Received: from localhost ([::1]:53153 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aYH8d-0005I7-0O; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:52:43 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net ([68.230.241.215]:36965) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aYH8W-0005GD-Ki for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:52:41 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20160223175230.YJUA30397.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:52:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with cox id MtsW1s0032869s801tsWLN; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:52:30 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.56CC9C5E.0114, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=XY0HzeJ5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=PdWuIHaTUeM8CqreDfEA:9 a=tBZrtDM8f8__vchb:21 a=aDy0ICRJ1OHmQ0J5:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> <9AC7ACDB-A395-4564-8340-20876DAB07CA@gmail.com> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: <56CC9C72.4040908@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:52:50 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - response to discussion X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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 As to the discussion of what LLG should be doing (which I stayed out of), I will try to be brief. IMO, no one should be working on CLL 2.0 at this time (unless the bpfk jatna has chosen to do so as a means of moving byfy work along). Ultimately CLL is the official document specifying Lojban, until unless byfy creates some alternative. We need to be sure that anyone interested in Lojban can get the latest approved specification, and that insofar as possible, they are shielded from unofficial or not-yet-official changes which can only cause confusion as to what the language "is". When work is to start on CLL 2.0, the starting place should be the published version of CLL 1.1 or whatever number Robin is applying to his version. We don't want to lose typo corrections, formatting stuff that may have been tricky to work out, indexing, etc. Look at how long it has taken Robin to get this far, and he probably more than anyone knew what needed to be done. When work is to start on a next version of CLL, by necessity it will have to be managed by the byfy chair, because only byfy is allowed to specify changes to the language, the official design of which will be the revised baseline represented in Robin's version. Any official "working version" should be locked against changes except by the jatna and perhaps a couple of others at his discretion. If people feel that the existing CLL is harmfully inadequate, working on CLL 2.0 isn't the best solution. Rather I think people should take a section of CLL, make changes to that section, attach something that clearly summarizes what has changed (i.e "updated to reflect xorlo") and then put it in an evaluation queue labeled as "proposed change to section x.y of CLL". The byfy jatna will have such sections evaluated for correctness and consistency, and then can either replace the 1.x chapter, or more likely create another queue of sections that are approved as to the changes that are included - then, at some later time those sections might be further modified to reflect other changes. This would work very well for people who are trying to standardize the use of linguistic terminology, for example, which is independent from any actual change in the language design, or that want to tackle the documentation of xorlo without worrying about reflecting other possible changes. It would allow the creation of a temporary CLL that has no differences other than incorporating xorlo, for example, without affecting other byfy work. Ultimately, needs to be addressed by the byfy jatna before anything official is decided. ----- IMO, going to a non-English baseline CLL is a nice future concept, but it shouldn't be a priority until byfy thinks that the current CLL is close to a "final" state reflecting the backlog of proposals that people want considered. ----- If the community wants to migrate LLG's web pages off of Robin's network, then this should be proposed under new business. Actual implementation would be the responsibility of the Board or whoever it delegates. An alternative proposal might ask the Board to consider migrating the web site under conditions X, Y, Z, (or to achieve goals X, Y, Z) at which point we would probably negotiate with Robin to find the best resolution. ----- I like the idea of prizes/awards for getting stuff done, and indeed intended to propose something like this myself. Again, new business. ----- I agree that face to face LogFests are an expensive luxury. They still can be useful in building an inclusive community, but probably should not be financially supported unless the planning is for a gathering significantly larger than those already held. (An exception is that someone can donate sufficient money specifically to hold a particular LogFest, and the Board can make it official, allowing that donation money to offer a tax benefit in the US, and possibly in other countries.) The concept of an online LogFest is intriguing. I'd like to see more discussion of this, and how it would differ from current IRC/Skype sessions. Again, new business. ----- I have some ideas on organizing geographical or native-language based "interest groups" along the lines of what I think guskant and gleki were saying. Having such groups with dedicated webspace or mailing list or some other means to get together which also includes identifying who exactly fits into each group and their level of interest/activity would be really useful. ----- I downloaded gismu and cmavo lists only to find that the official lists seem to have been replaced. Various unofficial proposals (and experimental cmavo) have been added to the lists, and the file has been HTMLized so that it no longer can be easily sorted on any of several fields as it could when it was a flat file. This should not have been done, and I'd like to find out where I can get the baseline lists (which theoretically can be changed by byfy, but I don't know that such changes have been proposed or approved). lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members