From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Dec 01 11:06:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 1 Dec 2002 19:06:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 34698 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 19:06:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 19:06:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 19:06:05 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-178.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.178]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7283CF1F for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:06:03 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:08:11 -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: <5.1.0.14.0.20021130224944.0334bec0@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: > What I am seeing in the few hostile postings on this discussion (only > Jordan that I have seen has publicly been supportive), is that people are > willing to put their small concerns over details ahead of their willingness > to grant some slack in the spirit of consensus. Everyone wants guarantees > in advance that their particular concern will be respected in the final > baseline (or in the case of And's argument, that the final baseline not be > a baseline at all). This is, as they say in Britain, bollocks. I've already in public and private said I support the BF and want to help. And I haven't sought guarantees that my particular concerns will be respected in the final baseline; I want only that everybody's views be given fair and reasonable consideration in the process of determing the policy that we seek consensus around. All I have been complaining about & asking for is that consensus be achieved by canvassing and debating the views of the community in general, rather than by well-intentioned Board members drawing up a document behind closed doors and then asking either for unconditional support or outright rejection. > The policy that the Board settled on with much > wrangling was to leave the details to a consensus of the byfy, and I made > it a point to make sure that the byfy will exclude no one who is willing to > work within Nick's procedures, so the byfy is potentially more > representative of the community than even the LLG voting membership (which > is self-promulgating); no one including you or And is excluded > > But we must be able AND WILLING to give up on details in order to achieve > consensus. The policy as adopted is an attempt at a consensus reflecting > known concerns of many different interest groups. No one including me is > satisfied with all the details, but at some point we have to be willing to > grant consensus support rather than hassling the details > > The vote on the policy will tell me whether the Lojban community is willing > to back a consensus position without arguing everything to death. If it > cannot do so, I am less than confident that the language will remain a > cohesive unity, something that we have been more successful at doing than > most artificial language efforts My complaint is precisely that the Board is not asking for consensus. It is asking for assent to a specific policy that itself is not the product of consensus. I will support the BF with the goal of achieving durable consensus in its pronouncements. --And.