At 04:18 PM 4/27/03 -0700, Robin Powell wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Gregory Dyke wrote: > And Rosta wrote: > >tsali: > >>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, And Rosta wrote: > >>>[...] But it's unlikely that it will be practicable for me to > >>>participate unless I can compose contributions off-line with > >>>the freedom of composition that email offers > >>> > >>I don't understand why you find the phpbb lacking in "freedom of > >>composition". If you find it difficult to compose messages in an > >>edit box on the web, why don't you compose the posting in your > >>favourite text editor, and then cut-and-paste it into the forum? > > > >I don't want to go into details publicly here, because it will > >seem like a mere whinge. > > I'll bitch for you despite the fact I don't cmima the BPFK: > > Although the sending by email of each new post is neat, I find it > altogether too much hastle to have to dial up my isp, login to the > forum, find where I want to put my post, write it out (something > I'd like to do offline so that I don't spend any money) and then > dial up again to repeat the whole messy process. It's difficult > enough finding the willpower to participate without adding > complication. Until one of you comes up with Some Magic Solution that *everyone* likes, I think *both* of you should either 1) stop whining or 2) code something that does what you want but interfaces perfectly with the PHPBB.
Better yet: stop trying to use PHPBB (which Nora and I have started calling the fybyb because how else do you pronounce it %) as a pseudo jboske. The debate on the forum is NOT producing a definition of a single word, and isn't likely to produce a definition of a single word. The byfy's job is to define the language, not to reinvent it or "improve" it. The fybyb exists to record the deliberations of the byfy
(I use "deliberation" is a sense that carries a more subdued connotation than "debate" or "argument" and suggests that people are thinking and preparing at some length before speaking, and that the entire discussion consists of justification and counter-justification - perhaps the sort of thing that the Elephant would formally enforce if it were completed).
75% of the postings on the forum now are attempts to argue about a change in grammar that is neither supported by the existing standards OR by existing usage. (For non-byfy members, this is a change to eliminate selma'o NAI by merging it with UI). Thus, IMO, it is beyond the primary scope for the byfy: an attempt to fix something that is not demonstrably broken.
Furthermore, the change in question could not realistically be decided until ALL the rest of the language has been at least preliminarily defined, since the meaning of "nai" would have to be decided for EACH of the selma'o upon which it would act, and we don't even have shepherds (subcommittee chairs) for most of the other selma'o yet.
The rest of the postings deal with a more limited change, accepting the validity of ka'enai based on usage. This one is more likely to be within the scope for byfy because it is potentially justified by usage. However a decision on ka'enai requires a definition of CAhA as selma'o and ka'e in particular, and no one is yet working on those. It is thus way too soon to attempt to decide the question. Mark it down as an issue, and move on for now - someone needs to properly propose it as a change anyway, and I've seen NOTHING that looks like a proper change proposal.
I have said and I will repeat, that I personally will support NO change to the existing baseline until that change is summarily written up as a change proposal with pros and cons, with the YACC changes made explicit for a grammar change, and the old definition and suggested new definition for a meaning change (which means that we have to decide the old meaning FIRST, assuming that this is possible), and a justification for the change sufficient to warrant a baseline change under the standards set forth by the baseline policy (which means the usage examples explicitly cited and explained).
Now Nick has authorization to run the byfy however he wants, but I made the suggestion before things got started, that the first thing that we need to do is define every bit of the language that can be defined WITHOUT considering changes, making lists of changes that need to be debated in order to resolve things, but NOT debating them until the definition process is well-established (the definition process itself may resolve some of the debates inherently, or make them moot). Concentrate on the non-controversial stuff first; don't even consider voting on anything until most of the stuff for which unanimity is assured has been decided. That gives us a solid skeleton on which to stretch the rest of the language.
The standard for decision is consensus, and the first essential for consensus politics is that the group making the decisions learn to work together as a team. Get the easy stuff done, and flag the hard stuff to be dealt with later. Learn to work together. Nothing wrong with a TBD (to be decided) or two scattered amongst the definitions.
If we get that far, we will likely find that we have fewer issues to discuss. Perhaps the issues that need discussion can be more thoroughly proposed and justified in text before we start debating them, which means that there is far less to actually debate. And if a free for all debate is needed on a topic or two, then it doesn't have to be performed in the constrained atmosphere of the fybyb, but rather the noisy jboske (which has been absolutely silent for a couple months) will be the proper place for that sort of debate among the subset of people who really want to debate. Then when they reach agreement, they can write it up in a consensus proposal that will contain all the argumentation needed to sell it to the rest of us.
Such a change proposal, on anything controversial, should be stringent enough in its rules for support, and hence hard enough to write, that people won't lightly propose unnecessary changes.
The forum chosen makes it harder and less convenient to debate things in a free-for-all within the forum itself. But that is quite proper - byfy is primarily for decision and not for free-for-all debate. I suspect that half the byfy doesn't even want to read debate unless it is a finalized argument for a change, so the less debate at this stage, the better.
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