Subject: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:44:41 -0000

Lojbab:
> At 03:26 AM 11/28/02 +0000, And wrote:
> >Lojbab:
> > > At 02:56 PM 11/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > >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. %^)

I will vote against, then. If we were being asked "Do you prefer the new
baseline policy to the status quo", I would vote Yes in a flash. But
it looks like I'm being asked to give a mandate to quite a complex
set of policies which were arrived at without me or most other Lojbanists
being consulted. I'm sure that in constructing the policies, the Board
members were at pains to take into account the general tenor of the
views of the different factions, but that doesn't mean that potential
arguments about specific policy points had a chance to get a fair
hearing. If the specific points where I disagree with the policy (which
I'll detail in a later message; they're not relevant to this message)
had had a chance to be discussed openly and were rejected by the majority
of open-minded thinking Lojbanists, then I would feel that the policy
more truly has a mandate and represents consensus.

> >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. 
[...]
> But the policy is not open to amendment at this point 

For this very reason, I will vote against it, even though I agree with
the great majority of it.

I hope other people will vote against for the same reason, even if
they support the policy. 

The Board could perfectly well have circulated a draft and solicited
responses and discussion, and then retired to redraft in the light
of those responses and discussion. 

I would like to propose to the Board that it belatedly do just that:
cancel the vote, solicit feedback on the policy, with, say, January
1st as a final deadline for commentary. Then the Board can reissue
the policy, with revisions if they are called for, in the *informed*
belief that the policy truly represents the best consensus. And then
we can be asked to vote "Do you agree that this policy best represents
the consensus of views and that it should therefore be made official?"

--And.