Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:44:38 -0500

At 07:08 PM 12/1/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>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.

I'll be honest. I advocated this approach for historical reasons based on 
a precedent that others who aren't students of history may not 
understand. The US Constitution was identically written by a select group 
of respected leaders in closed session, and then offered for ratification 
or rejection by the people of the 13 states (and not by their 
representatives). One would have to get heavily into the lore of the times 
to know why they did things this way, but I'll ask you to trust me that 
there are plenty of parallels to our present situation including the fears 
that factionalism would tear apart the new country/community.

That was why I "trumped" Nick and argued for the "community as a whole" 
rather than the members. The members elected the Board, and if we don't do 
what the members want, then maybe they'll think harder next year about who 
they elect onto the Board. The community as a whole never elected any of 
us, except to the extent that people joined the community because they 
thought I was/we were leading things in a positive direction worthy of that 
joining.

But community decision making hasn't been a workable option since ancient 
Athens, and I suspect that there is much lost to history that would tell us 
that it didn't work all that well back then.

>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.

It is asking for consent. Consensus is defined as a state where all 
members consent to be bound by the agreement. You're objecting to the 
method of reaching consensus. I make no apologies for that method. I want 
people to vote on the result, not the method. Can they consent to what we 
decided? If so, then we have consensus.

>I will support the BF with the goal of achieving durable consensus
>in its pronouncements.

Since the bulk of the policy is precisely that as well as making a 
statement of how LLG plans to support the results of that consensus 
organizationally, while not managing the language itself (and you seem less 
bothered by our organizational idiosyncrasies than by the language that 
results), perhaps you might want to rethink your objection to the policy.

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