[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: New Members, Board of Directors, other LogFest results

At 02:12 PM 7/24/02 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:49PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> I don't know of any middle ground.  Short time jobs tend to be done by
> the people who think of them.  Collaborative jobs with short time
> components, other than the wiki which has no time constraints or
> organization to it by design, don't consistently get done: look at the
> current status of the phone game, which takes only people making and
> *keeping* a future commitment of part of one evening, and yet half the
> time we can't get a chain of 10 to completion.

Uhhh, there's a difference of importance between the dictionary and
b0rken phone that I think people are aware of.  8)
If the little things of lesser import that take one evening don't get done, where is the track record for the big things. Your track record as a web site manager for me is based on how quickly you respond to the little things like a question on which cmavo list is valid, and whether we could have a LogFest announcement in the news section, than in whether your web site design is the most user friendly it could be for me or any other user. Likewise, getting the job done at even a minimal level is more important than doing a super job and not finishing. 


> Alice was a somewhat larger group effort, but from what I gather, most
> of the work was done by one or two people who almost certainly spent
> more than 40 hours on what they did over a period of time.

I'd put it at closer to 3 or 4.  But you'll note it *did* get done.
Altohugh it's in need of an edit or two.
Then is it really "done"? I thought that the point of CVS was that it would reviewed and edited by others piece by piece as it got done. From what Jorge is said, I understand that a rough draft is done (I guess that qualifies as "getting the job done at even a minimal level") but that he and no one else is close to satisfied with it as being suitable for representing to the world that we can do serious literature translation into Lojban. So whether it is done probably depends on what it is going to be used for. 


I think all that Jay wants at this point is a, "Yes, an online
dictionary collaboration tool would be really nice, and the LLG would
appreciate it".  You can say that without committing to anything or
making big plans.
Consider it said, Jay, subject to any modifications from the membership this weekend (which is unlikely to unsay it). 


Hey, here's a radical idea: you could assign *parts* of the dictionary
to people.  Like ask for volunteers for all words starting with b, or
something.
I think I did. At one point I think I suggested that people tackle 50 lujvo at a chunk. What actually gets done is that people do a few words, post their results to the list, and therein start a technical debate. Makes for a lively list, but gets no dictionary done. The bulk of the lujvo that are defined came because of two or three times when Nick marathoned (in the intense way that only Nick can managed) what probably were 100 hour weeks producing a file of a thousand or more lujvo. I used to think I could work intensely, but I'm a slow starter and Nick has come here a couple of times and produced stuff before I had ramped up enough to even be able to understand what he was trying to do. 


> >Most likely, they use special software, developed for having a group
> >collborate on a dictionary. Why should Lojbanists do any different?
>
> Because we don't have man-years of software development time and money
> available.

I know that Jay could whip up something functional and web-based in a
weekend.

If he doesn't get his ass on it pretty soon, I'm gonna do it myself.
Great. But, please don't think that you are using an approach like the professional dictionary producers do. I've read a couple of books on lexicography, and it is a VERY complex art. 


> I understand, and I have no problem with people doing so.  Have I told
> you, or even *suggested*, that you aren't allowed to print off copies
> of your PDF dictionary?

Again, waving the Magic LLG Approval Stick would go a long way to
getting things done.

This may surprise you, but just because the LLG says, "Hey, that's a
good idea, we'd love it if you did that" *DOES* *NOT* mean that the
world falls apart if it doesn't get done.  Seriously.

And despite other statements that you have made, you *are* allowed to
make such statements in an official capacity.  I've been President in
Robert's Rules organization, I know this is the case.
I can do so, but I'm wary that expressing approval of an effort in advance will lead someone to be pissed off enough to leave the project if I later lose that enthusiasm based on the actual result (or lack thereof). But I'm also having trouble seeing just what I've been doing that suggests non-approval. It is hard to imagine many ideas for Lojbanic projects that I do NOT approve of, and it seems rather meaningless.
I have tended to reserve my "official" approval, for final products that the community as a whole has looked at an also agrees as "good". I also like to compliment people for what they have done, as I have done tonight regarding some things you have done. 


> >The minutes are incomplete, then, as I believe I've read all the ones
> >currently available, and nowhere is that description of the
> >dictionary provided.
>
> 1997 minutes

Which we can read where?


On your site. I posted the URL after someone else asked.


> I just realized yesterday that Nora was supposed to do indexing for
> Nick's books, which she never did and I don't think any one else did,
> though I haven't looked lately.

Automated indexing is trivial.

Of course, no-one here knew that that was being sought, because there is
no list, anywhere, of "Tasks the LLG Would Like To See Done".  See
above.

BTW, you're allowed to accept multiple promises for the same thing;
better chance of it getting done anyways.
We obviously have different ideas of what delegating means. When I delegate, I give some implicit authority to lead others to the delegatee. So long as you tell me what you are doing and give me a chance to say no, you have a pretty free hand with the web site, as I hope you've noticed. Accepting multiple promises for the same thing sounds like giving the same authority to two different people. With some of the strong-willed people in the community, that sounds like begging for political strife.
One thing I've had to bear in mind is that every "successful" conlang effort thus far has spawned multiple bouts of schism, most of which have been destructive of the effort. I've so-far (fingers crossed) kept this language united, despite hardliners and cabals and hexadecimal, and even won over large numbers of TLIers with results. If that continues, I'll have done more for Lojban than any language inventor has managed, and we've done stupendously with 15 public years and no schism.
But if I'm not supposed to choose which person to delegate to, and am just supposed to express official approval of things that people propose to do, I can't help but feel that the approval has no meaning. But if you guys say that it makes a difference to you, I'll try. 


