View source for BPFK: Old Meta-BPFK Forum

----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Salvo 1: 27 April
     subject: Salvo 1: 27 April
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-04-28 10:37:46
   post_text:

This is polemic. Deal.

Before anything else, I will say (for the zillionth time): I will not allow bpfk discussion to turn into the morass of jboske or lojban list. And since you stuck your head out on the topic, over at the Poll topic in NAI: that means you, Jordan. I *will* be nazi about on-topic discussion. If anyone here feels impinged on, then feel free to go right back to jboske, and the utterly unnavigable debate there. If you don't like the fact that this is how I'll run things, then it is in your power to unseat me (and let's see any of you lot run this better).

And: it is simply unacceptable that I allow the free-form topic meanderings that email enables. I will not preside over a repeat of December 2002, and I shouldn't think you'd like one either. The discussion here shall be organised and enforced into threading; and in my opinion, this is the best way to enforce it. Frankly, I don't see how this is that much more impractical than the wiki, which people were happy to participate in. At any rate, this remains the forum on offer, and until someone is prepared to invest the time to come up with something better, you might as well use it. Since we ummed and awwed for three months on what to put the discussions into, you'll pardon both the webmaster and me if we are less than enthusiastic about the prospect of switching now.

Greg: if finding the right forum and dialing up is a hassle, no email to phpbb gateway that preserves the integrity of the current fora will avoid that hassle that I can see. Your emailed posts must always go to a specific, on-topic forum, or we will have chaos. If anyone knows of a better solution, let's hear it. (I'd imagine it would be something like storing the ID numbers of each topic, and allowing email to go only to specified topics --- though you'd have to download the current topics from the web anyway. I don't think that'd be hugely more practical than logging on and going to the right forum in the first place. This is probably doable, but I'm afraid neither Robin nor I will do it; if any programmers here feel strongly enough about it, phpbb is a pretty open architecture, off you go.)

As to what causes the low level of participation, I'd have thought the size of what I'm expecting people to do is daunting enough. We can discuss ways of lessening that load; I want this done too, after all. I'm now of the opinion, for example, that the shepherds should do things like ask for volunteers to do corpus searches, or delegate particular cmavo issues, once they have been broadly identified. But make no mistake: this is all work that needs to be done. And noone is going to do that work for you. (We know who we expected to do that work for us, and how far that got.) You want a dictionary, you contribute to it.

Arnt: you are correct that we all have day jobs. The dictionary will get written despite that, or it won't get written at all. It has a much greater chance of getting written like this than what we had before. And if it takes five years, let it; as long as we're making more tangible progress than we have in the past ten, I'm not dismayed about missing the May 15 deadline. If you all need the psychological boost, there are stacks of trivial paradigms out there. Compass points, say, or mathematical constants. Do a scan for all Lojban text ever for those cmavo, see if any issues have come up, read through CLL, see if what it says makes sense, spend a day working out if there are any other emerging issues, and hey presto you're done. There'll only be 10 or 20 paradigms that offer a real challenge.

Yes, the discussions here will get abstruse, and I explicitly organised things in the charter so that not everybody needs to participate in every discussion. I will expect people to participate in *some* discussions, though. And not to diss those in the rest. And there's only one paradigm being discussed right now anyway; things will get a lot busier.

Though I also remind you --- and that includes Craig: participants need to identify and link to places where the debate has already been conducted, in preference to redoing it (the djez principle). And Bob is right that this is not the forum to open up freeform novel topics, outside of the very restricted pro-con format. The forum for that remains the main wiki and/or the much maligned jboske --- which has been silent since January.

But Bob: Your reasoning that people aren't using phpbb because they are horrified at Craig's or Jorge's revisionist proposals insults my intelligence. There's been no shortage of fundamentalists to offer rebuttals, and nothing has impeded anyone from going off and researching another paradigm. The volume of posts on NAI is miniscule compared to the greater flareups we have seen; that's not the issue. I am happy for the vote, rather than fiat, to decide what is in of out of bounds, in any case. The vote is already --- and unashamedly --- rigged in favour of conservatism, because of the requirement of consensus for change; if consensus isn't reached, the status quo remains. That outcome is supported by the bpfk charter, and I do not regard it as being under threat. But a community vote on this will carry more moral weight than any amount of pronouncements from Lojban Central, at this stage. I want to give the community the chance to pass its own verdict, both on the more radical proposal (NAI=UI), and the less radical (CAhA NAI).

And even if we will disagree on details, Craig is doing the right thing in identifying issues for discussion; and I will not rule anything out of bounds until I see Craig's detailed record of the standing of NAI. Bob, you are being unjustifiably peremptory to be demanding detailed proposals and pros and cons right now. Craig is working on it --- and he's doing more bpfk work right now than anyone else. Let him continue his work.

