[lojban] Re: Conservative, *active* BPFK commissioners needed.

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Craig:
> >The BPFK (see http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html) is trying to
> >represent all parts of the Lojban community.
>
> >Its deliberations are currently at an impasse, largely because there
> >are no active comissioners who are also true Baseline Conservatives
> >(i.e. people who believe that the baseline should be absolutely
> >inviolate).
>
> >Some such people stepping up to the plate would be a Very Good
> >Thing.
>
> I take issue with this on two counts.
>
> First of all, it is clear to all concerned that the baseline as it stands
> must be altered; that's what the community voted for in approving the BPFK
> mandate. I have no problem with the view that whatever the BPFK decides on
> ought to remain inviolate, in fact I'm starting to come around to that way
> of thinking myself, but anyone who believes that the BPFK should not exist
> is deluding themself and would probably be counterproductive as a member.

I imagine Robin chose his words carefully, but, as you say, he does seem to
be
overstating the amount of conservatism required. But the fact is that the
design of the BF relies on a reasonable amount of participation from 'both
camps' but the change-averse camp has been rather silent. If the BF were
constitutionally able to start making resolutions today, then those
resolutions
would be rather conspicuously unconservative, it seems. I'd have thought
that
it would have been enough for Robin to ask for active commissioners with
an avowed aversion to tinkering, or even for the active participation of
anybody
who is not happy to trust the collective judgement of the current active
commissioners (= the judgement of all but any two of the current active
commissioners).

> Second, I think the fact that both conservative and revisionist members
are
> active is precisely the reason why we aren't moving so fast. If everyone
> were a naturalist, we'd have consensus-minus-one for several issues at
this
> point. This isn't a bad thing; we revisionists do need to be reined in a
> bit. I'd say the real way to end the impasse is for people on both sides
to
> make concessions on some issues. For instance, I would dearly love to see
> ka'enai become official, but I would give it up in a heartbeat if doing so
> meant that the more actively harmful issues were resolved prior to the
heat
> death of the universe.

Is there an actual impasse? Or just an utter loss of momentum? I don't know,
but if there is an impasse it's hard to find evidence on phpbb that it has
arisen from intransigent refusal to compromise.

--And.