Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+hBvn4qRkk7-FAd-vFqfjVcdf13CVvQye78299Zcc2gzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:25:17 -0500
Message-Id: <79E9C752-4C68-4E83-B12C-99EC5508CFAF@gmail.com>
References: <6204AE2F-BDEC-4AB8-B0A7-7705899B7D7A@gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+hBvn4qRkk7-FAd-vFqfjVcdf13CVvQye78299Zcc2gzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software,
 running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", 
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview:  > 1. How are new members supposed to be approved in BPFK?
 I have deliberately left the determination of membership unspecified. I would
 hope that BPFK would specify clear policies about membership, but think it's
 unnecessary for LLG to "micro-manage" BPFK on such details. [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2      RBL: Average reputation (+2)
 [209.85.192.42 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 (shunpiker[at]gmail.com)
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Revitalizing BPFK
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
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


> 1. How are new members supposed to be approved in BPFK?

I have deliberately left the determination of membership unspecified. I would hope that BPFK would specify clear policies about membership, but think it's unnecessary for LLG to "micro-manage" BPFK on such details.

> 2. I suggest that the bpfk-list be open for everyone for commenting however only votes of official members are counted during voting.

That seems like a sensible suggestion, although again I would defer to the will of BPFK on this detail.

> 3. I suggest that a simple majority of votes be necessary during accepting the results of voting for new issues.

Are you referring to voting within LLG or BPFK?

> 4. As of now I suggest that all members of LLG + J. Cowan + la .aionys. automatically become members of LLG (did I miss anyone active there?)

I assume you mean BPFK. I'd prefer that BPFK be allowed to determine their own membership policies, but I agree that la balgenpre and .aionys. would have a lot to contribute to BPFK proceedings.

--Riley
mi'e la mukti mu'o


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