I have already suggested that a decision on CAhA NAI might need to be put on hold pending CAhA; but this does not get in the way of Craig exploring what NAI does in general at this stage. Whether CAhA NAI does in fact get put on hold is Craig's call first; then mine; then ultimately the voting commission's.

If you want to respond to this post with a complaint, don't. All of our time is worth more than that. There are seventy-odd paradigms out there. Go out there and work on one. Identify the problems that happen when you actually do the work --- and that, we can discuss. The job of advancing Lojban is now on each of your shoulders.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Salvo 1: 27 April
     subject: From And
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-04-29 10:54:01
   post_text:

I'm taking the liberty of posting And's response to bpfk-announce here, to respond to it.

<blockquote>In the light of this, all I mean to say is that the current constraints
on my time and net access are such that I will try to contribute to
discussions that appear on jboske & occasionally read the phpbb if
it is primarily a locus of record rather than of debate.

This is no sort of complaint. It's just notification & explanation
of my silence.

Hopefully people will use jboske for technical debate, and phpbb
for the mechanics of formal decision-taking, in which case it will
be feasible for me to participate to the degree to which I had
been hoping to.

Finally, let me note that I understand & accept that Robin & others
don't have the time & inclination to get involved in technical
debates about the language, & I would hope that Robin will similarly
understand that other people don't have the time & inclination to
explore the phpbb resources he has so diligently provided. If he has
sweated blood to give us good IT resources, I likewise have sweated
blood to try to get Lojban a sound linguistic foundation; let's
proceed with mutual respect.</blockquote>

Despite what is going on over at NAI (which I've already said isn't quite what I had in mind), the intent was and remains that phpbb be the locus for very formal debate (in the form of point-counterpoint), and formal decision. More extensive debate belongs on either jboske or the main wiki; not quite here, and definitely not on the main list. I strongly urge commissioners to behave.

And is free to use jboske to make and discuss proposals. If any of those involve a topic for which there is a current shepherd, the shepherd is obligated to follow them, and to engage with them (though not necessarily to engage with them on jboske!) So And will certainly not be excluded from the process by opting out of phpbb. When the time comes for the formal presentation of pros and cons, I strongly advise And to put aside his distaste, and make his posts here; but And can arrange a delegate to post his presentations for him. Unfortunately, refusal to use phpbb does mean And cannot be a shepherd. But then, I don't think And will be heartbroken about that. :-)

Thus far, I can accomodate him. To duplicate what phpbb already offers into an email-based system however, as he proposes in his preceding email, I do not regard as an appropriate use of Robin's or my resources --- since phpbb already does what I want phpbb to do. :-1/2 I don't see a real point in making an email based Elephant, when phpbb (or rather, the twiki/phpbb combo) is meant to be the bpfk Elephant. (A Maltese Elephant, as John put it to me --- i.e. midget, and coveted by Bogart... no, that can't be right...)

So while I am not happy that And is opting out of using phpbb, and I really cannot understand why it should seem so cumbersome, And shall certainly not be excluded from the overall process by doing so. I strongly urge him to take part in at least the formal pros and cons posting (and of course the voting, on the twiki); but if And feels his best contribution is to be made in jboske-style discussion, well, noone said jboske-style debate shall cease.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Salvo 1: 27 April
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-04-29 18:57:10
   post_text:

I will do my best to do as Nick asks. It's not that I'm being
bloodyminded. It's that I'm participating against a Real Life
background of Stressssss & pressure of time. Time spent mastering
the workings of phpbb (e.g. how *do* you quote an earlier
message when starting a new thread?) and accommodating to it is
time away from actually dealing with issues under discussion.

Other than that, the main problem for me is that I often can't
get online (outdoors, in a train, etc.) & even when I can get
online I can't stay online for long (because I dial up on the
family's landline). My wiki participation used to be done
partly offline & partly in occasional nocturnal binges.

I'm telling you this not because I'm asking anyone to do anything
about it, but rather because various people expressed incredulity
that the phbpp could present any sort of logistical difficulty to
would-be participants.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
     subject: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
    username: jkominek
   post_time: 2003-05-27 11:47:06
   post_text:

From "Re: Discussion of changes: removal of {lau}" in "lerfu forming cmavo":

<blockquote>Actually, it would make sense to remove {tau} as well, which has probably never been used. {tau} would be a good choice for {la'e di'u}.</blockquote>

I don't think it is a good idea for people to already be eyeballing the cmavo they want for all their little pet new-cmavo.

That tau would be a good choice (by what criteria?!) for something else should never ever enter into the discussion as to whether or not it out to be removed from what it is doing now. The argument against tau as it stands ought to be entirely based on the mechanics of things, not the location it occupies in cmavo-space.

