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.