> My own priority after business matters that never get done as it is,
> is getting our address list up to date so that I can put out a JL/LK
> that will get to the people who have paid for it; I haven't had time
> for that either.

Another task which you have refused to delegate (I specifically asked
last year).


I don't remember.  Let's talk when you get here.


> >But when CVS seems to be beyond a number of Lojbanists,
>
> You've finally realized this!!!

You seem to be proud that we're surrounded by people who can't follow
the simple, detailed instructions that I presented.  There are over 20
people, IIRC, with CVS accounts.  It's not that hard.
There are over 250 on Lojban List. CVS therefore seems to be beyond what 90% of them are willing or able to do. Maybe I should be happy with a 10% response rate, though. 


> >or they refuse to use anything which isn't AOL-istically simple, then
> >some sort of cooperative framework needs to be developed so that
> >they're not stepping on each other's toes and duplicating effort.
>
> And that cooperating framework will likely have to be AOL-istically
> simple.  Hence flat text files.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

That was a very funny joke.
</sarcasm>

You can't *really* think that flat text files are simple by today's
standards, can you?  By the standards of 1975, sure.  But simple in
today's eyes is a web interface.


I guess I am still living in 1975.


> If it is published, then people will send orders to me.

And you can delegate them.


Please reconcile this with:

BTW, you're allowed to accept multiple promises for the same thing;
better chance of it getting done anyways.
If I deposit a check, then I need a near-100% certainty that the order will be filled exactly once, within an unnoticeable time of said deposit. (I may not fill orders promptly, but no one gets a Visa charge for a book without that order being packed and going to the post office within a day or so.) 


> They can do that now.  But it isn't official.  And I don't think we
> should put the "official" label on things that are ad hoc, even if
> they are likely to be ad hoc for a long time.  We set a standard for
> ourselves with the quality of CLL, and we have to live up to that
> standard with the other baseline books.

Umm, yeah.  *Whatever*.  I'm sure people will prefer nothing to
something that's not all gorgeous.  Yeah.  Good call.
But there isn't "nothing". There are GOBS of "unofficial", much of which people find functional (or not) regardless of whether I used the magic word "official". I have generally considered the word "official" to be a word important to outsiders and beginners looking for the key stuff that has the highest standards of approval. Within the community, "official" seems important only if there is an implicit contest between multiple conflicting versions. 


> >The current ASCII files are likely inconvinent if not impossible for
> >the kinds of computerphobic users some people claim we need to
> >target.
>
> Anything more sophisticated is likely to be worse.

*Boggle*.  Yeah, a web-lookup form is *much* more complicated.
Compare finding what you want with a search engine with using an automatically generated index, and with using a well-crafted index. Online I could use a search engine to find things in CLL. Off-line I use the book index. I usually find it faster the manual way. 


> > > >Open a Fedex account.
> > >
> > > Isn't Fedex a good deal more expensive than even UPS, much less
> > > book rate postage?  We are getting $5 for shipping, and packing
> > > envelopes cost around a buck.  We lose money shipping amazon
> > > orders, since the UPS for them is $6-8 for one book.
> >
> >If you were actually interested in this scheme, then pricing with
> >other carriers could be investigated. Maybe due to the non-profitness
> >of the LLG, they might be willing to give the account a break.
>
> Frankly, I don't have time to investigate.

GAAAAAH!

DELEGATE IT!  If you're not going to do it anyways, it DOESN'T MATTER if
the person who promises to do it doesn't!


Volunteers welcome.


> >So Delegate. What on earth have you got to lose?
>
> I've tried with less important tasks, and been bitten.

You feel 'bitten' because you are attached to every single promise being
kept.
I feel bitten because I take my own word seriously. I'm attached to every single promise *of my own* being kept. Official approval has always seemed to me like a promise of support, but you clearly see it as something less. If I make a promise and can't keep it, I don't cope well with my own failure to deliver. I would rather make no promises than promise and not deliver. 


> What do I stand to lose? 16 years of time and emotional investment in
> this project if it falls apart.  I think the language will survive my
> personal involvement now.  I'm not sure the organization is so solid.

Read the above paragraph several times.  Imagine JCB saying it about
Loglan.  Read it again.
JCB basically said that if he did not keep control of the organization, then he was going to withdraw and take the language with him. I suspect that I see what you are trying to imply, but it isn't what I meant by the above. But I'm not sure how to say it more clearly. Suffice it to say that neither with language control nor organization control would I consider doing what JCB did. The organization is run by the voting membership. 


BTW, I, personally, haven't even the slightest attachment to the LLG as
an organization, but I have a lot of attachment to lojban.


Good.  The organization is my own albatross.
I think we need it (and others apparently do as well or people would not be asking me to "officially" approve things. Please reconcile your request for official approval with a lack of attachment to the organization. If the organization doesn't matter then what does "official" mean? 


  I think that
waiting 4-6 months for a copy of the CLL is doing much more harm to
lojban than collapse of the LLG would.  Nevermind the address list
fiasco.

In closing, I want to share a phrase my step-dad often uses.  He teaches
very high-priced corporate organization seminars, so he kinda knows his
stuff.

"If what you are doing is not working, stop doing it, and do ANYTHING
else."
Definitely wise. You may find me more amenable, if you don't dump too many ANYTHING ELSEs on me at once. 

lojbab


--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org