The commisioners, IMO, ought to simply refer to new cmavo they think they need as Xa'a, Xa'e, Xa'i or something along those lines. Then when cmavo have been deallocated, and it has been decided some new cmavo are needed, they can be drawn from the entire available pool.

(Not trying to attack or slight xorxes or anything.)
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
     subject: Re: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
    username: xorxes
   post_time: 2003-05-27 13:32:10
   post_text:

<blockquote>That tau would be a good choice (by what criteria?!) </blockquote>

I meant that it fits in a way with the ti, ta, tu series. ti, ta, tu refer to things that are physically present in the context of the utterance. tau would refer to something that is present in the minds of speaker and listener because they are talking about it.

I agree that the issue of deallocating tau or other cmavo should be dealt with independently of how or whether it is reallocated, but given that usefulness is a relative concept, arguing that a given meaning is "not very useful" almost inevitably requires a comparison with alternative more useful meanings.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
     subject: Re: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-05-28 20:54:52
   post_text:

<blockquote>From "Re: Discussion of changes: removal of {lau}" in "lerfu forming cmavo":

<blockquote>Actually, it would make sense to remove {tau} as well, which has probably never been used. {tau} would be a good choice for {la'e di'u}.</blockquote>

I don't think it is a good idea for people to already be eyeballing the cmavo they want for all their little pet new-cmavo.

That tau would be a good choice (by what criteria?!) for something else should never ever enter into the discussion as to whether or not it out to be removed from what it is doing now. The argument against tau as it stands ought to be entirely based on the mechanics of things, not the location it occupies in cmavo-space.

The commisioners, IMO, ought to simply refer to new cmavo they think they need as Xa'a, Xa'e, Xa'i or something along those lines. Then when cmavo have been deallocated, and it has been decided some new cmavo are needed, they can be drawn from the entire available pool.

(Not trying to attack or slight xorxes or anything.)</blockquote>

I had been intending to post a message making much the same point, since I had been feeling that tsali's excellent summaries were conflating issues about the value of the *function* of {lau} and the value of the form {lau} (when assigned to that function or to some other function). That problematic conflation is real, but I don't think we can do quite as Jay suggests. The main (though not only) reason is the school of thought that says that even if value of preserving the function of {lau} is greater than the value of scrapping it, the value of reassigning the form {lau} is greater than the value of preserving the function of {lau}. In other words, better to reassign the form and lose the lau-function (regardless of its merits) than keep the lau-function and not reassign the form.

As far as I can see (& I am tired & job-work is hellish at the mo, so I may not be thinking sharply), the only solution is the increase the range of options in a poll:

1. keep function, don't reassign form
2. keep function, reassign form
3. keep function, abstain on form
4. scrap function
5. abstain on function, reassign form

--And.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Quotable Nick w/annotation
     subject: Quotable Nick w/annotation
    username: jkominek
   post_time: 2003-05-29 18:22:27
   post_text:

The bolding is all mine. All the quotes are taken from the BPFK procedures.

I address the same reader that Nick is addressing, rather than addressing Nick.

<blockquote>
Proposals must always be phrased with the vote for innovation being in the affirmative: it must be easy to impede innovation, rather than difficult to defend the current standard.
</blockquote>

We're not here to be innovative, we're here to fix problems.

<blockquote>
The shepherd familiarises themselves with the CLL explication of the paradigm... ...The shepherd searches the entirety of the lojban list, jboske, the phpwiki and all other pertinent technical fora, for all '''past''' debate... ...The shepherd surveys '''past''' usage....
</blockquote>

The goal is to solve issues which have been known, not to construct new problems that "need" solving.

<blockquote>
Where the shepherd feels a non-trivial issue in the semantics or grammar has not been brought up to date, they are free to include their own proposals in the document -- '''provided that the design principles of Lojban are respected.'''
</blockquote>

It is too damn late in the game to be restructuring large chunks of Lojban.

<blockquote>
The formulation of the poll must ... include a description of the baslined status quo, the proposed '''fix''' or emendation, and a '''rationale''' for the change or '''addition'''.
</blockquote>

Tossing around polls like "should we get rid of foo" is, IMO, poor form. The above described poll isn't referring to the phpbb ones, but there isn't any reason why we can't have more cogent phpbb polls, either.

<blockquote>
...revisionists must use the canonical position as a departure point, and must present fully its strengths as well as its weaknesses. Conversely, fundamentalists must present -- and address -- the inadequacies in the canonical position pointed out in the past.
</blockquote>

Might as well do the same when arguing about things, as well. Yes a particular cmavo is underused. Whats the problem? Plenty of words are infrequent in their use, that's OK!

<blockquote>
Recall that the BPFK operates by consensus, not majority vote; the objection of two commissioners is sufficient to demonstrate that consensus has not been reached. ... Two negative votes are sufficient to '''defeat''' a proposed innovation...
</blockquote>

If the BPFK was supposed to be a forum for innovation, then it wouldn't be so amazingly conservative that two commissioners can stop something.

