coi la eris
I once insisted that any non-fluent lojban speakers may join BPFK:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/SXxIpMLgL5s/6aS8ec5oCgAJ
I wrote:
i pe'i lo tcini no'u lo nu kakne lo nu pilno la lojban cu na'e sarcu lo nu me byfy kei sei ku'i ka'e banzu tcini
i lo canaiba pilno be la lojban cu .e'a kansa mi'o lo nu jdice fi lo ka bangu
i la'a lo ji'a no'e tavla fo la lojban cu kakne lo nu jimpe lo lojbo jufra kei sepi'o lo fanva tutci a lo vlaste
Translation:
I
think that the condition of ability of speaking lojban is not necessary
for being a member of bpfk, though it can be a sufficient condition.
I allow that our activity of defining the language property is accompanied by people who don't but will do use lojban.
Perhaps
people who don't speak lojban much have also the ability of understanding
lojban statements using translation tools or dictionaries.
To
say more precisely, I don't oppose myelf to using English for
discussing the structure of lojban, both about syntax or semantics.
I am not very fluent in English, but I can use dictionaries for participating the discussion.
The
difference is only that who has difficulties in participating the
discussion: ones who are not fluent in lojban, or ones who are not
fluent in English. I belong not to the former but to the latter, but I
will allow to discuss in English, because fluent English speakers are
majority among lojban users, while fluent lojban speakers are minority
among lojban users.
However, please be
noted that I oppose myself to using English for defining lojban words. I
once wrote the reason why the lojban words must be defined by lojban:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/hAfNwSdXl4A/iiIA8XV9C9gJ
As
for using Github, I suggested it in an LLG meeting when I was a member
of it. It is a good method, but you need to define clearly who are
responsible for pulling requests, adding a member, defining the power of
each member. Otherwise the result will be similar to the unsystematic
group organized by some unknown volunteers: https://github.com/lojban .
They once published a feature under discussion as if it were an official
feature.
mi'e la guskant
Le mercredi 6 mars 2019 04:41:03 UTC, la .eris. a écrit :
Coi rodo,
I just spent half an hour writing out a long post with lots attitudinals and humor and the like, but it appears to have disappeared into the ether, so this will be rather brief. There is currently discussion at the LLG Members Meeting about what to do with the BPFK. Instructions for how to get to that meeting are posted in many places. A summary of my proposal follows.
I want to create an RFC process, whereby anyone could make proposals (in English) for changes to Lojban. There would then be public discussion and a decision by some body, possibly the BPFK and possibly someone else. I'm not some radical who wants to change everything. Almost all of the language change proposals that I particularly want done aren't of my creation. For instance, I'd like to merge CAI into UI. I also kind of like the NOIhA proposal and the indicator ko'oi, among other such changes. I don't want to add malglico or ruin everything; I just want somewhere that language change could happen (with peer review and at least semi-official adoption, not just by adding an experimental cmavo and waiting to see if they catch on without any hope of them ever entering the official language). The details of the RFC process haven't been determined yet, although I have some strong opinions (to use GitHub, for one).
I would also like to open up membership in the BPFK to people who aren't fluent. There are some people, like me, who haven't become fluent in Lojban yet, but would still like to have a voice in language discussions and can still be trusted to participate productively without breaking everything. This would mean that discussions would be in English, which is really a necessity anyway, since the RFCs would be in English and not everyone submitting ideas would be able to speak English.
I'd also like to get documentation, including the CLL, up to date. I propose that the BPFK (or its successor) assume responsibility for maintaining documentation. There are several people who have expressed interest in participating under something like my suggestion, and I expect that some of them will also help update documentation if that is part of the job.
This is not the original posting of my proposal, and many arguments and counterarguments have already been raised. I hope you will join the meeting and comment, or become active there if you are currently present but inactive.
mi'e .eris.