Received: from localhost ([::1]:56300 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLFua-00037E-2p; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:51:52 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net ([68.230.241.218]:36831) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLFuS-00036p-UW for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:51:50 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo306 ([68.230.241.238]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20150210185139.WMJA9245.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo306> for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:51:39 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.248.61]) by eastrmimpo306 with cox id qire1p00C1LDWBL01irex5; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:51:38 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.54DA533A.0319,ss=1,re=0.001,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Tpo4ckrh c=1 sm=1 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:17 a=4Y1Az08UtVsA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=XeOeK1BtGU6W2ZDEeKkA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:51:39 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier 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: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) 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 2/10/2015 9:16 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > On the other hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assume > (as I wrongly did) that the chair is authorized to appoint or remove > members of the committee. The default assumption is that committee > members are appointed by the president, adding that it is "often > advisable" to consult the committee chair. In light of this oversight, > and in response to the questions that lojbab raised about > membership, I'd like to propose an amendment to correct that oversight. > I have not drafted one yet and am sending this message without one in > order to keep the discussion moving. [...] 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_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [68.230.241.218 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Motion: BPFK Reauthorization X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 2/10/2015 9:16 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > On the other hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assume > (as I wrongly did) that the chair is authorized to appoint or remove > members of the committee. The default assumption is that committee > members are appointed by the president, adding that it is "often > advisable" to consult the committee chair. In light of this oversight, > and in response to the questions that lojbab raised about > membership, I'd like to propose an amendment to correct that oversight. > I have not drafted one yet and am sending this message without one in > order to keep the discussion moving. Alas, no one but you and I seem to be discussing anything. Since BPFK does exist, and is being renewed rather than newly created, it has a set of members, even if it isn't entirely clear who is in the set. It even nominally still has Robin as chair, since he has not yet formally resigned. Except for BPFK, the standard policy for committees in LLG is that if you want to be a member, then you are one. BPFK also has more or less devolved to such a situation, and if my suggestion to do away with the chair had been agreed, then that would have remained the situation. The only reasons I see to have some more rules on who is a member are 1) the immense and more or less exclusive power that is being granted to BPFK to propose/produce language standards, and therefore the plausible fear that BPFK could "go rogue"; 2) the sense that I've seen among several quasi-members that BPFK people should have significant expertise in the language and/or linguistics (where "significant" remains ill-defined). You yourself have recently stated that you don't feel qualified to be chairman of BPFK due to lack of expertise, so you have some internal standard you are using that needs to be made explicit to be useful. (In point of fact, I don't think that the BPFK chair needs to be extremely skilled in the language UNLESS the BPFK members are going to grant the chair particular power in making decisions about the language; otherwise the essential qualifications for chair are leadership ability in "herding cats", ability and willingness to commit the needed time to do the job, and a good sense of mission that allows the chair to build and keep a sense of mission.) > Finally, regarding the question of the initial chair, there are a few > people whom I personally think could do very well in the position. But I > do not know if any of them are in fact inclined to take it up. My fear is that there will be no one who is willing, who can do the job except under the role of "dictator-for-the-duration", had who can sustain the needed time long enough to get something done. We've always had a shortage of people in LLG who could commit the time over a long interval. I myself did fine until I had kids, and then my time dropped to the point where even keeping up with the mailing lists was more than I had time for. Cowan managed to produce CLL, but mostly working on his own, while in a job with copious spare time. Nick as chair, essentially had Lojban take over his entire spare time, and that was one reason he dropped out. Robin has kept things going for years by having a very strong ability to delegate, but now even he has reached a limit because there are too few others who are willing to make Lojban more than an occasional recreational avocation. We apparently need a few people who are more sustained in their commitment if we want to get anything done. > I'd prefer to steer clear of discussing the proposal with reference to > particular candidates for the reason that I want to be sure that we have > a policy that does not depend on a particular chair taking up the job. I agree with that in principle while being terribly afraid that the particular chair and their traits and degree of time commitment will totally overwhelm all other factors in determining whether BPFK can accomplish anything useful under a given policy. > The old policy names the chair and has no provision for anyone else > assuming the role: This is a template of what I'd like to avoid. Your motion covers that, since it stipulates that the chair will be named or confirmed annually. > That said, I'd like to do whatever is possible to avoid BPFK being > immediately suspended per this proposal for want of a chair. It seems to > me that in order for LLG to delegate its linguistic authority, BPFK must > be a committee, and that parliamentary procedure doesn't provide for a > committee without a chair, or without formal members for that matter. I don't think that we are bound to limit BPFK by parliamentary procedure; in fact, we haven't yet done so. > If > there are suggestions for how to amend the proposal so as to address > these issues, I'd very much like to hear them. Me too, but if no one makes any such comments/proposals within a day or two, I will call for a vote on the motion as it stands, and we'll deal with the naming or chair and/or membership separately. After all, we are already in the 4th month of the meeting. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members