Message-ID: <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 06:57:59 -0500
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: llg-members@lojban.org
References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com>
 <CAP=UV6rFA6e3bF=mDFBoDSKqo_kxMsh5xWuVbpSe94VhL2Li0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP=UV6rFA6e3bF=mDFBoDSKqo_kxMsh5xWuVbpSe94VhL2Li0Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
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:  On 1/19/2015 1:21 AM, Craig Daniel wrote: > Jbovlaste does
 not, in any way, require action by the LLG membership. Under new business,
 we can consider whether LLG wants to recognize jbovlaste as some sort of
 official repository for the language, which it currently is not (it is just
 one of a multitude of "official projects", recognized to exist, but more
 or less independent of all other projects). I would be opposed to such an
 official status at this time,
 since my (limited) understanding is that jbovlaste
 contains not-so-good proposals alongside words actually in use (I presume
 the upvoting thing is relevant, but if someone can arbitrarily assign 10000
 upvotes, it is a meaningless standard. There needs to be a formal approval
 standard that is not rigged.) [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in lojban.org.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2      RBL: Average reputation (+2)
 [68.230.241.217 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few
 jbovlaste entries
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

On 1/19/2015 1:21 AM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> Jbovlaste does not, in any way, require action by the LLG membership.

Under new business, we can consider whether LLG wants to recognize 
jbovlaste as some sort of official repository for the language, which it 
currently is not (it is just one of a multitude of "official projects", 
recognized to exist, but more or less independent of all other 
projects).  I would be opposed to such an official status at this time, 
since my (limited) understanding is that jbovlaste contains not-so-good 
proposals alongside words actually in use (I presume the upvoting thing 
is relevant, but if someone can arbitrarily assign 10000 upvotes, it is 
a meaningless standard.  There needs to be a formal approval standard 
that is not rigged.)

At this point, byfy does not have the approval of changes in the 
baseline word lists within its scope, though it was expected that it 
would gain such authority within its scope eventually.  Even if it is 
within scope, I don't recall Robin as jatna/dictator issuing any 
procedures or standards relating to the matter, and I have never seen 
him call any formal vote on the matter (and I never voted), so I am not 
sure why it is believed that BPFK has "approved" whatever is being proposed.

(Being outside of the BPFK scope is also true of the morphology, which 
is being discussed - but it is more of a borderline case since I 
understand that they are also incorporating morphology in the PEG 
grammar that may at some time gain officialness, and because morphology 
is part of CLL, which is in-scope.)

lojbab

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