John,
No doubt you're able to point out this or that that needs to be done. I bet others can reference in their own words what they suppose is missing from some baseline or whatever. Great. How is the idea of moving all of that description into version control and giving selpahi the control of merging changes into that repository somehow in conflict with missing cmavo definitions?
There are essentially two things this thread was originally about.
1) Moving the process for maintaining the language from a mailing-list/wiki mixed with crudely (and often internally inconsistent) processes and by-laws enforced by elected participants who may or may not even still be interested in Lojban by the next time a meeting requiring their attention and expertise is called... to an open-source version controlled 'consider-the-change-on-the-merits-of-the-change' system where anyone can submit any change against the repository which can then be considered for what it is by the community at large (or more importantly individuals who are actually motivated to participate in that process). Everybody can contribute and changes can be openly, and safely merged or not merged in a very controlled and systematic manner.
2) Reviewing the gimste for cohesiveness and regularity. We proposed to do this review using the process above. Where anyone can comment on any of the completely open and explicit individual proposed mutations to any particular word, make their own proposals and argue against those they disagree with.
Neither of these things actually conflict with the needs in other areas, like finishing the cmavo definitions or any other arbitrarily prioritized agenda. All the arguments about relearning, CLL's, are arguments constructed to invoke fear of some fantasized destruction of the language. Neither of these proposed motions of actions reduce an existing description either. There is literally no substantiated argument against what we proposed (an open democratic process for explicit management of the language as data through version control and open-source policies for review and integration) other than 'waa, I don't actually like losing what sense of control I presume to have over the language'.
It amazing going back over the thread just how irrelevant and orthogonal the supposed rebuking of this motion turned out to be.
The current system for organizing and funneling the fluttering and whimsical productivity of Lojbanists for managing the language is bad. It assumes long-term commitment by a few select individuals to stay completely informed of a largish body of bylaws arbitrarily enforced between completely irregular periods of active governance and pure silence mixed with the demonstrable difficulty of actually being in-tune to how the language is changing in its utilization in various communities. It accumulates and forces processing of that work in larger batches instead of continuous review and integration consideration.
Nothing about the proposed system violates anything about the needs to keep the language completely described and actually does a better job than the system that's being (quite terribly) defended in this thread.