From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Wed Dec 04 07:03:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 15:03:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 13055 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 15:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 15:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.171) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 15:03:32 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gB4F3VN01309 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:03:31 +1100 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:03:31 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: And, continued To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <8D3BBDC9-0799-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis Not responding to Bob, and I do insist that And is being misconstrued here. But as to BPFK policy making (as distinct from baseline policy): >> Nick >> felt that we needed the community to buy into the byfy process >> explicitly >> in order that it be kicked off with serious intent to get it done, as >> opposed to the 10+ years that I've let the existing dictionary effort >> drag, >> so we ASKED for a mandate I think Nick is quite right to do this. >> Leading the BP will be a hard > enough job without the added hassle of being accused of bulldozing > the community against its wishes. And the work of the BP will be much > smoother when everybody knows it's what everybody wants. Nick has > indicated that the BP's terms of reference are negotiable; I take it > that if in the process of carrying out the BP's tasks it turns out > that his initial principles are more of a hindrance than a help, they > can be revised. This satisfiers me, personally. I insisted, because as I've said elsewhere, this is too important an issue to be left to board fiat. I would be cool with a general meeting (as long as it was strictly time-limited), but this may or may not happen. There are many things I'm prepared to negotiate and compromise on in the BP. There are some gradient conditions where, beyond a certain point, I decide I can no longer work. That includes routine lack of consensus, excess revisionism, demonisation of opponents, ignoring logical criteria completely, treating prior usage cavalierly, and talk of cabals. This doesn't mean the BPFK cannot continue past that point; it means I can't. I am prepared to compromise lots. Not all, but lots. I believe the same of you. And if the procedures turn out not to work, then yes, we revisit them. The point is not the procedures, but their goal: expeditious completion of the task. And did the right thing in posting a consensus document; he rushed the consensusiness of it (John clearly did not accept it), but it's the kind of thing that needs to happen from now on. Even with minority reports. Let's not cast aspersions on how jboske debates drag on, and whose fault it is, and people's bona fides. Let's just try and make sure that the debates from now on don't drag on more than they need to, and that they have discernible ends. (Which means I should have piped up on the outstanding issues in jboske. But I am overcommitted right now, even with just Lojban things. And the four days it took me to beat the pdf of the Level0 booklet into submission did not help... Sometimes, one needs to let the others decide, and lump it, whatever they come up with. Sometimes, one needs to stand one's ground too, even if belatedly; but clearly things will get done if the former is the default, rather than the latter.) -------------------- =================================---------------------- Dr Nick Nicholas. Unimelb, Aus. nickn@unimelb.edu.au; www.opoudjis.net "Electronic editors have to live in hope: hope that the long-awaited standards for encoding texts for the computer will arrive; hope that they will be workable; hope that software will appear to handle these texts; hope that all the scholars of the world will have computers which can drive the software (which does not yet exist) to handle the texts (which have not yet been made) encoded in standard computer markup (which has not yet been devised). To hope for all this requires a considerable belief in the inevitability of progress and in the essential goodness of mankind." (Peter M.W. Robinson)