Received: from localhost ([::1]:37261 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajE1G-0006gP-DI; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:46:22 -0700 Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:36854) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajE1A-0006fW-BH for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:46:21 -0700 Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id r187so80539087oih.3 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:46:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0cCmhSL84tIP84bp41DR7UIXGUh83OBxUWccnibPmHs=; b=gZnlVPMH7YJBhR86u5Oe3h6Gbw7rpfzsevRdEkuhxCMjEdCdjUlk8sTvsg8Y+FPeeV ddESHC2g0zq1VlE/Aj4FwMcp+wRePMuqGBg/2fOeIolvccQckr9qBYhdzu2n0gacT3rO cuey8PxKLMTYwwUkNO//WzlixyCB90wyQFg9JHErNyqmhGZUU+/f95fLau7WmEBuz2v3 FgSmVQk6yptxbnZk4kLbOPRJkq3jQMkKlnO8E7oinoJTrHaJG5oQ5mXfAaagcW9KCWVv SsTWARoWS3aVuWueIY7/d2xT1Gwi3/V9gI+DuJV9Zhh9O4x3DZjn9ccroznTC5z8H+69 MHTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=0cCmhSL84tIP84bp41DR7UIXGUh83OBxUWccnibPmHs=; b=dYyYB1VLnwEnAgLafoLeCEUi6iUxsvxevJhxOwZfwbPWHOF80pPPIvo92Oxda6nhLV jY5RGl6IH+66iK+zxzXRs9BzkT0Qakz8M08z79wjQ79fZt7l+ixOBkf5e7ARPFUImMy/ p+sfMWyCH+8+GtA8FjDyR0iiBZPE8k6HRnYJN8phDz7T3WJuyCctfesbighgs+SusyX4 A0EdQkB4W2YgF2anVHlvjjSBwEiBuTlUcFLQ4rWQpZ1m+QpfEx57x+WwAk/l535AKX79 /a3C7CuTi/HwaLMeIJSqI0NDxfxmHCiO4v3Ko28qwQJO2uBnh02pZJSkiI0rkolNimRk Z/NQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKUccY4ns7FQiv7zlsotkDdEAfK86G+9BwVW5aD+Dox9Ti+zLsQjC53cvbgKyLg8Edmgzr9MehHVNffaw== X-Received: by 10.202.102.94 with SMTP id a91mr4929643oic.22.1458859570039; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:46:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org> <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com> <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org> <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org> <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org> From: Craig Daniel Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:46:00 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business 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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2503317377939655073==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2503317377939655073== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f7a8731389052ed33674 --001a1140f7a8731389052ed33674 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically > approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser, > which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of > grammatical correctness. I so move. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 6:18 PM Bob LeChevalier wrote: > On 3/20/2016 5:55 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > I think that mukti has made two motions, and both have been seconded. = I > > do not see any other motions, nor any amendments or request for them. > > > > 1. "Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK=E2=80=99s findings on =E2=80= =9Cdotside=E2=80=9D, I move > > that we do so." > > > > 2. "If the chair of BPFK would accept re-appointment to that position, = I > > would also like ask that we vote to recognize his leadership for anothe= r > > term." > > > > For 2., the conditional probably requires that selpa'i actually say tha= t > > he accepts, but I won't hold up the motion waiting for that. > > > > Discussion on either motion can continue if desired, but if I see no > > explicit objection, or an explicit request to hold up either question > > for additional discussion, then both motions will be considered approve= d > > after end of day next Wednesday (23rd). > > Both motions have passed, and selpa'i has accepted reappointment. > > No one else has proposed any new motions, but Riley has indicated that > he has additional ideas in mind. > > We do however have the issue brought up earlier in the meeting as to > whether BPFK will be charged with deciding about the lexicon or about > definitions (other than the cmavo definitions). I think that it can be > safely understood that the BYFY is charged with maintaining CLL as the > defining standard for the language as a whole and its grammar. > > I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically > approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser, > which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of > grammatical correctness. I don't particularly like this myself, in part > because I don't really understand non-YACC grammar definitions and have > always needed to rely on a parser to know whether what I write is > "proper", but it isn't my decision. > > I think a decision on the current relative importance of producing a > written dictionary is also something that should be decided, since that > was in a sense the original motivation for setting up a byfy. We must > also remember that none of the various online lists and databases of > words and their definitions is currently in any way official, above and > beyond the baselined gismu and cmavo lists. > > I have a comment on the question of officialness of words, but it isn't > pertinent to any motion or intended motion that I've seen, and I'm not > at the moment up to writing it in a form I think appropriate for the > meeting. I may end up putting it off, and posting to the main list > outside the meeting. > > lojbab > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a1140f7a8731389052ed33674 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion s= pecifically
> approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser= ,
> which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of
> grammatical correctness.

I so move.


On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 6:18 = PM Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.o= rg> wrote:
On 3/20/2016 5:55= PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> I think that mukti has made two motions, and both have been seconded.= =C2=A0 I
> do not see any other motions, nor any amendments or request for them.<= br> >
> 1. "Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK=E2=80=99s findings on = =E2=80=9Cdotside=E2=80=9D, I move
> that we do so."
>
> 2. "If the chair of BPFK would accept re-appointment to that posi= tion, I
> would also like ask that we vote to recognize his leadership for anoth= er
> term."
>
> For 2., the conditional probably requires that selpa'i actually sa= y that
> he accepts, but I won't hold up the motion waiting for that.
>
> Discussion on either motion can continue if desired, but if I see no > explicit objection, or an explicit request to hold up either question<= br> > for additional discussion, then both motions will be considered approv= ed
> after end of day next Wednesday (23rd).

Both motions have passed, and selpa'i has accepted reappointment.

No one else has proposed any new motions, but Riley has indicated that
he has additional ideas in mind.

We do however have the issue brought up earlier in the meeting as to
whether BPFK will be charged with deciding about the lexicon or about
definitions (other than the cmavo definitions).=C2=A0 I think that it can b= e
safely understood that the BYFY is charged with maintaining CLL as the
defining standard for the language as a whole and its grammar.

I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically
approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser,
which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of
grammatical correctness. I don't particularly like this myself, in part=
because I don't really understand non-YACC grammar definitions and have=
always needed to rely on a parser to know whether what I write is
"proper", but it isn't my decision.

I think a decision on the current relative importance of producing a
written dictionary is also something that should be decided, since that
was in a sense the original motivation for setting up a byfy.=C2=A0 We must=
also remember that none of the various online lists and databases of
words and their definitions is currently in any way official, above and
beyond the baselined gismu and cmavo lists.

I have a comment on the question of officialness of words, but it isn't=
pertinent to any motion or intended motion that I've seen, and I'm = not
at the moment up to writing it in a form I think appropriate for the
meeting. I may end up putting it off, and posting to the main list
outside the meeting.

lojbab


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs
--001a1140f7a8731389052ed33674-- --===============2503317377939655073== 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 --===============2503317377939655073==--