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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:00:40 -0400

At 02:12 PM 7/24/02 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:49PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > I don't know of any middle ground. Short time jobs tend to be done by
> > the people who think of them. Collaborative jobs with short time
> > components, other than the wiki which has no time constraints or
> > organization to it by design, don't consistently get done: look at the
> > current status of the phone game, which takes only people making and
> > *keeping* a future commitment of part of one evening, and yet half the
> > time we can't get a chain of 10 to completion.
>
>Uhhh, there's a difference of importance between the dictionary and
>b0rken phone that I think people are aware of. 8)

If the little things of lesser import that take one evening don't get done, 
where is the track record for the big things. Your track record as a web 
site manager for me is based on how quickly you respond to the little 
things like a question on which cmavo list is valid, and whether we could 
have a LogFest announcement in the news section, than in whether your web 
site design is the most user friendly it could be for me or any other 
user. Likewise, getting the job done at even a minimal level is more 
important than doing a super job and not finishing.

> > Alice was a somewhat larger group effort, but from what I gather, most
> > of the work was done by one or two people who almost certainly spent
> > more than 40 hours on what they did over a period of time.
>
>I'd put it at closer to 3 or 4. But you'll note it *did* get done.
>Altohugh it's in need of an edit or two.

Then is it really "done"? I thought that the point of CVS was that it 
would reviewed and edited by others piece by piece as it got done. From 
what Jorge is said, I understand that a rough draft is done (I guess that 
qualifies as "getting the job done at even a minimal level") but that he 
and no one else is close to satisfied with it as being suitable for 
representing to the world that we can do serious literature translation 
into Lojban. So whether it is done probably depends on what it is going to 
be used for.

>I think all that Jay wants at this point is a, "Yes, an online
>dictionary collaboration tool would be really nice, and the LLG would
>appreciate it". You can say that without committing to anything or
>making big plans.

Consider it said, Jay, subject to any modifications from the membership 
this weekend (which is unlikely to unsay it).

>Hey, here's a radical idea: you could assign *parts* of the dictionary
>to people. Like ask for volunteers for all words starting with b, or
>something.

I think I did. At one point I think I suggested that people tackle 50 
lujvo at a chunk. What actually gets done is that people do a few words, 
post their results to the list, and therein start a technical 
debate. Makes for a lively list, but gets no dictionary done. The bulk of 
the lujvo that are defined came because of two or three times when Nick 
marathoned (in the intense way that only Nick can managed) what probably 
were 100 hour weeks producing a file of a thousand or more lujvo. I used 
to think I could work intensely, but I'm a slow starter and Nick has come 
here a couple of times and produced stuff before I had ramped up enough to 
even be able to understand what he was trying to do.

> > >Most likely, they use special software, developed for having a group
> > >collborate on a dictionary. Why should Lojbanists do any different?
> >
> > Because we don't have man-years of software development time and money
> > available.
>
>I know that Jay could whip up something functional and web-based in a
>weekend.
>
>If he doesn't get his ass on it pretty soon, I'm gonna do it myself.

Great. But, please don't think that you are using an approach like the 
professional dictionary producers do. I've read a couple of books on 
lexicography, and it is a VERY complex art.

> > I understand, and I have no problem with people doing so. Have I told
> > you, or even *suggested*, that you aren't allowed to print off copies
> > of your PDF dictionary?
>
>Again, waving the Magic LLG Approval Stick would go a long way to
>getting things done.
>
>This may surprise you, but just because the LLG says, "Hey, that's a
>good idea, we'd love it if you did that" *DOES* *NOT* mean that the
>world falls apart if it doesn't get done. Seriously.
>
>And despite other statements that you have made, you *are* allowed to
>make such statements in an official capacity. I've been President in
>Robert's Rules organization, I know this is the case.

I can do so, but I'm wary that expressing approval of an effort in advance 
will lead someone to be pissed off enough to leave the project if I later 
lose that enthusiasm based on the actual result (or lack thereof). But I'm 
also having trouble seeing just what I've been doing that suggests 
non-approval. It is hard to imagine many ideas for Lojbanic projects that 
I do NOT approve of, and it seems rather meaningless.

I have tended to reserve my "official" approval, for final products that 
the community as a whole has looked at an also agrees as "good". I also 
like to compliment people for what they have done, as I have done tonight 
regarding some things you have done.

> > >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.
> >
> > 1997 minutes
>
>Which we can read where?

On your site. I posted the URL after someone else asked.

> > I just realized yesterday that Nora was supposed to do indexing for
> > Nick's books, which she never did and I don't think any one else did,
> > though I haven't looked lately.
>
>Automated indexing is trivial.
>
>Of course, no-one here knew that that was being sought, because there is
>no list, anywhere, of "Tasks the LLG Would Like To See Done". See
>above.
>
>BTW, you're allowed to accept multiple promises for the same thing;
>better chance of it getting done anyways.

We obviously have different ideas of what delegating means. When I 
delegate, I give some implicit authority to lead others to the 
delegatee. So long as you tell me what you are doing and give me a chance 
to say no, you have a pretty free hand with the web site, as I hope you've 
noticed. Accepting multiple promises for the same thing sounds like giving 
the same authority to two different people. With some of the strong-willed 
people in the community, that sounds like begging for political strife.

