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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:28:25 -0000

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.