On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:38:47AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Robin:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 12:53:33AM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote:
[...]
> > > Maybe something like that would satisfy And: adding a clause which
> > > states that if a sufficiently large portion of the community feels the
> > > need to change something or add a statement of clarification, it could
> > > be done
> >
> > Of *course* it can be done
> >
> > This is a statement of LLG policy; it can be ammended or destroyed at
> > *any* member's meeting by a vote of the membership
>
> I'm not sure if it's LLG policy or the internals of the baseline that
> are being talked about here. Either way, if today's generation of
> Lojbanists pledges that the constitution shall not be amended, then
> even though tomorrow's generation can nevertheless amend it, they
> will feel under some obligation to respect the promises made by their
> forebears. I was in favour of not morally tying the hands of future
> generations (by issuing a promise that there will never be change),
> but I get the impression from others' responses that they are mostly
> in favour of it, so there is nothing more to be said on the issue.
What's this crap about 'future generations'? The new baseline will
last *only* five years.... that's hardly any time at all.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgpRD8yJ7n9C1.pgp
Description: PGP signature