[lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>> >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;

>Even if the change is backwards compatible and other people see a
>problem?

If enough people see a problem, that will convince me that there is one and
that my inability to see it reflects my lojban skill rather than the
proposer's.
However, if no reason is ever given why an idea is a Solution to a Problem
(as opposed to a Random Act of Tinkering), I will treat it as being in the
RTA group rather than the SP group. I wouldn't insist on the explanation of
the problem being in the proposal (although I think it would be a Good Thing
Deserving of Kudos if it were); I would merely insist that the explanation
of the problem not be nonexistant. Discussion on the list is sufficient, but
future lojbanists would want to see our reasoning - and it should be readily
accessible.