From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 20:02:01 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 04:02:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 71683 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 04:02:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 04:02:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 04:02:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J4G0-00059a-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:02:00 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J4Fw-00059F-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:01:56 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:01:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J4Fr-000595-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:01:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:01:51 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: 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 Message-ID: <20021203040151.GS1558@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20021202210937.GJ1520@digitalkingdom.org> 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: 2946 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 Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:28:25AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Robin: > > 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. Lojban belongs to *everyone*. But the *LLG* belongs to no-one but its members and the policy proposal is solely about what the LLG, as an organization, will do in particular cases. -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