Received: from localhost ([::1]:40783 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arUH8-0006MC-5v; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:44:54 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]:35122) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arUH1-0006LK-Sz for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:44:52 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id t129so180796568vkg.2 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:44:47 -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=x49RBx4Qtu84fZaMGL1fa8JJp8BSYVOQKJ0Mkhu4300=; b=uXwz3HkLBAiN7hdd1oU9GAdClF3zn/mexe9NQqTmn2dzJQuEMg//sn3tqNaOXD3R03 vRt7Tmtmzh+KmhfUlzhPClQOYQZ+eJ7x9mHqJpY6dMsy+wP/vSrGB5LimPG9oMdBzG2B LPtuLSslnAw7MMTw0ky0zNK1r+HfCHh8VxmE+RtYXjz8TBQRp/C/mbtrnQEekdvoyxVD wn90/Qv7AWG/saWYbsOSM8sdwkbxkNNjGW85T23DiMy3A0uZ4/lXrf9GG6bOPeRJ7Nn1 7y/HtlZHOMqbm8pYCLfp0li45O8cT3sBXp2DytDb1QIJYIartr5pWsX6varZw4Ei5Kwu 06XQ== 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=x49RBx4Qtu84fZaMGL1fa8JJp8BSYVOQKJ0Mkhu4300=; b=XMZyiVZvNrVnwnzL/VWSxw3uzw+dT1ERcL68wppzclH2GqJAdi1DNKCmMkv2Wr2VdO pZ6jMW+23KYvPWwMz/CFfY1U/G8KirZ9xHa59IcpUTN04tl+HC/a/O3gjQlV0EOmzx0B dBE7/hIOh2nOihwVWWBVJeT0ffZkQh65eJgrJLwfY9nh8i8/QL+n7KXqo9mKXd7etsOO UvL8WbjXG6ST+3koeabw3PRLXUa3oFFjjA3xaYwg9JnLcyhY//pf0tfFY7gl3Qb+mGIX ALez0tP79Oxs/21DgqYmnJ1whYJ2gHwPwGZNCQfR5XdBbWAGQwSOFwceVlFUrstDAsmq YT3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXmt7EUBtFEZc9vPfKqfpc9dPjyhOV9Ksu7IbIIbHsC2vBb/5HHui3iywDQCkjXNUAIIjHGlEnqA/raUg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.6.232 with SMTP id g95mr14233454uag.115.1460828681421; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:44:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 13:44:41 -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] Annual meeting: New Business, anyone? 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="===============9136153060677551961==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============9136153060677551961== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c122e3ca247b005309dae43 --94eb2c122e3ca247b005309dae43 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My understanding has been that people want this current meeting to end. I certainly want to get to these issues, but do not want to prolong a meeting that should be over. So, I want to postpone them until then or discuss them outside of a formal meeting, unless it is clear that people want this current meeting to continue. On the other hand, if we have to proceed formally through old business and the like, it could be annoying to wait to get to these topics when we can actually just do so right now =E2=97=8F Thus, in order to check the opinions of the group, I hereby *move= * that this meeting be adjourned immediately. I am not sure that I actually want adjournment to happen right now, but I would rather know how other people feel about it before trying to handle anything else. If there is strong support against this motion (meaning that people want to continue the meeting), then I would happily discuss some contentful new business. =E2=97=8F I would like the next meeting to be bound to discussing any of th= ese topics (raised by Lojbab) which have not been discussed in this present meeting as old or new business, as appropriate. But I am not sure that we can exercise such a power. If we can, then I also *move* that this be so, with the caveat that this motion be passed prior to my aforementioned adjournment motion if it is supported. At some point in the near future, I would like to understand Mukti's quasi-proposal better. It seems simple enough, but I do not understand it well enough to raise it as a motion, or to support it, or to even discuss it. On Apr 16, 2016 13:09, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" < lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: > None of the issues raised so far under New Business seems to be eliciting > any discussion. The only motion asserted (by guskant) has not been > seconded (but I have to admit that I am not exactly sure what the motion > is, since it is embedded in guskant's complaint) > > I did a survey of all discussions during this meeting and found a few > things that people wanted discussed during New Business. I won't repeat > the entire context, but will hope that the extracted quotes will remind > people what they wanted to discuss. > > > Craig Daniels wrote: > >> I consider creating web policy where there has been none to be a >> matter the entire membership ought to have a say in, given that the >> point at which it's seen as an issue is during the meeting of the >> members. I fully intend to bring it up when we get to new business. >> > > > > mukti wrote: > >> According to the BPFK reauthorization passed by the membership at the >> last meeting (https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization), a >> supermajority vote is necessary for LLG to adopt a document presented >> by BPFK as an official standard of LLG. >> >> In recognition of BPFK=E2=80=99s work and to reaffirm the relationship >> between LLG and BPFK, it seems to me that this should be brought to a >> vote when we reach =E2=80=9Cnew business=E2=80=9D. Unless BPFK objects, = I intend to >> raise such a motion at that time, or would gladly second a motion >> that someone else raises. >> > > > Curtis Frank wrote: > >> Of course, we >> need to find something worth spending the money on - nothing has been hi= gh >> enough priority so far. (There will be some new proposals under New >> Business that could cost more money than we currently take in. >> > > But of course no motions costing any money have yet been raised under New > Business, so I am hoping that Curtis will enlighten us as to his intent. > > > In addition, prior to the meeting, in announcing the meeting, mukti > highlighted some issues that he expected would be discussed at the meetin= g. > >> Tentative agenda items include: >> >> Clarifying LLG's policy regarding hosting, embedding or linking to >> copyrighted materials on the web site >> Doing more to promote and highlight creative works in lojban >> Maintaining an up-to-date list of lojban projects and updating LLG's >> official project policy >> The relationship of LLG to the lojban.org web site >> > > It is possible that the last line is referring to the same topic as > Craig's statement above. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > This is potentially 6 or 7 significant discussions that aren't yet > happening. Does the membership wish to defer them, to the Board, postpon= e > them until the next meeting (or discuss them outside the meeting prior to > bringing forth a proper motion?) > > Or does the membership indeed not care about any of these topics? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > As I noted to gleki, a motion to adjourn can be made at any time, if > people want to cut the meeting short(er) without considering these topics= . > I will allow one full week from today for anyone to start a discussion or > make a motion (which must be seconded) so as to keep the business of the > meeting progressing. If there is nothing then I will be explicitly askin= g > for someone to move adjournment, if it hasn't already been moved. > > ---------- > > By the way, also in regards to gleki's comments, I intend to ask the Boar= d > to appoint the time for starting the 2016 annual meeting immediately afte= r > convening the Board meeting when this meeting ends and to announce that > time to the membership. > > lojbab > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --94eb2c122e3ca247b005309dae43 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My understanding has been that people want this current meet= ing to end. I certainly want to get to these issues, but do not want to pro= long a meeting that should be over. So, I want to postpone them until then = or discuss them outside of a formal meeting, unless it is clear that people= want this current meeting to continue.

