From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Apr 28 12:06:38 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 28 Apr 2003 19:06:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 67689 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2003 19:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Apr 2003 19:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2003 19:06:37 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19ADxV-0006Cl-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:06:37 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ADxH-0006Bw-00; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:06:23 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19ADww-0006BD-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:06:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:06:02 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: BPFK phpbb Message-ID: <20030428190602.GZ22216@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <3EABE56C.70507@epfl.ch> <3EABE56C.70507@epfl.ch> <5.2.0.9.0.20030427194125.03f77d80@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030427194125.03f77d80@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 4979 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 Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:44:27PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > 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. *AMEN*, brother! Preach the *GOOD* word! > 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. It's also insane. > (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. My new example of how insane this is is nai nai nai mi nai nelci nai nai nai which would be legal if this change was made. > 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. Yep. > 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. Yep. > 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). Haleluia! (sp?) > 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. Umm, sure, but someone has to *volunteer* to do all that. Are you? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu 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