From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 12:56:09 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 20:56:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 31852 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 20:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 20:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 20:56:08 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Ixbs-0002Gv-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:56:08 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Ixbo-0002Ge-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:56:04 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Ixbi-0002GT-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:55:58 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:55:58 -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: <20021202205558.GI1520@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210709.03153ec0@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: 2899 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 Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 12:23:20PM -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. Then what the hell is the *point* of having a board? Yeesh. > I doubt the policy will be voted down. When will we know whether it > has been or not? 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. Umm, there's this thing called 'change' that you may have heard of. If this passes, and you have an objection to a specific aspect, you are more than welcome to call for a change at the member's meeting. -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