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

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:15:55 -0700

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:42:43PM -0600, Jay F Kominek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:27:55PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> 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 would like to publically state that I think this is an excellent idea,
and I would be very happy to see the LLG throw some kind of support at
it, even if it was just, "Yeah, that seems like a good idea, it would be
great if you did that". 

I'm also very happy with what I've seen so far of Jay's work on
dictionary tools, discouraged though he may be.

> > 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, 

!! Me! Pick me!

> (And that would likely make it significantly easier to get donations,
> if people saw what their donating was going to do.)

No kidding. Sorry, lojbab, but I'm not going to give money to cover
expenses incurred by the organization years before I even heard of it.
I *will* give money to produce a textbook or dictionary, because that's
actually *doing* something, even if the money ends up going to those
same debts.

> > 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. 

Especially since I think we should have definitions in both English and
lojban, at least.

> 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.

Fully agreed.

> > 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!

A-*MEN*. .iesai

Let's get stuff *done*, and *then* worry about printing it, if even
bother. lojbab seems to want to do it the other way around...

> > 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.

Dude, they bother *me*.

> > 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.)

Can you give a ballpark number?

> (Maybe for small stuff, they might even print it on their own
> printers, or use the printers at work/school.)

I've printed the whole CLL that way. While I was waiting for my copy.

> > 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. 

Umm, more like 6 in several cases. Mine was rather longer than that,
IIRC.

> > 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.

No kidding.

> 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?

The above bears repeating.

lojbab, you have been both refusing to delegate and failing to do the
work for the entire time I've been involved with the project. It needs
to stop.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/