Subject: RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:16:52 -0500

At 03:26 AM 11/28/02 +0000, And wrote:
>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?

Yes. %^)

>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

Feel free.

>or whether it
>will be allowed that details of the policy will remain open to debate
>after its general thrust has received a mandate.

The policy is not up for a debate - only ratification or rejection. A 
debate could affect peoples' decisions on ratification or rejection, but we 
put a time limit on the vote to prevent such a debate from dragging out.

This was the consensus result of the Board discussion, and received the 
voted approval of Myself, Nora, Cowan, Nick, Xod, and Shawn Lasseter (and 
implicitly that of pc, though he resigned before the formal vote).

Debate is healthy in building consensus, and we certainly want 
consensus. If your objections are serious enough that other members of the 
community also consider them a problem, then there will be no mandate, and 
the Board (and/or the voting membership) will have the option to reconsider 
now or when the byfy work is done depending on the sort of objections. But 
the policy is not open to amendment at this point.

>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.

Probably. But it depends on what objections exist on the details. If we 
paper over severe differences omn details, the general consensus will not 
hold, and frankly I don't want to be considered to have railroaded 
something through that people object to. I want the community to decide 
what it thinks in whatever way it chooses to decide, but to speak up in 
individual votes. I'll try to answer questions as to "why" we said certain 
things, if there are such questions, but I am going to seriously avoid 
"debating" as opposed to merely explaining why.

Nick wants a community mandate because he will be relying on serious 
community effort and support in order to get the byfy job done in months 
rather than in years. I want a community mandate because the baseline 
won't hold long term amidst the factionalization that has occurred, unless 
people are willing to commit to the baseline. Thus I am interested in 
people's long term commitment to the baseline policy, and Nick (wearing his 
byfy hat at least) primarily in the short term commitment to how the 
baseline will be achieved. The consensus that produced the statement took 
a lot of debate and balancing of different interests among the various 
points of view. Considering how far apart some of us started on the Board 
debate, it is remarkable how it coalesced into something that everyone on 
the Board could agree to. But I wouldn't want to repeat that process with 
the whole community.

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