[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation?
v4hn wrote:
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?
I doubt it, but that is up to Robin.
Ah: Robin has explicitly marked the procedures section "obsolete"
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Procedures
and that probably applies to the community work page as well by implication.
Is the voting apparatus/process still up and running?
No idea. But per the above, such votes are probably irrelevant. Robin
has the only real vote, until/unless he says otherwise.
Are there members of the BPFK gone/away without official leave?
Yes. No one is required to have "official" leave. LLG has no
employees, only volunteers. And probably most of the BPFK has done
little or nothing over the many years of its existence, so it would be
hard to tell whether someone has "left". The original jatna. Nick
Nicolas, officially resigned that position. I don't think anyone else
has formally "left" byfy (and I don't remember that Nick even did so -
he resigned as jatna).
Robin has the power to add to or eliminate people from byfy membership.
Would this hinder the voting?
Yes and no. None of the votes that *were* held, so far as I know,
attracted universal voting, and in many cases the calls for votes were
almost completely ignored. Few of the byfy had time to review the
proposals; if they were involved at all, they were too busy discussing
the controversial.
At one time LLG decisions were made in formal in-person meetings, with a
requirement for a quorum, and decisions got made (the meetings were
noted for being LOOONG, though). byfy was set up without a quorum
requirement, and has had trouble with decision-making because we cannot
get all of the byfy even thinking about the question at-hand in a timely
manner.
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?
Robin says when it is complete, and then there will be voting. Probably
at some point, the LLG voting membership will ratify the product of the
byfy as an official baseline (since the voting membership created byfy),
but I doubt that there will be any serious question when such a vote
goes to the membership.
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.
I think the wiki is populated by all sorts of pages on perceived faults,
and that is probably the best place to record them. Email archives are
somewhat dependent on Google, and in any event are not indexed usefully,
so discussions of perceived faults in email is NOT particularly productive.
Of course I think it is somewhat presumptive for someone relatively new
to the language to "perceive fault". It is quite possible that there
are holes and faults in the language, but after 25 years, the ones that
actually matter will mostly be recognized by usage difficulties. So a
"perceived fault" is better expressed by a query "how do I say/translate
X", which those more experienced in the language can attempt to answer.
However, it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss problems which
require changes in the language definition, agreed.
It would probably make sense to do so, except that the odds that a
perceived problem will actually REQUIRE changes to the language
definition has become vanishingly small. So you need to express that in
the subjunctive zo'o to satisfy gleki.
lojbab
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.