On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 07:10:25PM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> He wants of you the same thing he wants of all of us- to shut up about our
> ideas, STOP trying to fix perceived faults in the language, and just stop
> endlessly debating how the language "ought" to be at least until the work
> that NEEDS TO BE DONE before any of those thing matter in the slightest
> GETS DONE.
>
> Absolutely no changes will even be considered until that work is done, so
> any proposals are a waste of your breath and our time.
Just to be clear about it: "that work" refers to (1) the work
described here http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Community+Work
to get on with the cmavo definitions for the baseline
and it refers to (2) the formatting issues in the CLL,
which ento (thank you for that!) just recently pushed to the github
cll issue tracker at https://github.com/dag/cll/issues
(AND everything that comes to Robin mind, whenever he's around...) ???
Both are fairly well defined tasks which could be done by anyone
with enough time and (for 1) an idea of what certain cmavo are about
or (for 2) some knowledge about how xml works and how to use git.
So yes gleki, you probably can take on something from these tasks and do that. {.ui}
However, as I look through the byfy sections nearly all of them appear blue,
which is supposed to mean "ready for voting". To me this looks like _there is_
currently work for the BPFK? This is surely no trivial work, but it is
well defined: "Read through the sections and vote on whether or not they are
coherent with how you understand lojban."
Will this happen in the near future so these sections get checkpointed?
Is the voting apparatus/process still up and running?
Are there members of the BPFK gone/away without official leave?
Would this hinder the voting?
Is there a list/a way to create a list of all missing cmavo,
which still need to be described? Without such a list, who is to know if
the baseline is complete?
> When the baseline is complete, and not before, is when proposals may be
> submitted for consideration- and there's a formal procedure for that, too.
> Until then, it is an utterly pointless activity.
Well, at least "perceived faults in the language" are documented somewhere
by then, so it's not totally pointless to write mails about them.
However, it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss problems which
require changes in the language definition, agreed.
v4hn
Attachment:
pgpT17rI3s26T.pgp
Description: PGP signature