Received: from localhost ([::1]:57750 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1at5rZ-0005Os-6W; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:05:09 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44]:36760) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1at5rS-0005Ob-Uu for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:05:07 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n67so73477360vkf.3 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:05:02 -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=B+pCJQRmSuIau6VzswoZWswI/Kop4gVl9sLh4QLphEY=; b=GUnbV3E34IZVDu5MXl87n7y9FGSJU1CAuhwCLexgJBGOAKqvTY/OA8nshP2twCMOyr w2Ekw4ITnuRXqwjuYpqeglosJK/B9KgMM0/Rh+JeLsHN1UehpmxHPuxM8HO3ARRQPuEz 0AdNkCOxPZFF8wFWK5cV8surfq4Nl2B0BWK1Ze6QfZ2d2EcklO4gcAT90TZoKtnsze1T eB6Hekgzh9+/iQ7looutbvYrSg9PBzWtQxg7bCPzUpyMzvO+saE5uWHROvSAh0gjph0s yfIuCmM3VQ5oGHDR84Qr2wq4tjM5yxWl2eJQY+9nbL7oslMvQvQy1vLQunWmSTt9CbDg Ie2g== 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=B+pCJQRmSuIau6VzswoZWswI/Kop4gVl9sLh4QLphEY=; b=eiT8ofX4xkkSFH3YcfzbWVBoGtw/tIWVuqXbSuSf9nW05AgkiT61AOeK+Mu0myfELO 4/lskirEcRLu0IkllknMxAdgQ/sFjHOzTyYY4OLCO4kI65y31e9SXECMeLAlPA7L3Uiw KkEZYLczBKUiyFKYGXc/TcJtAM2IcMS+Cskgj2YfF6HoWE3KaBkwCzwWE6GUe9xk+q7J xkh+2rOwbeL7da3I2CBpfaIh0rG2r4Br6sEiQMN0I0dHx4ucnsV2LyuoGSGkTxyoHDGe Ntfq+0whbOua6QSP51hKKfTSfbITRyebMiV3ixcN/GXADdt6HS67Ynwml/ATkKVDa0bq 4Ylg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUXZebkRkxzU193MdQlmp2izN1k2y/dYVzw1RR7TJlUEtUkKIPSzkZjiTOw0Lg7Ggzj0TIv3K3iZUJnJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.159.39.9 with SMTP id a9mr5911956uaa.116.1461211496623; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:04:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0748C06D-7DE6-4F31-BB71-58215BF60729@gmail.com> References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> <1533522.sVHHld6LrL@caracal> <0748C06D-7DE6-4F31-BB71-58215BF60729@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:04:56 -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] Annual meeting: NB-Website_Jurisdiction 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="===============0037384991963791831==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0037384991963791831== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c12339c32b3710530f6d094 --94eb2c12339c32b3710530f6d094 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Consequently, I retract my motion. On Apr 20, 2016 22:38, "Karen Stein" wrote: > I changed the discussion name to break up the flow is messages a bit. I > was having to mark messages in outset to see the separate topics. > > I would like to put my motion aside because in trying to make it clear and > concise I went too far. > > . karis. > > On April 20, 2016 6:45:42 PM EDT, Curtis Franks > wrote: >> >> So, here is the rub: >> >> The LLG would have jurisdiction over the webpages, but no actual means to >> make changes to them. Moreover, it is not even clear to me that the LLG, >> under Karen's motion, would ever have the power to change the pages; I read >> the power to be legislative and an executive team would be charged with >> maintaining compliance of the webpage with the wishes of the LLG as >> expressed by its decrees. So, if the motion passes, we would be >> incapacitated on three levels until certain infrastructure is established. >> We would be physically unable (we have no servers under our direct >> control). We would be restricted by the fact that we might have only >> legislative and not executive power. And, even if we could in theory have >> executive power, we might not be internally structured in a way that would >> enable it - we have no working committee, no general principles, etc. >> Politics and organization would interfere. >> >> If we need to make a change or desire it, we could not do so quickly. >> Even if we organize well and have physical access, the wrangling over the >> extent of our executive ability (and how we would achieve that) would delay >> action. >> >> Having some safety valve seems wise to me. The term limit is a safety >> measure and allows us to negotiate internally with breathing room but with >> some nonzero deadline pressure. >> >> I think that the LLG can revoke access and authority at will, so that was >> unnecessary in this movement. The assumption of all expired or relinquished >> duty and power too was unnecessary for inclusion, now that I think about it. >> >> Robin seems like the most practicable option. He has access and control >> (to my knowledge), so pretending otherwise is pointless. His current duties >> would not change dramatically, I expect. If necessary, we can cut back on >> his responsibilities or even relieve him entirely of them by suitable >> action (preferably, establishment of suitable infrastructure). We can also >> enable other bodies to take up some fractions of that power and >> responsibility. >> >> But it is best that someone have the power (and disproportionately small, >> relative to potential, responsibility) in the interim. Under Karen's >> motion, no-one would. I think that Robin is the reasonable and immediate >> choice. >> >> Even if my motion fails, it is important for us to recognize the problem >> which it attempts to patch. >> On Apr 20, 2016 18:11, "Curtis Franks" wrote: >> >>> According to my understanding, he currently has it and can affect it >>> most easily. Of course, if he does not want it, we should find an >>> alternative emergency valve, but that will be politically more difficult, I >>> expect. >>> On Apr 20, 2016 17:35, "Alex Burka" wrote: >>> >>>> Please write future motions in less confusing language. >>>> >>>> Does Robin even want this responsibility? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Curtis Franks < >>>> curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I fear that if Karen's motion passes (and I currently think that it >>>>> should), we might not be able to decide on a legitimate mechanism for >>>>> governing the webpages. >>>>> >>>>> I therefore move that Robin Lee Powell is vested with the authority to >>>>> edit and maintain the Logical Language Group Web Page under the auspices of >>>>> the Logical Language Group for a period of not more than one year starting >>>>> from the passing of Karen's motion or any motion which similarly vests >>>>> authority over the Logical Language Group Web Page in one or several, a >>>>> priori unspecified bodies (other than the Logical Language Group or its >>>>> Governing Board, in whole) or individuals during the course of this >>>>> meeting. If such bodies or individuals are established during the duration >>>>> of the effect of this motion, this motion is terminated and all authority >>>>> vested in Robin Lee Powell reverts to the Logical Language Group or its >>>>> Governing Board. The effect of this motion may be extended no more than >>>>> thrice in units of six-month durations by the approval of a simple majority >>>>> of the voting membership of the Logical Language Group or its Governing >>>>> Board. This motion does not prohibit the investiture or exercise of similar >>>>> authority in other bodies or individuals, including - in particular - the >>>>> Logical Language Group and its Governing Board. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >> >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > -- Karen Stein -- > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c12339c32b3710530f6d094 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Consequently, I retract my motion.

