Received: from localhost ([::1]:46566 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajf98-0008S2-9V; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:44:18 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:34100) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajf91-0008Ru-Pq for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:44:16 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e185so107250895vkb.1 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:44:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=cv256ZUMB9pIDDitgKksptffMFwcwfSHYSVYRCMDc8U=; b=PICptZTjfzN99UuaFTKqCLvMvWyedUW1EcJhtVNgZY5+wx732Bi97kJ7Hcdj8kNO/D G/ZwkVq1MhBqAiEu5HjFYuxwTfPyi+tATE/BDT6Yx9Ni+yS13LrtsohR8jp4ir8Hgl+j lt1CjdEH+6DXXwJtHpdQUp/nNKDIes00p+PeItiQ26osBdIC+qvj5T9HIR3/hLraHcjE vgmOBsOA5RRgNunTqHg8+VeLyF0Uy97WDbb32ZCAAYIFMnkaDmpIRTVvpurotk+/pw49 PiT+TN7fPLKkxqtxlkDW+wuuRrlkbiSoCax+4tJnHJ5Dqp/W+iAm4b4XLaVSpmUajTeN P//g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=cv256ZUMB9pIDDitgKksptffMFwcwfSHYSVYRCMDc8U=; b=Gam4J6FHJTM2/46a3Byl6zX3WA4JnFdlKiKlbbLRjyjNjUz3QrndPOR0YW9GqsZMh6 WA7H/pQuoBpQ/Qtn+Kd0Yvp8uzQGqVtnVQakJ8ccvCPFNfvykkZeuaE/8V7321oDzDcJ M+c3j90dIQ/Q1HjKd4dZAJOnDWzh6ghBetWL6mxRWwMmHGWnQvtB2Jx/I425qAtorDFh 67Ue8B5QplOvNHXiKCKjioH8dKqGmdM+qW4RfvwxSvKIjJOaMQWdXt1GGf4HR6C/OLsL dyZDUBcjGusi1odI1a7bAvJssAozko3DGm73eqLpIcSd86nUHxUrxZ/46FhnPwOma0dU IebQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLL++Yx+ttvRxQR26pZIhP+Ubv2w+wNbPdF+k10gvwCSbxWN5ydOR4SW5wg8REd1MsbMhEwQEDkssNEyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.1.105 with SMTP id 96mr8850752uak.41.1458963845604; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:44:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:44:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks 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="===============4648156198414818744==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4648156198414818744== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142fcb4c1eac0052eeb7dfd --001a1142fcb4c1eac0052eeb7dfd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 25, 2016 16:13, "And Rosta" wrote: > > > On 25 Mar 2016 16:21, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2016 12:09, "And Rosta" wrote: > > > > > > So "Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any defining standards in whole or in part," means "Whenever there's a Lojban language planning committee, and there's a language definition docked, and a version of Lojban is to have any defining standards"? > > > > > > I'm not being *deliberately* obtuse, but it strikes me that if BPFK and CLL are narrowly defined then the motion is potentially too restrictive and if they're broadly defined then it is potentially misleadingly vacuous. > > > > > > --And. > > > > Assuming that I understand the word "docked" correctly, yes. > > I would be astonished if you had understood it correctly, because it was a swypo (i.e. predictive keyboard error) for _document_. Sorry! > That actually changes my interpretation, but not my agreement. I was thinking that it was something along the lines of "docket" - a list of prescriptions on record. > > The range of these meanings would be determined by interpretation of the LLG and/or BPFK (possibly with input from the general populace). > > Okay, but I still don't grasp what positions are implied by voting for or against the motion. If the conditions were removed, what would your concerns be? Did you agree with the sentiment expressed by lojbab? I simply duplicated his sentiment as a formal motion and added some conditions into it in order to make it well-formed and non-assertive of any philosophies. This motion (modulo the abbreviations at most, I think) should be more palatable than his sentiment; if you agree with the sentiment, then you should agree with this. But in any case... (see below) > > I recognize your efforts to pursue a clarity of sorts and to take the trouble to try to explain, but I don't think the motion is suitable yet for being voted on. (I think it's unlikely that I'm the only uncomprehender, but if I turn out to be then I could just abstain.) I thought that it would be a really simple, quick, barely necessary formality that could assist future Lojbanists but which would not pose any major problems now. I am not especially beholden to it. It was not spur of the moment, but it was close; I thought "this cannot hurt, let us just do this really fast, get it done, and pay it no more thought". There is no real reason for us to get in a kink over it. I am sure that it can be derived or unilaterally assumed without conflict if necessary; the mere fact that the motion happened, was seconded, and was rooted in a non-motion-approving expression of similar sentiment (on an intuitive level) is enough for legal justification in the future, I would expect, since it should not receive any particularly strong challenge or even notice. We can continue to discuss this, but we have other cats to whip. Let us continue working. --001a1142fcb4c1eac0052eeb7dfd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 25, 2016 16:13, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2016 16:21, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2016 12:09, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So "Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, = and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any defining standards in whole= or in part," means "Whenever there's a Lojban language plann= ing committee, and there's a language definition docked, and a version = of Lojban is to have any defining standards"?
> > >
> > > I'm not being *deliberately* obtuse, but it strikes me t= hat if BPFK and CLL are narrowly defined then the motion is potentially too= restrictive and if they're broadly defined then it is potentially misl= eadingly vacuous.
> > >
> > > --And.
> >
> > Assuming that I understand the word "docked" correctly,= yes.
>
> I would be astonished if you had understood it correctly, because it w= as a swypo (i.e. predictive keyboard error) for _document_. Sorry!
>

That actually changes my interpretation, but not my agreemen= t. I was thinking that it was something along the lines of "docket&quo= t; - a list of prescriptions on record.

> > The range of these meanings would be determined by= interpretation of the LLG and/or BPFK (possibly with input from the genera= l populace).
>
> Okay, but I still don't grasp what positions are implied by voting= for or against the motion.

If the conditions were removed, what would your concerns be?= Did you agree with the sentiment expressed by lojbab? I simply duplicated = his sentiment as a formal motion and added some conditions into it in order= to make it well-formed and non-assertive of any philosophies. This motion = (modulo the abbreviations at most, I think) should be more palatable than h= is sentiment; if you agree with the sentiment, then you should agree with t= his.

But in any case... (see below)

>
> I recognize your efforts to pursue a clarity of sorts and to take the = trouble to try to explain, but I don't think the motion is suitable yet= for being voted on. (I think it's unlikely that I'm the only uncom= prehender, but if I turn out to be then I could just abstain.)

I thought that it would be a really simple, quick, barely ne= cessary formality that could assist future Lojbanists but which would not p= ose any major problems now. I am not especially beholden to it. It was not = spur of the moment, but it was close; I thought "this cannot hurt, let= us just do this really fast, get it done, and pay it no more thought"= . There is no real reason for us to get in a kink over it. I am sure that i= t can be derived or unilaterally assumed without conflict if necessary; the= mere fact that the motion happened, was seconded, and was rooted in a non-= motion-approving expression of similar sentiment (on an intuitive level) is= enough for legal justification in the future, I would expect, since it sho= uld not receive any particularly strong challenge or even notice.

We can continue to discuss this, but we have other cats to w= hip. Let us continue working.

--001a1142fcb4c1eac0052eeb7dfd-- --===============4648156198414818744== 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 --===============4648156198414818744==--