[lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

IIRC, nobody, except possibly Nick, has an individual power of veto.

Be that as it may, what you ask for is reasonable, but it will slow things
down greatly. Documenting stuff, especially in a highly intelligible form,
is very difficult & laborious (tho some people, such as Nick & John, have
a talent for it), & if it gives rise to more questions & discussion then that
will end up as a recapitulation of debates that already happened on
Jboske. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but if it is allowed to, then
we must accept that BF is a longhaul operation, rather than something
that should have been over by May.

One possibly helpful alternative would be for you to draft a rough sketch
of how you understand {loi} & then sundry jboskepre could point out
the problems in that.

--And.

>>> Craig <ragnarok@pobox.com> 02/26/03 02:49am >>>
>is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with
>{loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it.

I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK appears and
we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that doesn't demonstrate
that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any change to the language that
doesn't solve a problem which is either obvious or explained in the
proposal; the BPFK should not act lightly.
But, if the jposkepre have been able to put much effort into {loi}, then I'm
sure there is a problem and that their proposal will explain it to us.


To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/