From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Feb 26 07:11:03 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 15:11:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 95269 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 15:11:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 15:11:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 15:11:00 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:34:43 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:12:41 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:12:31 +0000 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] Nick will be with you shortly Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin IIRC, nobody, except possibly Nick, has an individual power of veto. Be that as it may, what you ask for is reasonable, but it will slow things down greatly. Documenting stuff, especially in a highly intelligible form, is very difficult & laborious (tho some people, such as Nick & John, have a talent for it), & if it gives rise to more questions & discussion then th= at will end up as a recapitulation of debates that already happened on Jboske. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but if it is allowed to, then we must accept that BF is a longhaul operation, rather than something that should have been over by May. One possibly helpful alternative would be for you to draft a rough sketch of how you understand {loi} & then sundry jboskepre could point out the problems in that. --And. >>> Craig 02/26/03 02:49am >>> >is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with >{loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it. I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK appears and we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that doesn't demonstrate that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any change to the language that doesn't solve a problem which is either obvious or explained in the proposal; the BPFK should not act lightly. But, if the jposkepre have been able to put much effort into {loi}, then I'= m sure there is a problem and that their proposal will explain it to us. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com=20 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20