Re: [lojban] Re: Lojban's leadership and how I don't give a shit about it

Jonathan,

I think you're on key, by bringing up the actual policies that currently exist on paper. While I'm mindfully not going to try to argue anyone here about what those policies say (they are available for anyone to read) I think even this aspect of the motion can be discussed by re-raising the perspective regarding Lojban's practical reality when it comes to political efforts, councils, procedures, hearings and so forth. Do I gain any points here by pointing out the incoherence between the intentions of those policies and their non-implementation? In the same way that we're nominating selpa'i to 'last-step' integration of changes to the language over some idealized formal direct democracy, I think we can apply similar admissions to the effectiveness of leaning on long standing but unrealized intentions.

I want to also reply to your statements about finishing a baseline, unfreezing the language, and then the thing you said about how it wouldn't matter at that point how the leadership goes since the official capacities are 'finished' and everything becomes volunteer at that point, but I have to run for a while. I will say something like, we agree, and we're simply merging all of those exactly true facts under a more direct and achievable (by achievable I mean, as per the willing to do this work) means. This has not only to do with selpa'i gaining some say in what is committed to the language, but also things I have alluded to regarding putting the language in a more collaborative format and using patterns from software development to manage on going progress - the kind I imagine you envision after such 'unfreezing'.

Thanks for that very good reply.

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

First of all, this seems like an entirely pointless endeavor for the simple reason that, by mandate of the LLG, no change proposals are allowed until the baseline as is has finished being fully documented. Obviously there have been a very very few exceptions to this, most notably xorlo (, actually that's the only one I can think of other than (possibly) dotside), but I contend that any such changes are of a "bugfix" type of change. There are some proposals I am aware of that I have no doubt would be approved, such as changing to using PEG instead of YACC, .camxes. instead of jbofi'e, etc., but of utmost importance to any proposal, past, present, and future, is getting that baseline finished documented so the freeze is removed. With that freeze in effect, it really doesn't matter /what/ the proposal process is, or who the arbiter is.

Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, the current proposal process is to create and submit a specification on the proposal to the BPFK, who would then review it, assess how it would affect the corpus, affect any changes deemed necessary, and then vote on it for approval, while Robin holds the role of, basically, "Super Veto Man", in a very similar vein to the way Congress and the President operate RE: the passing of laws in the U.S. It sounds to me as if you're suggesting giving the role the BPFK plays in the process to selpa'i, not the role Robin plays, which I don't approve of. If, on the other hand, what you are suggesting is that selpa'i be the intermediary between the proposer and the approval committee, then I see nothing wrong with that. (And before anyone says anything about the BPFK being dead, may I just point out again that the role of the BPFK is that of maintaining the language- i.e., documenting the language as is as well as approving and recording any changes to it. Since there can not be changes with the freeze-until-baseline thing is over with, that kind of leaves the BPFK with nothing to do. All I can say on the subject is, there's a well-documented process for finishing the baseline, and anyone that wants to can easily go about helping to finish it, and it is about 9x% finished as of this writing, so it's not like there's a lot left to do.)

With all that said, I don't really have any problems with a competent jbopre taking on more responsibilities in jbogu'e, whether it be selpa'i or anyone else. Seeing as this is a mostly volunteer community (, I honestly don't know if anyone gets paid for what they do for Lojban, but I'm not going to assume no one does), it seems a bit counter-productive to deny anyone who is volunteering.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.