I prefer 3, "putting in common by cooperation". However, the Lojban Coders' Group seems to have no rule, and each member of the group behaves as he likes. Some of them are already inactive. Even if the BPFK decides to make contact with the Lojban Coders' Group, they will not be able to reach an agreement of the whole group.
Are you saying the Coders' Group is not a group, but rather an "unsorted" list of accounts? If so, I understand why preempting would be more probable than I thought. However, it could be fair to ask everyone first. But I understand inactive accounts are an issue. BTW, I integrated the problem in my thinking about how to help organizing all of this (coming soon).
I once tried the similar action as "putting in common by forcing" by posting a motion to the LLG meeting. [...]That motion was implicitly seconded by Gleki (he agreed to a method that requires the motion being adopted, but made no comments on the motion itself), and not opposed by Curtis Franks, but the meeting was forcedly closed without any discussion or voting.
Why closed?
The LLG meeting thus died. I will try again the similar motion on the current LLG meeting, but it is likely to be ignored again guessing from their behavior to my past motions. I may try the BPFK meeting to discuss your analysis, even though it is also dying.
Ok. Let us know!
ki'e sai la sykyndyr
je'e
***
@all:
Now about submissions to update the CLL... Let's imagine a second we have an unique and active board (say "LLGBPFKCoders", or whatever), and adequate tools. What would be an efficient submission protocol? Here are two drafts:
Roughly rephrased, it would be:
- Anyone authenticated (= registered somewhere) can create a draft and discuss about existing ones.
- Once the draft seems okay enough, anyone authenticated can flag it as "okay, let's call the experts to review this".
- Only "experts" (to be defined, I guess) can "validate" the proposal.
- Once validated, only tiny tweaks can me made. Then anyone authenticated can submit a "validated" document.
- The board votes for those submissions.
- The tech staff integrates approved submissions.
One of my main concerns was to create something both clear & simple on one hand, and structured enough on the other hand. Here the "Reviewed proposal" may be a bit useless. I'm not 100% sure actually. But if this sounds burden to you, then the simplified protocol would be :
That's even simpler, but removes the ability to make tiny changes once validated. What's your opinion?
ki'e ro do
.i la .sykyndyr.