From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 12:50:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 20:50:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 17797 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 20:50:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 20:50:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 20:50:27 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IxWN-0002Ea-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:50:27 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IxWF-0002EJ-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:50:19 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:50:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IxWA-0002EA-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:50:14 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:50:14 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Message-ID: <20021202205014.GG1520@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127233445.03073ec0@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2897 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:44:41PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Lojbab: > > 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. Not a hope in hell. Just for the record. Fractionalization pisses me off. > 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. Sure. And after 5 years of debate, no consensus would have been reached. Wheee! > 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 could accept such a move, but feel no need to encourage it at all. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi