Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Usage deciding (was: RE: Re: [Announcement] The Alice TranslationHas Moved And Changed

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:00:20 -0400

At 02:16 PM 10/10/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>Jay:
>#>>> [email-masked] 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.

LLG *IS* the community. The voting members are not all of LLG.

>#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.

But the views of the community WERE sought, and lack of objection was taken 
to mean consent, if not consensus.

>And indeed, neither views nor consensus were sought.

False. Every chapter of CLL was posted as it was written to Lojban List 
for review over the course of around 2 1/2 years. Comments were sought, 
and Jorge and Nick in particular made many which were 
incorporated. Likewise, the gismu and cmavo lists and rafsi lists were up 
for discussion, and there was considerable debate about the last revision 
of the rafsi list before consensus was achieved.

It is true that not all that many Lojbanists felt themselves competent 
enough at that point. to question the baseline decisions, but on issues 
that they understood, they spoke up and were listened to.

>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.

For each element of the baseline, the principle was to document "a 
realization of Loglan as quickly as possible, and then put it out for 
comment by the community. In each case, a provisional baseline was out 
there for at least 6 months before a "final" baseline was 
declared. During the intervening time, proposals could be made and in 
fact WERE made (preposed relative clauses did NOT come from "Lojban 
Central" but from Colin Fine and Veijo. Veijo also, I believe was the one 
who proposed attitudinal contours. Several proposals came from Nick, long 
before he was a voting member of LLG. The attitudinals were redesigned in 
1989 as a result of a gathering in New Jersey on the way home from Worldcon 
that year, where a group of people interested in Lojban got together at one 
Lojbanist's house, and suggested several ideas for a larger set than we 
originally had. A California Lojbanist proposed the evidentials based on 
Laadan and some Amerind languages he had studied. Athelstan, at that time 
a novice, analyzed the gismu list by doing a thesaurus classification, and 
suggested some changes - another Lojbanist in St. Louis named Paul Doudna 
did his own effort, and Jim Carter did a third.

A lot of stuff went on in the early days that did not come from 
Fairfax. And every feature was put out in a JL for comment - look at the 
back issues, and see for yourself.

Now the core of the design was in consensus by 1990, and most major 
features by 1992, when the LLG community was still small. So the things 
which were negotiable by a change in consensus were relatively minor by the 
time LLG became primarily a net-based endeavor rather than a 
JL-and-correspondence-and-phonecon thing.

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