Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: BPFK phpbb

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:44:27 -0400

At 04:18 PM 4/27/03 -0700, Robin Powell wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Gregory Dyke wrote:
> > And Rosta wrote:
> > >tsali:
> > >>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> > >>>[...] But it's unlikely that it will be practicable for me to
> > >>>participate unless I can compose contributions off-line with
> > >>>the freedom of composition that email offers
> > >>>
> > >>I don't understand why you find the phpbb lacking in "freedom of
> > >>composition". If you find it difficult to compose messages in an
> > >>edit box on the web, why don't you compose the posting in your
> > >>favourite text editor, and then cut-and-paste it into the forum?
> > >
> > >I don't want to go into details publicly here, because it will
> > >seem like a mere whinge.
> >
> > I'll bitch for you despite the fact I don't cmima the BPFK:
> >
> > Although the sending by email of each new post is neat, I find it
> > altogether too much hastle to have to dial up my isp, login to the
> > forum, find where I want to put my post, write it out (something
> > I'd like to do offline so that I don't spend any money) and then
> > dial up again to repeat the whole messy process. It's difficult
> > enough finding the willpower to participate without adding
> > complication.
>
>Until one of you comes up with Some Magic Solution that *everyone*
>likes, I think *both* of you should either 1) stop whining or 2)
>code something that does what you want but interfaces perfectly with
>the PHPBB.

Better yet: stop trying to use PHPBB (which Nora and I have started calling 
the fybyb because how else do you pronounce it %) as a pseudo jboske. The 
debate on the forum is NOT producing a definition of a single word, and 
isn't likely to produce a definition of a single word. The byfy's job is 
to define the language, not to reinvent it or "improve" it. The fybyb 
exists to record the deliberations of the byfy

(I use "deliberation" is a sense that carries a more subdued connotation 
than "debate" or "argument" and suggests that people are thinking and 
preparing at some length before speaking, and that the entire discussion 
consists of justification and counter-justification - perhaps the sort of 
thing that the Elephant would formally enforce if it were completed).

75% of the postings on the forum now are attempts to argue about a change 
in grammar that is neither supported by the existing standards OR by 
existing usage. (For non-byfy members, this is a change to eliminate 
selma'o NAI by merging it with UI). Thus, IMO, it is beyond the primary 
scope for the byfy: an attempt to fix something that is not demonstrably 
broken.

Furthermore, the change in question could not realistically be decided 
until ALL the rest of the language has been at least preliminarily defined, 
since the meaning of "nai" would have to be decided for EACH of the selma'o 
upon which it would act, and we don't even have shepherds (subcommittee 
chairs) for most of the other selma'o yet.

The rest of the postings deal with a more limited change, accepting the 
validity of ka'enai based on usage. This one is more likely to be within 
the scope for byfy because it is potentially justified by usage. However a 
decision on ka'enai requires a definition of CAhA as selma'o and ka'e in 
particular, and no one is yet working on those. It is thus way too soon to 
attempt to decide the question. Mark it down as an issue, and move on for 
now - someone needs to properly propose it as a change anyway, and I've 
seen NOTHING that looks like a proper change proposal.

I have said and I will repeat, that I personally will support NO change to 
the existing baseline until that change is summarily written up as a change 
proposal with pros and cons, with the YACC changes made explicit for a 
grammar change, and the old definition and suggested new definition for a 
meaning change (which means that we have to decide the old meaning FIRST, 
assuming that this is possible), and a justification for the change 
sufficient to warrant a baseline change under the standards set forth by 
the baseline policy (which means the usage examples explicitly cited and 
explained).

Now Nick has authorization to run the byfy however he wants, but I made the 
suggestion before things got started, that the first thing that we need to 
do is define every bit of the language that can be defined WITHOUT 
considering changes, making lists of changes that need to be debated in 
order to resolve things, but NOT debating them until the definition process 
is well-established (the definition process itself may resolve some of the 
debates inherently, or make them moot). Concentrate on the 
non-controversial stuff first; don't even consider voting on anything until 
most of the stuff for which unanimity is assured has been decided. That 
gives us a solid skeleton on which to stretch the rest of the language.

The standard for decision is consensus, and the first essential for 
consensus politics is that the group making the decisions learn to work 
together as a team. Get the easy stuff done, and flag the hard stuff to be 
dealt with later. Learn to work together. Nothing wrong with a TBD (to be 
decided) or two scattered amongst the definitions.

If we get that far, we will likely find that we have fewer issues to 
discuss. Perhaps the issues that need discussion can be more thoroughly 
proposed and justified in text before we start debating them, which means 
that there is far less to actually debate. And if a free for all debate is 
needed on a topic or two, then it doesn't have to be performed in the 
constrained atmosphere of the fybyb, but rather the noisy jboske (which has 
been absolutely silent for a couple months) will be the proper place for 
that sort of debate among the subset of people who really want to 
debate. Then when they reach agreement, they can write it up in a 
consensus proposal that will contain all the argumentation needed to sell 
it to the rest of us.

Such a change proposal, on anything controversial, should be stringent 
enough in its rules for support, and hence hard enough to write, that 
people won't lightly propose unnecessary changes.

The forum chosen makes it harder and less convenient to debate things in a 
free-for-all within the forum itself. But that is quite proper - byfy is 
primarily for decision and not for free-for-all debate. I suspect that 
half the byfy doesn't even want to read debate unless it is a finalized 
argument for a change, so the less debate at this stage, the better.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org