From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Nov 27 19:24:14 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: Lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 28 Nov 2002 03:24:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 32441 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 03:24:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2002 03:24:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 03:24:13 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-45.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.45]) by lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984981FB09 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 04:24:11 +0100 (MET) To: "Lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: [llg-members] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 03:26:14 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127163350.036c0b80@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lojbab: > At 02:56 PM 11/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >[I've removed crossposting; restore it in the reply if you see fit] > > > >A couple of questions > > > >First, does a vote in favour count as a vote in favour of the general thrust > >of the document, or as support (or lack of dissent) for every detail of it? > > The reason for the vote is that we are seeking a mandate for the baseline > policy as described in the statement, and for the byfy as described, as a > means of finalizing the baseline. How much you want to insist on "details" > vs "approving of the general thrust" is up to you. A high proportion of > yes votes will be taken as such a mandate. There is not likely to be > further discussions on the details unless the community votes disapproval But will you take it as a mandate for the general thrust or also for every detail? If I support the general thrust but dissent from some details (or from likely interpretations of some details), I want to know whether I have to express the few points of dissent now or whether it will be allowed that details of the policy will remain open to debate after its general thrust has received a mandate. At this stage I think it would be healthier for us to have a general consensus on the overall thrust rather than a heated debate over its details. --And.