Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: New Members, Board of Directors, other LogFest results

From: Jay F Kominek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:42:43 -0600

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:27:55PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >I must've missed that. I'd like to see the delegating of work discussed at
> >Logfest. (Not that I'll be there.) In particular, it seems worth noting
> >that projects like, say, the dictionary havn't really moved anywhere in
> >the last, what, 9 years? Certainly there are extenuating circumstances
> >as to why the person(s) currently working on it havn't produced anything,
> 
> like a lack of volunteers?

Who is going to sign up knowing that they're going to do the entire
dictionary themselves, with no more tools than their text editor, or
whatever they produce for themselves? (As, there apparently isn't any
sort of middle ground when volunteering. Otherwise you surely would've
taken up one of the many people who has said "What can I do?" on their
implicit offer.)

Do you think that real dictionaries are done by individuals with word
processors or text editors? I seriously doubt it.

Most likely, they use special software, developed for having a group
collborate on a dictionary. Why should Lojbanists do any different?

I'm trying to get people to accept the idea of working on the dictionary
in a sane, community-based fashion, with special tools designed to ease
the burden.

> I'll be honest that part of the reason I've had trouble being motivated to 
> work on the dictionary is that even if we get it done, we have no way to 
> publish it.

There are plenty of other people for whom that is not a problem. Me, in
particular. There are a number of others who'd be thrilled to produce an
electronic version of the dictionary, setup so that the latest and greatest
data can be easily exported into a printable form, so that individuals
can print it off themselves. (This happens quite a bit, particularly when
it takes you 3 months to deliver the CLL to someone.)

> Those of you who are more net-based than I can be motivated by 
> a net-based dictionary, but content-wise the initial dictionary will not be 
> all that far from what is in the current dictionary files (just editing and 
> formatting the exiting file, plus adding some of whatever we have time to 
> add, is what LogFest decided the first dictionary would be a LONNNG time 
> ago.) In that sense, the pretty version you made up IS "the dictionary".

The minutes are incomplete, then, as I believe I've read all the ones
currently available, and nowhere is that description of the dictionary
provided. Now that I've pried another secret out of you, I can prepare
that much better. It would be very easy to reproduce that beautified PDF
with whatever corrections and errata you'd like fixed, and then you could
put your stamp of approval on it and tell people that there is an official
Lojban dictionary, there just isn't currently funding to print it. (And
that would likely make it significantly easier to get donations, if people
saw what their donating was going to do.)

> BTW, in formatting the file that you did, YOU have "gotten something done 
> on them" more than anyone else has in the last couple of years; but since 
> we weren't at that stage yet, it was premature. The tasks that are really 
> needed: going through and writing definitions and place structures for new 
> words that have seen usage, and coming up with better definitions for 
> cmavo, we haven't actually had any volunteers that have "demonstrated that 
> they can get something accomplished on them".

Who is really in a position to write all the definitions themselves? For
the gismu, OK, that is feasible. But add on the cmavo, and then a scattering
of common lujvo and fu'ivla, and no single volunteer can do that. So they
need to work together. But when CVS seems to be beyond a number of Lojbanists,
or they refuse to use anything which isn't AOL-istically simple, then some
sort of cooperative framework needs to be developed so that they're not
stepping on each other's toes and duplicating effort.

> But publishing the current dictionary files in print, is far more than we 
> can afford. If publishing Nick's books increases our revenue stream, that 
> could change in a year or two.

Just because something official exists doesn't mean you've got to print it
and sell it yourself!

All the LLG would need to do is distribute an official PDF of the dictionary,
and say that printed copies of the unmolested PDF are also official. Then
individuals could go to Kinko's, or use their own printer. Or maybe some
Lojbanist would print off the PDF on request and sell it.

This works quite well for the non-profit Linux distribution, Debian. They
produce an image of the CD-ROM version of their software, and anyone
can mass produce and sell official versions of Debian, just as long as
they use that official image.

> We could talk about publishing a set of materials on CD-ROM, but my 
> understanding is that CD-ROM dictionaries are already becoming passe 
> because on-line lookup is more convenient for those who need convenience, 
> and the download time for the current file is quite short.

The current ASCII files are likely inconvinent if not impossible for the
kinds of computerphobic users some people claim we need to target.

> Honestly that all sounds like more work than what I do now %^) The 
> bookkeeping would be horrible (and keeping track of the paper work is one 
> thing that slows me down), and comb-bound Kinko's would be far more 
> expensive than offset.

Comb binding isn't all the expensive. (Or wasn't, the last time I had
Kinko's comb bind something for me.)

And "Kinko's" is being used rather generically here. (Sorry, I was unclear.)
There are always local publishers who frequently are cheaper than Kinko's,
or more willing to make deals. People volunteering to ship out books could
investigate to see whether or not they can get a good deal for printing the
stuff out before volunteering. (Maybe for small stuff, they might even print
it on their own printers, or use the printers at work/school.)

> If it were merely a matter of sending out the books, I would prepackage 40 
> books and send them when the orders come in. It's the paperwork, and the 
> specific rules needed to satisfy various booksellers that want a receipt 
> with order number, or multiple books in an order shipped in one box.

Well when it takes 3 months for somebody to get their book, it seems to me
as though there is something rather wrong with something. Presumably there
isn't 3 months of paperwork, now matter how hard you try to drag it out,
so I figure that there must be some sort of slow down in actually getting
the book shipped out.

> >Open a Fedex account.
> 
> Isn't Fedex a good deal more expensive than even UPS, much less book rate 
> postage? We are getting $5 for shipping, and packing envelopes cost around 
> a buck. We lose money shipping amazon orders, since the UPS for them is 
> $6-8 for one book.

If you were actually interested in this scheme, then pricing with other
carriers could be investigated. Maybe due to the non-profitness of the LLG,
they might be willing to give the account a break.

> We lose even more on airmail to Australia, which for LLG was around
> $25 the last time I sent one.

I'd think that people in Australia would be understanding if you made them
pay a shipping amount a little bit closer to the actual cost.

> That sounds reasonable to me. The question is whether there will be 
> volunteers who will dependably follow through.

And if they don't follow through, what happens?

As I understand it, you currently get snailmail and then don't attempt
to respond unless it has an email address. How can the volunteer do
anything worse than what you're already doing?

> We've had a history of people signing up for things and not actually
> doing them.

Right now, you're signed up for everything on the list, and you're not
getting any of it done. How can things get any worse?

You Can Not Get Everything Done Yourself. Even if you worked Lojban as
a paid, fulltime job, _and_ your hobby, you *still* wouldn't be able to
do everything.

Delegation is the most important thing a manager can learn. And as the
President/CEO of the LLG, you're the manager.

So Delegate. What on earth have you got to lose?

-- 
Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
The wheels are spinning,
but the hamster is dead.