Received: from localhost ([::1]:59302 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1atF6m-0006lx-4z; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:57:28 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.213.53]:34032) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1atF6f-0006lp-O3 for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:57:26 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id e185so98892857vkb.1 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:57:21 -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=8U00a+A4GO5an+wRNndFMmPYtvs8CZJRXffo7HaxIRo=; b=YWwamwiiY3e/lOr/xZrp4PCP4K6m6oZFlYbTi/lbzihJ1JXC00F6W3EHSKGWywL3Cj jqCRAlOOqRrgHmZTJ+gSiFAQ3IG8AZ+8S4/2B94KsCHovbz2l820JjteDYPZ2lLIqj+g bWwTaUaxoLt0+kn2KlTa2zVUAGkexHBApqe5GG/0oRIN7aP2gtaKd57Y7eH7ocIcciKy XYgf5e7DrEAIt54hztSQzAaOwjguyLAGY4iYcCr5s2/lTeaocG0+DNOztJ+7ijUlGFtq Nnc7OZOCz3z0FeG+m1AOnWCbpFSH1lSETRMxqlXOcxsoM3f5MLydXHFDc2my8tyhDR21 8xwA== 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=8U00a+A4GO5an+wRNndFMmPYtvs8CZJRXffo7HaxIRo=; b=cNQrMtL8wlOJ/8htpB/6/6dDMEuHrUe7uj/O+OaqPCaJ/NSaDnIZwP57vfE6TULXJD 4JOU9U9bfBaRWR2BSguzxmsCf31YaA2get38kPxRfyDU8K6oWavYrHgr4HjHJAQMfpft 9v6IoGoo+F7D4P6dqc1JlPBDlnlRUDWuHykPbVDdLnFf4IRW0tcgBVSxufYMA7aWk3Hp Mr/rY15xfwiM+PW25aE0SfGfSR0ER2a77dwNtPUGQgX18ZV75e7VlalKlqJ9wWKpp0jf bsDuPaoxCYCGzxFv01VOpNxymAsUhZwMusIb+7muHCXsizlkpQR+KfKOx23AZFq8kyrR 5i8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW+jklaJWMlsHVYHYEi8IWP632JxaKox4wx8onLPF9SRFybZBMxSNAn1ilc5BZkc2K9Cm3r3QW6LCfB1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.52.78 with SMTP id b75mr7981806vka.77.1461247035558; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:57:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5718BD2E.1040003@selpahi.de> References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> <1533522.sVHHld6LrL@caracal> <0748C06D-7DE6-4F31-BB71-58215BF60729@gmail.com> <5718BD2E.1040003@selpahi.de> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:57:15 -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: NB-Website_Jurisdiction 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="===============0400941328169107548==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0400941328169107548== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11430c7a7bd0be0530ff1685 --001a11430c7a7bd0be0530ff1685 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Apr 21, 2016 7:45 AM, "selpahi" wrote: > > On 21.04.2016 06:04, Curtis Franks wrote: >> >> Consequently, I retract my motion. > > > Good, because it was going way overboard. Installing a *police* to "execute" laws on a wiki of a volunteer-driven community? Also, I *highly* doubt Robin is in the least bit interested in doing anything even remotely related to what you suggested. > I somewhat disagree. First, I was following the framework that Karen suggested, which in my interpretation had a clear separation of powers. Second, I viewed it more as a bureaucracy rather than a police force. Third, the LLG is not its membership and while it is an entity, it has no physical presence/manifestation that allows it to make the changes that it deems desirable. /Someone/, probably human, needs to be put in charge, by some means, with the duty of executing the tasks assigned in an official capacity. Or several people. Additionally, people can make changes in less official capacities if we allow them to do so - again, adopting Karen's framework. Furthermore, the LLG, if it retains all of that power without delegation, would have to vote on literally every edit, including typo corrections, unless we establish rules that make some edits free. That seems annoying. So, I really do think that a separate committee, under the auspices of the LLG, would be desirable; that committee can assign the duty of actual execution to individual humans as well. _ I agree that Robin probably does not want the job. That was why I envisioned it as a safety valve. I was thinking that we would be frozen out except for really important matters or transfer of resources. But someone needs to be grandfathered in if we follow a plan like Karen's which vests all power into one authority. Even if someone else gains strong control first, that person must be grandfathered in. Robin is the easiest and most reasonable candidate since he already has strong control. Or the sole acquisition of the power could be delayed until the necessary infrastructure is established. As far as I can tell, anything else would be "illegal" by our very own words. Gleki would be another candidate, but his nomination seemed too politically difficult for a /safety valve/. > If everyone is in favor of putting certain pages under LLG's control then that should be easy to do, and should not require a crazy set of rules of the kind suggested. > Sure. But doing anything with the pages - even just transferring servers - would require direct oversight. > If everyone is in favor of gleki no longer having access to certain twitter accounts or parts of lojban.org's server, those things can be put to the vote, and gleki has indicated that he will obey the decision of the membership. > > But please, let's keep things practical. > > ~~~mi'e la selpa'i > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --001a11430c7a7bd0be0530ff1685 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Apr 21, 2016 7:45 AM, "selpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
>
> On 21.04.2016 06:04, Curtis Franks wrote:
>>
>> Consequently, I retract my motion.
>
>
> Good, because it was going way overboard. Installing a *police* to &qu= ot;execute" laws on a wiki of a volunteer-driven community? Also, I *h= ighly* doubt Robin is in the least bit interested in doing anything even re= motely related to what you suggested.
>

I somewhat disagree.

First, I was following the framework that Karen suggested, w= hich in my interpretation had a clear separation of powers. Second, I viewe= d it more as a bureaucracy rather than a police force. Third, the LLG is no= t its membership and while it is an entity, it has no physical presence/man= ifestation that allows it to make the changes that it deems desirable. /Som= eone/, probably human, needs to be put in charge, by some means, with the d= uty of executing the tasks assigned in an official capacity. Or several peo= ple. Additionally, people can make changes in less official capacities if w= e allow them to do so - again, adopting Karen's framework. Furthermore,= the LLG, if it retains all of that power without delegation, would have to= vote on literally every edit, including typo corrections, unless we establ= ish rules that make some edits free. That seems annoying. So, I really do t= hink that a separate committee, under the auspices of the LLG, would be des= irable; that committee can assign the duty of actual execution to individua= l humans as well.

_

I agree that Robin probably does not want the job. That was = why I envisioned it as a safety valve. I was thinking that we would be froz= en out except for really important matters or transfer of resources.

But someone needs to be grandfathered in if we follow a plan= like Karen's which vests all power into one authority. Even if someone= else gains strong control first, that person must be grandfathered in. Rob= in is the easiest and most reasonable candidate since he already has strong= control. Or the sole acquisition of the power could be delayed until the n= ecessary infrastructure is established. As far as I can tell, anything else= would be "illegal" by our very own words.

Gleki would be another candidate, but his nomination seemed = too politically difficult for a /safety valve/.

> If everyone is in favor of putting certain pages under = LLG's control then that should be easy to do, and should not require a = crazy set of rules of the kind suggested.
>

Sure. But doing anything with the pages - even just transfer= ring servers - would require direct oversight.

> If everyone is in favor of gleki no longer having acces= s to certain twitter accounts or parts of loj= ban.org's server, those things can be put to the vote, and gleki ha= s indicated that he will obey the decision of the membership.
>
> But please, let's keep things practical.
>
> ~~~mi'e la selpa'i
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-members@lojban.org > http:/= /mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members

--001a11430c7a7bd0be0530ff1685-- --===============0400941328169107548== 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 --===============0400941328169107548==--