From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Nov 29 19:06:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 03:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 57174 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 03:06:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 03:06:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao01.cox.net) (68.1.17.244) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 03:06:12 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021130030612.VUJA2199.lakemtao01.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:06:12 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210709.03153ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:58:23 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127233445.03073ec0@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 11:44 PM 11/29/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >Lojbab: > > >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. The Board has the responsibility to act on behalf of the membership in setting policy in between the annual members' meetings. If the issue had come up before LogFest, then it would undoubtedly have been debated at LogFest, and those attendees would have been the ones to make the decision. Instead, it fell to the Board to act. The voting members have the option to overrule and/or to rewrite the policy at the next members' meeting, and indeed the voting members will be the ones to decide and to declare that the byfy has met the conditions for the final baseline, next summer or whenever they feel those conditions have been met. But given the fact that several questions came up that required an answer in the short term, and the Board decided that the baseline question was too important to be left to me alone, the Board met to set a policy that answered the questions. Some members (especially Nick) felt that a mandate of support from the community would be needed in order for the byfy to complete its job quickly and efficiently. >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. It took over 2 months to get done what we did, and that was a month and a half longer than anyone wanted it to take. My own work as President is largely paralyzed while I try to participate in on-line debates, and we've decided that for the organization to become healthy, I need to get my other job done (that always gets pushed aside), which is the organizing of the business aspects of the LLG so that I can delegate most or all of the work, and so that we can promptly deliver orders for books and materials, and resume publication of JL. >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?" I am not willing to do that, though the Board could overrule me. If this policy is voted down, then barring some effort by someone else beside me, there will be no baseline policy at all until the next member's meeting (the approved baseline policy will exist in publication, but without the support of the members, it will have little significance; the fact that there is no policy will cause endless debate on Lojban List - endless because only a member's meeting would have sufficient import to bring it to a conclusion), there likely will be no byfy (Nick accepted the job conditional on a mandate of approval for the policy), and LLG will continue to drift for several months. Meanwhile, I'll try to get book orders and the address list caught up. The point of asking for a mandate comes down to a question of whether the Lojban community is willing to follow the lead of the Board (and the President) and the byfy Chair. The byfy cannot act effectively if it cannot follow a single leader and work cooperatively to achieve prompt results. LLG as an organization cannot function if every decision that the leadership makes will be second-guessed, which is what has been happening for the last couple of years on the baseline and other matters. The Board is attempting to move into a role of active leadership to remedy this, but if the community does not have confidence in our leadership, we will not be able to do the job. I am not sure if LLG can operate usefully unless the Board can (and is trusted to) act decisively on behalf of the greater community. But everyone needs to decide for themselves what they want the Lojban community and LLG to be. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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