BPFK: Salvo 2 (list naziing)

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

Is the proper venue for technical discussion of Lojban the main lojban list?

No.

Then why the hell is this list being flooded with technical 
discussion of Lojban? That is *why* jboske was created. And jboske 
was not created exclusively for tinkering discussions. Anyone who 
claims so is lying. Anyone who wants to discuss technical details of 
Lojban (of which this clearly is an instance), but refuses to read 
jboske and wants to use this list instead, is being ornery.

I have said repeatedly where the appropriate fora are, and I'll keep 
saying it. Open-ended technical discussion: jboske or main wiki. 
Summaries of existing discussion, formal presentation of pros and 
cons, BPFK administrative: phpbb. Records of discussion and usage by 
the shepherd, polls: twiki. *NONE OF THE ABOVE*: lojban main list. 
Christ, people, check the archives for August 2001 on Lojban main 
list, and tell me you want a repeat of that --- times 20 for the 
simultaneous paradigm discussions. Geez.

And while the consensus of BPFK remains the final arbiter, I 
reiterate also the charter of the BPFK: we are here to complete the 
definition of Lojban, not to revise it outside of clear brokenness. 
Lack of elegance does not in itself constitute brokenness. If the 
community regards a redefinition as imperiling the continuity of 
Lojban, the redefinition shall be rejected. If the community is split 
as to the redefinition, the redefinition shall be rejected. As 
someone said well (who was it, Arnt?), we are here to complete the 
Lojban that is already baselined, not to create the perfect loglan. 
There's a difference between that and "tinkering", and the commission 
as a whole will see to it that the distinction is maintained.

I am not interested in the BPFK being bogged down. There is a 
moderate and a radical proposal hatching as to nai: CAhA NAI and 
NAI=UI. Both will be formally presented (or they will not be 
considered at all); they will be voted on, and there will be a 
process of refining the proposals, if possible (although both seem to 
me only yes-or-no, so I don't see how they can be further refined or 
moderated.) If they get voted down for whatever reason, we will move 
on to the next thing. Commissioners are under no obligation to 
justify their votes: if it's kneejerk conservatism that makes them 
vote the way they do, why, they have my blessing. We have to share 
this language, people. Lojban is not your private toybox.

Meanwhile, if you want to harangue each other about whether UI=NAI is 
a good thing or not, before the formal presentation on phpbb, then 
take it to jboske. FFS.

Yours in vociferousness (cum argumentatione ad bacillum),

--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas,  French & Italian Studies       nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
  Rm 637 Arts Centre, Melbourne University, Australia    www.opoudjis.net
*    "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the       *
  circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.    *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****