From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 02 19:27:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 03:27:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 45787 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 03:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 03:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 03:27:13 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J3iL-0004yX-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:27:13 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J3iI-0004yF-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:27:10 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J3hx-0004xU-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:26:49 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-180.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.180]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AEF5B685 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:26:16 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] LLG = who? (was: RE: Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:28:25 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021202210937.GJ1520@digitalkingdom.org> X-archive-position: 2941 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Robin: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:53:51PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > 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 > > The above bears repeating > > We're talking about an *LLG* policy here. Not an official statement of > the whole lojban community or something. As such, the most that the > bylaws, or even basic politeness IMO, could *possibly* require is that > the entire membership ratify it Lojbab has said that the LLG is the entire community. (You are right that I am ignorant of the LLG constitution & I appreciate your posting the url for it; my scant knowledge is pretty much based on what Lojbab has said on the list.) > Ranting on about how the whole community should have been consulted from > the get-go is just silly Apparently so, since nobody else seems to think they should have been consulted. I'm quite surprised, though. I'd have thought that the view would be more prevalent that Lojban belongs to the general membership and that a 'cabal' benignly second-guessing the membership is still failing to adequately recognize that fact. That's what I would have thought, but I stand corrected. --And.