From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Oct 10 06:21:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 13:21:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 70803 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 13:21:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 13:21:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 13:21:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17zdJF-0003Db-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:25:01 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zdGJ-0003Ct-00; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:21:59 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from com1.uclan.ac.uk ([193.61.255.3]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zdFW-0003Cd-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:21:17 -0700 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:43:19 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:16:32 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:16:01 +0100 To: lojban-list Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage deciding (was: RE: Re: [Announcement] The Alice TranslationHas Moved And Changed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline X-archive-position: 2104 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: And Rosta Reply-To: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jay: #>>> lojban-out@lojban.org 10/10/02 06:33am >>> #On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:09:00AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: #> There was something approximating a consensus that there should be a #> baseline, but not necessarily on the reasons for it existing (the #> extremes would be that the baseline is an absolute unchallengeable #> definition of the language and that the baseline is a vacuous PR #> gimmick). If it is true that content of the baseline ever #> represented a snapshot of what the consensus was at some point in #> time, that point in time must have antedated the baseline by several #> years, for in the five years prior to the baseline I don't recall #> there being any attempt to establish whether there was #> consensus. Rather, the content of the baseline was presented as a #> fait accompli that, by virtue of being a realization of antique #> Loglan goals, was immune from the need to be subject to consensus. # #Having in the past read the meeting minutes extensively, I don't #recall anyone putting themselves on record as saying that the baseline #was a bad thing, or that it should not happen. Nor do I recall anyone #making motions to abandon it. I took Lojbab to be talking about consensus in the broader Lojban community, not solely within the LLG. But anyway, in my quoted message I say "There was something approximating a consensus [in the broader community] that there should be a baseline". Given that, one wouldn't expect anyone to put themselves on record as saying that the baseline was a bad thing or that it should not happen or making motions to abandon it. #How about you make a motion (by proxy, if need be) next year to end #the baseline? Why would I want to do that? I don't think the baseline in itself does any harm, and it serves to allay the fears of certain sections of the community. Even if for some reason I did want to end the baseline, I wouldn't waste the LLG's time in getting them to vote on it. #If it is some how a fait accompli trick which has been #pulled over the poor unsuspecting membership, then you might actually #get a second for such a motion. The content of the baseline was a fait accompli, not a trick, and not something pulled over the poor unsuspecting membership of the community. Nobody ever said that the views of the community on the baseline contents would be solicited, let alone that consensus would be sought. And indeed, neither views nor consensus were sought. That is because LLG's aim was not to achieve a baseline whose contents were subject to broad consensus. Its aim was to finalize something that could legitimately be called a realization of Loglan, in as short a time as possible. --And.