[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting

Robert LeChevalier, On 22/08/2014 19:48:

On 8/22/2014 12:47 PM, selpa'i wrote:

In the 2003 annual meeting there was a movement to make Lojban the
language used during LLG meetings. It failed, but maybe something
similar could be considered again. Perhaps a certain percentage of the
discussions should be in Lojban, if 100% is not feasible yet. A "Lojban
Quota" so to speak. Opinions?


It would be an impediment to getting the work of the LLG done. It would make participation more onerous or impossible, for those with inadequate knowledge of grammar or lexis. (For me, now, it would be too onerous.) It would make communication less effectual, with people less sure what others meant; though things may have improved nowadays, it was my experience, 10--20 years ago I found that allegedly fluent speakers tended both to unwittingly produce sentences that did not mean was the speaker wanted to say (-- xorlo will have fixed some of this) and be unable to understand grammatical text that did not conform to prevailing stylistic norms.

A couple years ago, I started the meeting with a Lojban sentence, and
was basically told that people no longer wanted to do this.


I haven't been able to recall these messages or find them in my archive.

I did, tho, find a pertinent message from Robin:
Robin Lee Powell, On 12/10/2011 20:32:

As a general comment, I wish to point out that I've made a habit of
*discouraging* people from joining the LLG.

The LLG is a *business* organization.  It is the money-collecting
and money-spending arm of the Lojban community.  It is *not* the
language management arm of the Lojban community (that's a mixture of
the BPFK, me, and public opinion, and is all very fuzzy).  It
*certainly* is not the "getting things done" arm of the Lojban
community; historically, having a project recognized by the LLG
before it was actually completed has been an almost perfect
assurance that that project would never get completed.

As far as I'm concerned, the only function of the LLG membership
should be to elect the board and provide oversight for the board's
decisions, and as a fallback voting body should the board want to do
something obviously outside of normal monetary behaviour.

Everything else is better handled in other venues.

As such, the membership should be small and focused on those ends.

Furthermore, I don't much care what language we have the meetings
in; money is money.

Those of you who have been around for a while may notice that this
is a huge reversal of things I've said in the past.  The stance I've
just presented exactly matches what Bob used to say back in the day,
when he was doing all the work.  I've also been the one doing all
the work for the past several years.  There *is* a connection there.


The main requirement for LLG membership is (for the time being, at least) goodwill towards Lojban and the LLG, and a commitment to be present at the annual meetings.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 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.