Re: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK

["Matt Arnold" <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>]

On 12/21/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/06, Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify: There I was talking only about the currently shepherdless
> sections (those marked in red). In the sections with shepherd but
> not yet checkpointed I expect there will be some other points for
> discussion. But still, the number of cmavo that might be controversial
> is very small compared to the uncontroversial ones.

Adam Lopresto (Eimi) and I were discussing this on the channel. He
used the word "outsourcing", which I like. Allow certain
time-intensive, low-expertise functions be distributed to the
community, which many in the BPFK do not wish to do. We believe we
should just temporarily open up the wiki pages of all
noncontroversial, previously-unshepherded sections to all comers.

The purpose would _not_ be to allow non-experts to make decisions for
the BPFK. The purpose would be a labor-saving mechanism, to let eager
Lojban users such as John Schock seek out and volunteer a bunch of
usage examples on which the qualified individuals in the BPFK can
render judgment when they get to that section. We would not open such
a section for a vote until the BPFK has locked it down and cleaned it
up with explanations. It might even be helpful for us to not delete
certain common mistaken usages, if we can point them out as
prototypical educational examples of how not to use a word.

It would save the shepherd some of the time of going out and searching
for usages.
The shepherd would have to figure out from context what definition
they were probably using, but if they found it "in the wild" during
their researches, they would have had to do that anyway.

Another suggestion by Eimi sounded very good. Let a shepherd write a
mini-proposal to express the basic idea without having to spell it out
in complete detail, if they feel they are not going to get around to
the complete proposal. At least then we would have more than nothing.

-Eppcott