. My next-to-last
>> paragraph is explicitly directed to all members.
>>
>> You are a Board member, Craig? Shouldn't Board members have the
>> responsibility to know the answers to such questions?
>>
>> The answer is that there are essentially NO official policies of any
>> sort regarding the web site.  Robin is the owner/administrator, and he
>> set things up the way he wanted with no discussion by the Board and
>> negligible discussion in the members or main mailing lists.
>
>
> That was largely my understanding, and I did hunt around briefly for any
> policies about the website. I found none, but wanted to confirm I wasn't
> missing something.
>
> This approach has not previously caused any problems I'm aware of, but it
> seems vulnerable to much bigger ones in the future.
>
>> Per above, new Business, unless it is subsumed under byfy authority, in
>> which case Old Business.  You (Craig) are a Board member until the
>> member meeting ends, even if you do not seek reelection, and thus can
>> bring it up at the Board meeting if you want a more immediate policy
>> discussion/decision.
>
>
> I consider creating web policy where there has been none to be a matter the
> entire membership ought to have a say in, given that the point at which it's
> seen as an issue is during the meeting of the members. I fully intend to
> bring it up when we get to new business.
>
> (In parliamentary terms I regard threads like this one, which don't deal
> with any motions, as being like going into moderated caucus: a great way to
> talk out what we want to achieve later under the rules of procedure, but not
> empowered to actually do it until we're back to submitting formal motions.)
>


As Craig had been predicting, LLG has got a problem embodied by the
open letter. That letter is open to public and, as long as Gleki
continues his "dictatorship on the official website" from my point of
view, I will repeat the URL of the open letter attached to all my
future artworks. LLG can decide on non-responding publicly to it, and
leaving the website out of control of LLG, but you may want to know
that one of my sarcastic artworks has already got 170186 views on
Youtube with 241 likes and 41 dislikes since 2011. Similarly, Gleki's
"dictatorship" may be going to be well known to all the future
lojbanists through my future artworks. People can also confirm the
sources of the information described in the open letter by following
the URLs provided in it.

Gleki got his administratorship on the web contents of the official
website by personal negotiation with Robin that was out of control of
LLG. I pointed out several times about Gleki's abuse of his
administratorship on the official web contents, but he has never
honestly responded, and even concealed some of the pieces of evidence,
which I should therefore take back using wayback machine. In order to
solve this problem, LLG should make the official website under control
of LLG and create the website policies. I also require depriving Gleki
of the whole administratorship because of his dishonesty. An
administrator of the official website should be decided in a
reasonable way under control of LLG.

As for official-pretending account of Twitter abused by Gleki in
tweeting his personal opinions,
http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/tsv.html
LLG can declare on the website that the official body does not have
any Twitter account, or simply ban the account by reporting to Twitter
company. On the contrary, LLG can decide on leaving it out of control
of LLG, and then Gleki will be more famous through my future artworks
for his abuse of the official-pretending account on Twitter.

mi'e la guskant

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