One thing I've had to bear in mind is that every "successful" conlang 
effort thus far has spawned multiple bouts of schism, most of which have 
been destructive of the effort. I've so-far (fingers crossed) kept this 
language united, despite hardliners and cabals and hexadecimal, and even 
won over large numbers of TLIers with results. If that continues, I'll 
have done more for Lojban than any language inventor has managed, and we've 
done stupendously with 15 public years and no schism.

But if I'm not supposed to choose which person to delegate to, and am just 
supposed to express official approval of things that people propose to do, 
I can't help but feel that the approval has no meaning. But if you guys 
say that it makes a difference to you, I'll try.

> > My own priority after business matters that never get done as it is,
> > is getting our address list up to date so that I can put out a JL/LK
> > that will get to the people who have paid for it; I haven't had time
> > for that either.
>
>Another task which you have refused to delegate (I specifically asked
>last year).

I don't remember. Let's talk when you get here.

> > >But when CVS seems to be beyond a number of Lojbanists,
> >
> > You've finally realized this!!!
>
>You seem to be proud that we're surrounded by people who can't follow
>the simple, detailed instructions that I presented. There are over 20
>people, IIRC, with CVS accounts. It's not that hard.

There are over 250 on Lojban List. CVS therefore seems to be beyond what 
90% of them are willing or able to do. Maybe I should be happy with a 10% 
response rate, though.

> > >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.
> >
> > And that cooperating framework will likely have to be AOL-istically
> > simple. Hence flat text files.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
>
>That was a very funny joke.
></sarcasm>
>
>You can't *really* think that flat text files are simple by today's
>standards, can you? By the standards of 1975, sure. But simple in
>today's eyes is a web interface.

I guess I am still living in 1975.

> > If it is published, then people will send orders to me.
>
>And you can delegate them.

Please reconcile this with:
>BTW, you're allowed to accept multiple promises for the same thing;
>better chance of it getting done anyways.

If I deposit a check, then I need a near-100% certainty that the order will 
be filled exactly once, within an unnoticeable time of said deposit. (I 
may not fill orders promptly, but no one gets a Visa charge for a book 
without that order being packed and going to the post office within a day 
or so.)

> > They can do that now. But it isn't official. And I don't think we
> > should put the "official" label on things that are ad hoc, even if
> > they are likely to be ad hoc for a long time. We set a standard for
> > ourselves with the quality of CLL, and we have to live up to that
> > standard with the other baseline books.
>
>Umm, yeah. *Whatever*. I'm sure people will prefer nothing to
>something that's not all gorgeous. Yeah. Good call.

But there isn't "nothing". There are GOBS of "unofficial", much of which 
people find functional (or not) regardless of whether I used the magic word 
"official". I have generally considered the word "official" to be a word 
important to outsiders and beginners looking for the key stuff that has the 
highest standards of approval. Within the community, "official" seems 
important only if there is an implicit contest between multiple conflicting 
versions.

> > >The current ASCII files are likely inconvinent if not impossible for
> > >the kinds of computerphobic users some people claim we need to
> > >target.
> >
> > Anything more sophisticated is likely to be worse.
>
>*Boggle*. Yeah, a web-lookup form is *much* more complicated.

Compare finding what you want with a search engine with using an 
automatically generated index, and with using a well-crafted index. Online 
I could use a search engine to find things in CLL. Off-line I use the book 
index. I usually find it faster the manual way.

> > > > >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.
> >
> > Frankly, I don't have time to investigate.
>
>GAAAAAH!
>
>DELEGATE IT! If you're not going to do it anyways, it DOESN'T MATTER if
>the person who promises to do it doesn't!

Volunteers welcome.

> > >So Delegate. What on earth have you got to lose?
> >
> > I've tried with less important tasks, and been bitten.
>
>You feel 'bitten' because you are attached to every single promise being
>kept.

I feel bitten because I take my own word seriously. I'm attached to every 
single promise *of my own* being kept. Official approval has always seemed 
to me like a promise of support, but you clearly see it as something less. 
If I make a promise and can't keep it, I don't cope well with my own 
failure to deliver. I would rather make no promises than promise and not 
deliver.

> > What do I stand to lose? 16 years of time and emotional investment in
> > this project if it falls apart. I think the language will survive my
> > personal involvement now. I'm not sure the organization is so solid.
>
>Read the above paragraph several times. Imagine JCB saying it about
>Loglan. Read it again.

JCB basically said that if he did not keep control of the organization, 
then he was going to withdraw and take the language with him. I suspect 
that I see what you are trying to imply, but it isn't what I meant by the 
above. But I'm not sure how to say it more clearly. Suffice it to say 
that neither with language control nor organization control would I 
consider doing what JCB did. The organization is run by the voting membership.

>BTW, I, personally, haven't even the slightest attachment to the LLG as
>an organization, but I have a lot of attachment to lojban.

Good. The organization is my own albatross.

I think we need it (and others apparently do as well or people would not be 
asking me to "officially" approve things. Please reconcile your request 
for official approval with a lack of attachment to the organization. If 
the organization doesn't matter then what does "official" mean?

> I think that
>waiting 4-6 months for a copy of the CLL is doing much more harm to
>lojban than collapse of the LLG would. Nevermind the address list
>fiasco.
>
>In closing, I want to share a phrase my step-dad often uses. He teaches
>very high-priced corporate organization seminars, so he kinda knows his
>stuff.
>
>"If what you are doing is not working, stop doing it, and do ANYTHING
>else."

Definitely wise. You may find me more amenable, if you don't dump too many 
ANYTHING ELSEs on me at once.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org