[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy
At 03:26 AM 11/28/02 +0000, And wrote:
Lojbab:
> At 02:56 PM 11/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >[I've removed crossposting; restore it in the reply if you see fit]
> >
> >A couple of questions
> >
> >First, does a vote in favour count as a vote in favour of the general
thrust
> >of the document, or as support (or lack of dissent) for every detail
of it?
>
> The reason for the vote is that we are seeking a mandate for the baseline
> policy as described in the statement, and for the byfy as described, as a
> means of finalizing the baseline. How much you want to insist on "details"
> vs "approving of the general thrust" is up to you. A high proportion of
> yes votes will be taken as such a mandate. There is not likely to be
> further discussions on the details unless the community votes disapproval
But will you take it as a mandate for the general thrust or also for
every detail?
Yes. %^)
If I support the general thrust but dissent from some
details (or from likely interpretations of some details), I want to know
whether I have to express the few points of dissent now
Feel free.
or whether it
will be allowed that details of the policy will remain open to debate
after its general thrust has received a mandate.
The policy is not up for a debate - only ratification or rejection. A
debate could affect peoples' decisions on ratification or rejection, but we
put a time limit on the vote to prevent such a debate from dragging out.
This was the consensus result of the Board discussion, and received the
voted approval of Myself, Nora, Cowan, Nick, Xod, and Shawn Lasseter (and
implicitly that of pc, though he resigned before the formal vote).
Debate is healthy in building consensus, and we certainly want
consensus. If your objections are serious enough that other members of the
community also consider them a problem, then there will be no mandate, and
the Board (and/or the voting membership) will have the option to reconsider
now or when the byfy work is done depending on the sort of objections. But
the policy is not open to amendment at this point.
At this stage I think
it would be healthier for us to have a general consensus on the overall thrust
rather than a heated debate over its details.
Probably. But it depends on what objections exist on the details. If we
paper over severe differences omn details, the general consensus will not
hold, and frankly I don't want to be considered to have railroaded
something through that people object to. I want the community to decide
what it thinks in whatever way it chooses to decide, but to speak up in
individual votes. I'll try to answer questions as to "why" we said certain
things, if there are such questions, but I am going to seriously avoid
"debating" as opposed to merely explaining why.
Nick wants a community mandate because he will be relying on serious
community effort and support in order to get the byfy job done in months
rather than in years. I want a community mandate because the baseline
won't hold long term amidst the factionalization that has occurred, unless
people are willing to commit to the baseline. Thus I am interested in
people's long term commitment to the baseline policy, and Nick (wearing his
byfy hat at least) primarily in the short term commitment to how the
baseline will be achieved. The consensus that produced the statement took
a lot of debate and balancing of different interests among the various
points of view. Considering how far apart some of us started on the Board
debate, it is remarkable how it coalesced into something that everyone on
the Board could agree to. But I wouldn't want to repeat that process with
the whole community.
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