On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 5:04 AM, v4hn
<me@v4hn.de> wrote:
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".
You're looking at the text, right, not the links, for which all of them are blue just to confuse us all?
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?
Those are all good questions, and my answers are, in order: I don't even know if we're bothering with the voting part or just implicitly accepting them as voted approved when they're made blue; yes, it's part of the wiki, you just have to add the poll to a page if you want voting on something in it; I don't know if there is a such thing as "official leave", but I'm pretty sure voting is a simple majority and we don't all have to vote at the same time, just whenever we get around to going to the poll and choosing our response, so it could take as much as a month to get all the votes depending on personal time constraints; not at all, no.
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?
All existing cmavo are in one of the sections linked to on that page, and all the not blue/green sections have one or more missing cmavo /descriptions/ or other problems. So: black color section = needs work. red color section = /really/ needs work.
> 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