On the other hand, if we have to proceed formally through ol= d business and the like, it could be annoying to wait to get to these topic= s when we can actually just do so right now

=E2=97=8F Thus, in order to check the opinions of the group,= I hereby move that this meeting be adjourned immediately.

I am not sure that I actually want adjournment to happen rig= ht now, but I would rather know how other people feel about it before tryin= g to handle anything else. If there is strong support against this motion (= meaning that people want to continue the meeting), then I would happily dis= cuss some contentful new business.

=E2=97=8F I would like the next meeting to be bound to discu= ssing any of these topics (raised by Lojbab) which have not been discussed = in this present meeting as old or new business, as appropriate. But I am no= t sure that we can exercise such a power. If we can, then I also move that this be so, with the caveat that this motion be passed prior to my a= forementioned adjournment motion if it is supported.

At some point in the near future, I would like to understand= Mukti's quasi-proposal better. It seems simple enough, but I do not un= derstand it well enough to raise it as a motion, or to support it, or to ev= en discuss it.

On Apr 16, 2016 13:09, "Bob LeChevalier, Pr= esident and Founder - LLG" <lo= jbab@lojban.org> wrote:
None of the issues raised so far under New Business seems to be = eliciting any discussion.=C2=A0 The only motion asserted (by guskant) has n= ot been seconded (but I have to admit that I am not exactly sure what the m= otion is, since it is embedded in guskant's complaint)

I did a survey of all discussions during this meeting and found a few thing= s that people wanted discussed during New Business.=C2=A0 I won't repea= t the entire context, but will hope that the extracted quotes will remind p= eople what they wanted to discuss.


Craig Daniels wrote:
I consider creating web policy where there has been none to be a
matter the entire membership ought to have a say in, given that the
point at which it's seen as an issue is during the meeting of the
members. I fully intend to bring it up when we get to new business.



mukti wrote:
According to the BPFK reauthorization passed by the membership at the
last meeting (https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reaut= horization), a
supermajority vote is necessary for LLG to adopt a document presented
by BPFK as an official standard of LLG.

In recognition of BPFK=E2=80=99s work and to reaffirm the relationship
between LLG and BPFK, it seems to me that this should be brought to a
vote when we reach =E2=80=9Cnew business=E2=80=9D. Unless BPFK objects, I i= ntend to
raise such a motion at that time, or would gladly second a motion
that someone else raises.


Curtis Frank wrote:
Of course, we
need to find something worth spending the money on - nothing has been high<= br> enough priority so far.=C2=A0 (There will be some new proposals under New Business that could cost more money than we currently take in.

But of course no motions costing any money have yet been raised under New B= usiness, so I am hoping that Curtis will enlighten us as to his intent.


In addition, prior to the meeting, in announcing the meeting, mukti highlig= hted some issues that he expected would be discussed at the meeting.
Tentative agenda items include:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Clarifying LLG's policy regarding hosting, embedding or l= inking to copyrighted materials on the web site
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Doing more to promote and highlight creative works in lojban<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Maintaining an up-to-date list of lojban projects and updatin= g LLG's official project policy
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The relationship of LLG to the lojban.org web site

It is possible that the last line is referring to the same topic as Craig&#= 39;s statement above.


----------------------------------------------------------

This is potentially 6 or 7 significant discussions that aren't yet happ= ening.=C2=A0 Does the membership wish to defer them, to the Board, postpone= them until the next meeting (or discuss them outside the meeting prior to = bringing forth a proper motion?)

Or does the membership indeed not care about any of these topics?

------------------------------------------------------------

As I noted to gleki, a motion to adjourn can be made at any time, if people= want to cut the meeting short(er) without considering these topics.=C2=A0 = I will allow one full week from today for anyone to start a discussion or m= ake a motion (which must be seconded) so as to keep the business of the mee= ting progressing.=C2=A0 If there is nothing then I will be explicitly askin= g for someone to move adjournment, if it hasn't already been moved.

----------

By the way, also in regards to gleki's comments, I intend to ask the Bo= ard to appoint the time for starting the 2016 annual meeting immediately af= ter convening the Board meeting when this meeting ends and to announce that= time to the membership.

lojbab



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs
--94eb2c122e3ca247b005309dae43-- --===============9136153060677551961== 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 --===============9136153060677551961==--