Received: from localhost ([::1]:56503 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLHGW-0004Jz-SJ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:18:36 -0800 Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]:60738) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YLHGT-0004Js-Lw for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:18:34 -0800 Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l13so23207iga.0 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:18:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=4O1E7N5jCRKuUmNCCugdKFeGgiMqFDIbC5nK02O7UVw=; b=vFN7Nd+J39Ky6ipKP62ZPpLeN83DuAYgduqp0deqopw/280R+AfJHAebnfCp18sm6B JkRsZoZ7NWLwR0gU4iZWTM+lCAP28ZgdN8cET3pWe1wynJpEt+6ZVYrk3CsSP+DYrruq AJzJLWRFC9LAWsUGTQvxS8Sv8N9FwH14U0PTvYLhdmZYZ5vJru/cYm8IgG9EAeSPk9Cr ODaO6bzjRkRnPP+5AqRAapn/HdG3N8jCkO3rPX9Zbmas5akstus95EB5xa1NCQscoCy2 PcUNM61Da9HUt2fAfhxhh+lch1dMj9fMWxBHT4DBRb+F/pLKFsb4+4yVofRSmlTw5tji QP1w== X-Received: by 10.42.12.20 with SMTP id w20mr33450372icw.10.1423599507320; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:18:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> From: Craig Daniel Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:18:26 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) 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: On Tue Feb 10 2015 at 1:51:55 PM Bob LeChevalier wrote: > 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. > [...] 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 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.213.179 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 (craigbdaniel[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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 -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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7728367379460627062==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7728367379460627062== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301d3dfeefb635050ec19696 --20cf301d3dfeefb635050ec19696 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue Feb 10 2015 at 1:51:55 PM Bob LeChevalier wrote: > 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. > I'm following along, and I like the idea of Riley's proposed amendment but don't presently have any brilliant ideas about the specific wording. 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"; > I'm not concerned about the idea of the BPFK going rogue, at all. There are two reasons for this: first, that the LLG does not primarily exist as a language-planning body but as an organizational one, so the baupla fuzykamni doing some baupla in ways that it doesn't foresee is precisely what we should want; second, that if it seems to go off the rails and come up with ideas that are detrimental, the LLG still requires a supermajority to approve any changes that come out of the BPFK. 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.) The Lojban community doesn't want for skilled cat herds. I believe what it lacks is a sufficiency of *cats,* and I think Robin's biggest frustration appears to be the lack of people with the talent and inclination to assist with BPFK work. I did so in the early days before getting a bit of burnout from the frustration of it being a much more daunting task than it first seemed; nowadays, we're all forewarned, and I'd return if I thought my skill with the language were still up to the task. If there are ways I can assist the BPFK's mission without much present Lojban expertise, I'd be delighted to do so; the occasional calls for such help in the BPFK and CLL efforts that Robin has put out require specific technical skills, but if any float by outside of baseball season that I am up to the task of helping with, I'm in. If anyone sees this standing offer and sees a way to connect me with work to do, please let me know, lest I overlook something. > 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. > I'm with Lojbab on this one. The idea is nice in principle, but may not be as practical. - mi'e .kreig.daniyl. --20cf301d3dfeefb635050ec19696 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue Feb 10 2015 at 1:51:55 P= M Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.or= g> wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:16 AM, Ri= ley Martinez-Lynch wrote:
> On the other hand, the code of parliamentary procedures does not assum= e
> (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<= br> > advisable" to consult the committee chair. In light of this overs= ight,
> and in response to the questions that lojbab raised about
> membership, I'd like to propose an amendment to correct that overs= ight.
> I have not drafted one yet and am sending this message without one in<= br> > order to keep the discussion moving.

Alas, no one but you and I seem to be discussing anything.
=

I'm following along, and I like the idea of Riley&#= 39;s proposed amendment but don't presently have any brilliant ideas ab= out the specific wording.


2) the sense that I've seen among several quasi-m= embers that BPFK people
should have significant expertise in the languag= e and/or linguistics
(where "significant" remains ill-defined)= .=C2=A0 You yourself have recently
stated that you don't feel qualif= ied to be chairman of BPFK due to lack
of expertise, so you have some in= ternal standard you are using that
needs to be made explicit to be usefu= l.=C2=A0
(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 t= ime to
do the job, and a good sense of mission that allows the chair to build
and keep a sense of mission.)

The Lojban co= mmunity doesn't want for skilled cat herds. I believe what it lacks is = a sufficiency of *cats,* and I think Robin's biggest frustration appear= s to be the lack of people with the talent and inclination to assist with B= PFK work.

I did so in the early days before gettin= g a bit of burnout from the frustration of it being a much more daunting ta= sk than it first seemed; nowadays, we're all forewarned, and I'd re= turn if I thought my skill with the language were still up to the task. If = there are ways I can assist the BPFK's mission without much present Loj= ban expertise, I'd be delighted to do so; the occasional calls for such= help in the BPFK and CLL efforts that Robin has put out require specific t= echnical skills, but if any float by outside of baseball season that I am u= p to the task of helping with, I'm in. If anyone sees this standing off= er and sees a way to connect me with work to do, please let me know, lest I= overlook something.

>= ; I'd prefer to steer clear of discussing the proposal with reference t= o
> particular candidates for the reason that I want to be sure that we ha= ve
> 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.

<= /div>
I'm with Lojbab on this one. The idea is nice in principle, b= ut may not be as practical.

=C2=A0- mi'e .krei= g.daniyl.
--20cf301d3dfeefb635050ec19696-- --===============7728367379460627062== 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 --===============7728367379460627062==--