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

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

Robin:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:18:02AM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > I imagine Robin chose his words carefully, 
> 
> You must be thinking of a different Robin.
> 
> I am many things, but someone who usually chooses his words
> carefully is, without question, not one of them.
> 
> > 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, 
> 
> I'm sorry, umm, who says we're not able to do so, exactly?

I don't know. Are we able to? I never got my head round the -- to
me -- complicated rules governing the BF. I defer to your judgement
here, since you have more of an aptitude for understanding these
things.
 
> > 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, 
> 
> That would be fine, yes.

Or more generally anybody who wants to have a counterbalancing input
to an enterprise that by its very nature is going to attract those
with tinkering tendencies.

> [snip]
> > Is there an actual impasse? 
> 
> Nick seems to think so.

I didn't ever fully understand why, but here's not the place for an
inquest.

--And.