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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:06:52 -0400

At 04:44 PM 7/26/02 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 05:00:40AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > >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.
>
>Uhhh... Probably not. I'm honestly not sure I care, though.

That was more a response to Jay, who I think was the one arguing that 
professional dictionary producers don't use flat text files. If I 
understand the typical methodology, I think what they use is very simple 
for the data gathering phase - automated 3x5 cards, and much more 
sophisticated than anything we would contemplate for the editing and 
maintenance phase.

>I'm not sure that you need to be that scared of people leaving the
>project at this point. Things seem to have acquired the necessary mass,
>IMO, that any single loss is survivable (to lojban as a whole; the LLG
>not so).

I personally feel that the loss of any individual, if it is the result of 
something I did, to be a deep personal failure.

> > 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.
>
>I was thinking in terms of much smaller projects, like a letter of lujvo
>making. Or, more interestingly, giving the project to several people
>as a group. I suppose that's what the committees are, though. I dunno.
>Maybe I'm smoking crack.

I'd love to see people, as individuals or committees to take on a chunk of 
lujvo. Or anything else. I interpolate from comments tonight that Jay has 
been gathering language names in Lojban, which could therefore be a list in 
the dictionary. This is GREAT! I wouldn't under my standards "officially" 
bless it, because that would seem to preclude someone else collecting 
names, and it would also imply a commitment that we WILL use Jay's list in 
the dictionary (I hope to have such a list in some edition of the 
dictionary, but whether we can do a credible enough job for the first 
dictionary edition will depend om the results)

> > 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.
>
><BLINK>
>
>LOL!
>
>This language *IS* a schism, Bob!

We are merely the latest generation of Loglan, though a version of the 
prior generation of Loglan continues to eke out an existence. (TLI Loglan 
is 4th generation Loglan, and CLL Lojban could be considered 5th generation 
Loglan by the same counting scheme. each generation has involved very 
substantial changes to the language, and its power of expression.)

JCB did NOT manage to prevent 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.
>
>It make a difference to me, at least, and apparently Jay. Think of it
>as a pat-on-the-head-in-advance. 8)

I just gave Jay a pat on the head on hearing that he was systematically 
collecting language names. Is this what you mean?

> > 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.
>
>Heh. How many more people would help if the interface were more
>friendly, hmmm? Not very many I think.

How many more people would help if the interface was more friendly than a 
flat file, hmmm? Not very many I think. I wish it to be otherwise, and if 
it takes "official approval-in-principle of the process" to have Jay be 
willing to actually go ahead and try to see if more people will do more 
words (and not merely comment on each others words, then Jay has "official 
approval-in-principle of the process" from me, though I admit that I don't 
know how that differs from "As President of LLG, I encourage Jay to 
undertake this" (or rather I do see: the former says that I am speaking for 
the members and the Board, whom I have not consulted, whereas the latter 
means that I am speaking for Lojbab ex officio. The latter is more honest.

>Compare:
>
>"Hey, that's a great idea. As President, I think you should go for it."
>
>or even
>
>"Hey, that's a great idea. I think you should go for it."
>
>to
>
>"This is an officially approved LLG project."
>
>Big difference, to me. Huge.

If I were NOT president, then the former I would take of as personal 
encouragement from a high official. The second would be personal approval 
from someone who I presumably recognize as having a high stake in the 
language who likes my idea. The last one says nothing about what the 
President thinks of the idea, but what the President is willing to say the 
membership/Board thinks of the idea (regardless of his personal 
feelings). It would also unlike the other two indicate an expectation that 
I as leader of the project am being held responsible for it in that LLG is 
relying on me to make it worthy of that
"official" label. Sort of a "we're counting on you" rather than merely a 
"we approve of what you are doing".

> > 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.
>
>I *don't* think that you would do any such thing, for the record. I
>have much more faith that that in your integrity.

I have several times had to consider the "what would JCB do, and should I 
do the same thing" question, both technically and organizationally.

> > 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.
>
>Right. Which means that it could theoretically survive you being hit by
>a bus or whatever. The above makes it sound like you believe that it
>could not, which IMO is a very negative and scary attitude.

I believe the language can and will survive me, far more robustly than TLI 
Loglan has survived JCB. I am sure than la lojbangirz will survive as a 
community with nearly equal certainty. I am not sure that "The Logical 
Language Group, Inc., non-profit organization incorporated under the laws 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia" would necessarily survive me, and if it 
did not do so, then the community (however robust it might be as a 
community) would have a difficult time transitioning to a post-lojbab era 
as an organization capable of supporting (and controlling as necessary) 
Lojban in meeting any specific objectives and fighting against forces that 
could tear the community into fragments.

The existence of LLG means that when there are disagreements we have a 
mechanism for resolving them, and when we need someone to impose order, 
there is someone the community has entrusted with the authority to impose 
order, and of course there is a way to meet any and all legalities that 
individuals might be unwilling to take legal responsibility for given that 
for most people this is "just a hobby".

Put in terms of the International Language movement, Interlingua has 
survived as a language, but its momentum and its chance for acceptance hit 
a severe negative discontinuity when the organization that developed it 
lost its funding, then its leadership, and then disappeared within a year 
or two. Similarly, TLI Loglan is unlikely to ever be robust because JCB 
provided too little provision, too late, of the sort needed to have TLI be 
viable. (To be specific, the Board of Trustees of TLI are a group of JCB 
friends and family that themselves have less interest in Loglan per se and 
more perhaps in preserving Loglan-as-JCB's-legacy. In addition, except for 
JCB's daughter, I believe they are all of JCB's generation and there is no 
provision for bringing new and younger blood into the "official" part of 
the organization.)

> > >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.
>
>Heh. Did I ever tell you I have the entirety of "The Rhyme Of The
>Ancient Mariner" memorized? At least I used to; I have trouble with
>Part The Fifth now.

Translate it into Lojban. Need I give official approval of that? %^)

(I think I am worried that people think a project is not worth doing unless 
it has official approval, because that suggests that Lojban is more 
dependent on the robustness of the LLG leadership than I would like it to 
be, given that I HAVEN'T figured out how to ensure the "official 
organization" robustly survives me yet.

> > >"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.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>-Robin, who has calmed down now.

I suspect I'll see you before you read this. Looking forward to it (and I 
was even when things were heated a few days ago. Now we have to figure 
how to get Jay to a LogFest %^)

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