Received: from localhost ([::1]:33771 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YM2Pc-0004FF-Bo; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:39:08 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net ([68.230.241.216]:39845) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YM2PS-0004Ey-PI for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:39:06 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo210 ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20150212223852.ILYB25062.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo210> for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:38:52 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.248.61]) by eastrmimpo210 with cox id raes1p0051LDWBL01aesH7; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:38:52 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.54DD2B7C.0159,ss=1,re=0.001,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=aZC/a2Ut c=1 sm=1 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:17 a=4Y1Az08UtVsA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=-BahAX3fulYxLgLljDYA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <54DD2B86.2020506@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:39:02 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" 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: <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org> <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com> <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: 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 2/11/2015 8:01 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > lojbab: > >> 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. > > selpahi: > >> For this I would like to suggest that upon formation of the new BPFK, >> all previous/current members are removed, so the BPFK starts with an >> empty set of members. Then, everyone who is interested in becoming a >> member can speak up and will be able to become a member (with or >> without having to meet certain criteria, depending on what we are >> going to decide). This has the advantage of knowing who is actually a >> member, which might come in handy if there are going to be votes, for >> instance. > > lojbab: > >> The only reasons I see to have some more rules on who is a member are >> ... the immense and more or less exclusive power that is being granted >> to BPFK to propose/produce language standards > > I agree that there is a sense that BPFK may have members, but that the > extent of membership is unclear. I also agree this is problematic from a > procedural perspective, as selpahi describes, and because of the powers > delegated to BPFK, as described by lojbab. > > To address these concerns, as well as to resolve any doubt about the > power of the chair to appoint members and/or determine procedures for > membership in the committee, I propose the following amendment: > > -- > > The chair is authorized to appoint members of BPFK who may or may not also be members of LLG, to establish expectations for the participation of members in committee work, to remove members who are unable or fail to meet the expectations for participation, and to determine regular procedures by which parties may be added or removed as members of the committee. > > At the time of the adoption of this policy, and at any time that a chair is elected by the membership of LLG without having been nominated to that election by BPFK, any membership in BPFK will be deemed to lapse and any [...] 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] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Motion: BPFK Reauthorization (amendment) 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 2/11/2015 8:01 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > lojbab: > >> 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. > > selpahi: > >> For this I would like to suggest that upon formation of the new BPFK, >> all previous/current members are removed, so the BPFK starts with an >> empty set of members. Then, everyone who is interested in becoming a >> member can speak up and will be able to become a member (with or >> without having to meet certain criteria, depending on what we are >> going to decide). This has the advantage of knowing who is actually a >> member, which might come in handy if there are going to be votes, for >> instance. > > lojbab: > >> The only reasons I see to have some more rules on who is a member are >> ... the immense and more or less exclusive power that is being granted >> to BPFK to propose/produce language standards > > I agree that there is a sense that BPFK may have members, but that the > extent of membership is unclear. I also agree this is problematic from a > procedural perspective, as selpahi describes, and because of the powers > delegated to BPFK, as described by lojbab. > > To address these concerns, as well as to resolve any doubt about the > power of the chair to appoint members and/or determine procedures for > membership in the committee, I propose the following amendment: > > -- > > The chair is authorized to appoint members of BPFK who may or may not also be members of LLG, to establish expectations for the participation of members in committee work, to remove members who are unable or fail to meet the expectations for participation, and to determine regular procedures by which parties may be added or removed as members of the committee. > > At the time of the adoption of this policy, and at any time that a chair is elected by the membership of LLG without having been nominated to that election by BPFK, any membership in BPFK will be deemed to lapse and any membership-related procedure established within the committee will be deemed to expire. The appointment of an interim chair will not be held to cause any membership in BPFK to lapse, or to have any effect upon BPFK membership procedures. It seems that your proposal has strongly evolved from the BPFK as a group determining policies and procedures, to the chair having that power exclusively. gleki's response to you seems to more reflect the rather free-for-all concept that I thought you had in mind, devolving as much power from the chair to the BPFK members as possible. selpahi's suggestion seems more akin to gleki's in not relying on the chair. I'm more supportive of a weaker chair, because I am more than a little untrusting of "benevolent dictatorships". I've also been struck by the realization that the sub-community that has built up around IRC has significantly different ideas on making their usages "official" than the rest of the community, which I fear would lead to rapid and sometimes contentious language change, without achieving true consensus. This was the sort of thing that helped tear the TLI Loglan community apart. One can easily imagine that a chair appointed from among one faction could cause that faction to be controlling in decisions on language change. I'm not sure how strongly to feel on whether to remove all current BPFK members per selpahi. It probably depends on whether Robin has some reliable list of members to serve as the status quo. Nora and I have been BPFK members since it started, but would be unlikely to volunteer anew if the new BPFK is starting over from scratch. lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members