On Apr 20, 2016 22:38, "Karen Stein" &= lt;comcaresvcs@gmail.com> w= rote:
I changed= the discussion name to break up the flow is messages a bit. I was having t= o mark messages in outset to see the separate topics.

I would like to put my motion aside because in trying to make it clear and = concise I went too far.

. karis.

On April 20, 2016 6:45:42 PM ED= T, Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:

So, here is the rub:

The LLG would have jurisdiction over the webpages, but no ac= tual means to make changes to them. Moreover, it is not even clear to me th= at the LLG, under Karen's motion, would ever have the power to change t= he pages; I read the power to be legislative and an executive team would be= charged with maintaining compliance of the webpage with the wishes of the = LLG as expressed by its decrees. So, if the motion passes, we would be inca= pacitated on three levels until certain infrastructure is established. We w= ould be physically unable (we have no servers under our direct control). We= would be restricted by the fact that we might have only legislative and no= t executive power. And, even if we could in theory have executive power, we= might not be internally structured in a way that would enable it - we have= no working committee, no general principles, etc. Politics and organizatio= n would interfere.

If we need to make a change or desire it, we could not do so= quickly. Even if we organize well and have physical access, the wrangling = over the extent of our executive ability (and how we would achieve that) wo= uld delay action.

Having some safety valve seems wise to me. The term limit is= a safety measure and allows us to negotiate internally with breathing room= but with some nonzero deadline pressure.

I think that the LLG can revoke access and authority at will= , so that was unnecessary in this movement. The assumption of all expired o= r relinquished duty and power too was unnecessary for inclusion, now that I= think about it.

Robin seems like the most practicable option. He has access = and control (to my knowledge), so pretending otherwise is pointless. His cu= rrent duties would not change dramatically, I expect. If necessary, we can = cut back on his responsibilities or even relieve him entirely of them by su= itable action (preferably, establishment of suitable infrastructure). We ca= n also enable other bodies to take up some fractions of that power and resp= onsibility.

But it is best that someone have the power (and disproportio= nately small, relative to potential, responsibility) in the interim. Under = Karen's motion, no-one would. I think that Robin is the reasonable and = immediate choice.

Even if my motion fails, it is important for us to recognize= the problem which it attempts to patch.

On Apr 20, 2016 18:11, "Curtis Franks"= <curtis.= w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:

According to my understanding, he currently ha= s it and can affect it most easily. Of course, if he does not want it, we s= hould find an alternative emergency valve, but that will be politically mor= e difficult, I expect.

On Apr 20, 2016 17:35, "Alex Burka" &l= t;durka42@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
Please write future motions in less confusing language.
Does Robin even want this responsibility?

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:0= 1 PM, Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrot= e:

I fear that if Karen= 9;s motion passes (and I currently think that it should), we might not be a= ble to decide on a legitimate mechanism for governing the webpages.

I therefore move that Robin Lee Powell is vested with the au= thority to edit and maintain the Logical Language Group Web Page under the = auspices of the Logical Language Group for a period of not more than one ye= ar starting from the passing of Karen's motion or any motion which simi= larly vests authority over the Logical Language Group Web Page in one or se= veral, a priori unspecified bodies (other than the Logical Language Group o= r its Governing Board, in whole) or individuals during the course of this m= eeting. If such bodies or individuals are established during the duration o= f the effect of this motion, this motion is terminated and all authority ve= sted in Robin Lee Powell reverts to the Logical Language Group or its Gover= ning Board. The effect of this motion may be extended no more than thrice i= n units of six-month durations by the approval of a simple majority of the = voting membership of the Logical Language Group or its Governing Board. Thi= s motion does not prohibit the investiture or exercise of similar authority in other bodies o= r individuals, including - in particular - the Logical Language Group and i= ts Governing Board.


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



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

Llg-members@lojban.org
http:/= /mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members


-- Karen Stein --

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

--94eb2c12339c32b3710530f6d094-- --===============0037384991963791831== 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 --===============0037384991963791831==--