Subject: RE: [lojban] Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:53:51 -0500

At 12:23 PM 12/1/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>I don't think it is right for the Board to formulate policy that seeks
>a mandate without first consulting the community on what that policy
>should be. I don't even think it's right for the voting members to
>do so either.

Bearing in mind that there WAS a policy, the fact that we have changed the 
policy reflects the fact that the Board listened to the community 
complaints about the prior policy.

No we did not make clear that we were writing a new policy until the job 
was nearly done; to do so in my opinion would have probably prevented there 
from being a policy, and would have destroyed the status quo ante (as in 
fact may still happen if the new policy is voted down). But the fact that 
we even discussed the issue was PRECISELY because the community had made it 
clear that some clarification and changes were needed. The whole purpose 
of having a formal organization and a Board is to have a mechanism for 
DECISION. The baseline policy of the organization is not really something 
to be debated: we need a policy in place, and it needs to be a strong one, 
but one which allows room for dissenters like yourself to fit within the 
community rather than being driven off.

The seeking of a mandate was. IMHO, a sign of respect to the greater 
community. Nothing in the LLG Bylaws requires us to seek a mandate. Nick 
felt that we needed the community to buy into the byfy process explicitly 
in order that it be kicked off with serious intent to get it done, as 
opposed to the 10+ years that I've let the existing dictionary effort drag, 
so we ASKED for a mandate.

>As it is, the issue of a general mandate for a commission to set to
>work to get the dictionary written, which surely would be less
>contentious, is mixed up with a load of other more controversial stuff
>(both in the Board Policy & Nick's BF manifesto).

The controversial stuff must be dealt with, or the dictionary is a wasted 
effort. The byfy must have strong leadership and move towards a decisive 
goal, or it won't get done, and will turn into a manifestation of the 
endless jboske debates.

(And I daresay that you are guilty of doing precisely what you object to 
from us - at one point recently taking a jboske debate and apparently 
presuming that everyone who did not explicitly object supported your 
"consensus" written up on the wiki, when jboske itself is only a subset of 
the community.)

The byfy procedures, however controversial you may find them, are Nick's 
effort to define in advance what must be done in order to get the job done 
in a timely manner (of course, since you don't much care about the 
baseline, the timely result doesn't matter as much to you as to 
others). There is little likelihood that the community can even work 
productively towards a consensus (as opposed to endless jboske debates) 
unless it is willing to follow a leader who is working actively to forge a 
consensus, as I am sure that Nick will. So the bottom line is whether the 
community is willing to follow Nick's lead. If they are not, then the byfy 
won't work. And if the procedures need to be debated BEFORE the community 
is willing to accept Nick's lead, then I understand why he might not be 
willing to undertake the job. (I note that Nick's procedures, which were 
NOT adopted as formal policy, but rather are his standards alone, MIGHT be 
negotiable to some extent amongst those who serve on the byfy, but the 
extent of that negotiability is not something that we can decide as policy 
- the result must be acceptable to Nick, or he should not be expected to 
take responsibility for leading the effort.)

> > >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'm not sure what point you mean to make here. Given that we're talking
>about an official baseline policy that is supposed to persevere for
>several years until there no longer is an official baseline policy,

Given that this is a baseline policy that replaced an earlier baseline 
policy that was supposed to persevere for several years, there was 
considerable argument whether we needed to do anything at all.

>the need for you to find the time to delegate your other duties (!)
>doesn't seem like a good excuse for not consulting the community on
>such crucial policy issues.

The community was responded to on the policy issue, or there would be 
nothing (new) for you to object to.

We listened to the community, and now it seems that you are raking us over 
the coals for doing so because we took the responsibility we were elected 
for and made a decision based on what we heard.

LLG wasn't organized as a community town meeting. Maybe you think it 
should be, but it wasn't, and indeed it might not be possible under the 
laws of this state to do so - we're required to have a fixed and legally 
responsible Board of Directors, which I have to annually report to the 
state in order to keep our charter.

>I doubt the policy will be voted down. When will we know whether it has
>been or not?

I have not looked at the poll to see intermediate results, and do not think 
that I should do so, so I don't even know how many have voted. I know that 
if Robin is sending copies to me of the [email-masked] submissions 
(which I asked him to collect so that there would be an independent 
verification of those votes), then no one is using that means to vote, 
since my filters haven't picked up any such submissions. I know only that 
opponents of the policy have been vociferous, and supporters relatively silent.

We'll know the results shortly after the poll ends. I allowed 10 days for 
the vote, since I know that people may easily be off line for a week.

>Perhaps the best way to proceed would be for me (or someone)
>to put to the members meeting a proposal to solicit feedback and
>discussion on the policy, revise the policy in the light of feedback,
>and then submit it to general vote. In the meantime, a Yes vote could
>be taken as general approval for the policy, without any implication
>that the policy in its specifics is optimal.

That would be fine. The policy as it is, specifically expects the members 
at the next meeting to be voting on acceptability of the byfy results, so 
the fact that the policy was written intending to be indefinite (just like 
the one it replaces) in fact will persist only until the representatives of 
the community vote to change it.

> > 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
>
>The only thing that causes me to lack confidence in the Board is its
>failure to consult the membership in formulating policy.

The Board's job is to act on matters in between members' meetings. Thus it 
is our JOB to not wait for consultation with the membership.

Meanwhile this vote is PRECISELY THAT, a consultation. It is a 
consultation after the decision, because if we had consulted before the 
decision, there never would have been a decision. Now we have a decision 
that will stand or fall, and which if not supported will be modified by the 
membership next meeting. That is precisely the way the organization is 
officially supposed to work. You will note that in addition, we modified 
the annual meeting provisions so that the larger portion of the membership 
will actually be able to participate in that meeting. You don't have to 
fly to Virginia to have your say (though you may have to stay up late at 
night %^)

>I had been very optimistic about the prospects for the success of the
>BF, and very keen to actively assist in the process.

That was not apparent in your comments, which call for the community to 
reject that there even be a byfy (which there will not be if the policy is 
voted down)

>But there are
>certain elements of its constitution that will make it less effectual
>in the short and long term, and hence more frustrating to be involved
>in. (I am thinking in particular of the policy on experimental cmavo &
>on limiting debate.)

The debate must be limited or nothing will get done. But the details are 
internal to the byfy. The membership will be holding Nick accountable, so 
he gets primary say on how the work should proceed. The specifics on 
experimental cmavo are a byfy decision. We intend that the byfy act 
conservatively, and his policies apparently reflect that conservatism. If 
we cannot get results quickly with conservative rules, we certainly won't 
get them with more open-ended rules.

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