<blockquote>
The BPFK is entrusted with the task of elaborating the definition of cmavo, while maintaining backward compatibility with the existing cmavo.
</blockquote>

You're not very well going to get backward compatibility by throwing cmavo away wholesale. Certainly not because they're infrequently used.

<blockquote>
I believe as BPFK chair that "Let Usage Decide" is no longer an acceptable default for Lojban semantics. Letting Usage Decide has already led to humpty-dumptying, confusion about semantics, and divergence within the community. ... As a result, if a commissioner advocates that the BPFK should Let Usage Decide some issue, they must supply an explicit rationale why
</blockquote>

Just because people have done it in the past doesn't mean we need to codify it as correct. It ought to have merit on its own.

<blockquote>
The second priority of the BPFK is maintenance of backward compatibility
</blockquote>

That stands nicely on its own.

<blockquote>
the BPFK has a mandate to flesh out the design of Lojban, not to redesign it.
</blockquote>

Again, pretty straight forward.

<blockquote>
inelegance does not constitute brokenness.
</blockquote>

A nice bit to end this on.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Quotable Nick w/annotation
     subject: Re: Quotable Nick w/annotation
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-05-29 18:39:11
   post_text:

<blockquote>The bolding is all mine. All the quotes are taken from the BPFK procedures.

I address the same reader that Nick is addressing, rather than addressing Nick.

<blockquote>
Proposals must always be phrased with the vote for innovation being in the affirmative: it must be easy to impede innovation, rather than difficult to defend the current standard.
</blockquote>

We're not here to be innovative, we're here to fix problems.

<blockquote>

The shepherd familiarises themselves with the CLL explication of the paradigm... ...The shepherd searches the entirety of the lojban list, jboske, the phpwiki and all other pertinent technical fora, for all '''past''' debate... ...The shepherd surveys '''past''' usage....
</blockquote>

The goal is to solve issues which have been known, not to construct new problems that "need" solving.

<blockquote>
Where the shepherd feels a non-trivial issue in the semantics or grammar has not been brought up to date, they are free to include their own proposals in the document -- '''provided that the design principles of Lojban are respected.'''
</blockquote>

It is too damn late in the game to be restructuring large chunks of Lojban.

<blockquote>
The formulation of the poll must ... include a description of the baslined status quo, the proposed '''fix''' or emendation, and a '''rationale''' for the change or '''addition'''.
</blockquote>

Tossing around polls like "should we get rid of foo" is, IMO, poor form. The above described poll isn't referring to the phpbb ones, but there isn't any reason why we can't have more cogent phpbb polls, either.

<blockquote>
...revisionists must use the canonical position as a departure point, and must present fully its strengths as well as its weaknesses. Conversely, fundamentalists must present -- and address -- the inadequacies in the canonical position pointed out in the past.
</blockquote>

Might as well do the same when arguing about things, as well. Yes a particular cmavo is underused. Whats the problem? Plenty of words are infrequent in their use, that's OK!

<blockquote>
Recall that the BPFK operates by consensus, not majority vote; the objection of two commissioners is sufficient to demonstrate that consensus has not been reached. ... Two negative votes are sufficient to '''defeat''' a proposed innovation...
</blockquote>

If the BPFK was supposed to be a forum for innovation, then it wouldn't be so amazingly conservative that two commissioners can stop something.

<blockquote>
The BPFK is entrusted with the task of elaborating the definition of cmavo, while maintaining backward compatibility with the existing cmavo.
</blockquote>

You're not very well going to get backward compatibility by throwing cmavo away wholesale. Certainly not because they're infrequently used.

<blockquote>
I believe as BPFK chair that "Let Usage Decide" is no longer an acceptable default for Lojban semantics. Letting Usage Decide has already led to humpty-dumptying, confusion about semantics, and divergence within the community. ... As a result, if a commissioner advocates that the BPFK should Let Usage Decide some issue, they must supply an explicit rationale why
</blockquote>

Just because people have done it in the past doesn't mean we need to codify it as correct. It ought to have merit on its own.

<blockquote>
The second priority of the BPFK is maintenance of backward compatibility
</blockquote>

That stands nicely on its own.

<blockquote>
the BPFK has a mandate to flesh out the design of Lojban, not to redesign it.
</blockquote>

Again, pretty straight forward.

<blockquote>
inelegance does not constitute brokenness.
</blockquote>

A nice bit to end this on.</blockquote>

This is lunacy, rehashing all the same old debates. It should no longer need saying that different Lojbanists have different notions of how and where to draw the line between fine-and-dandy and fucked-up. In order to avoid this pointless rehashing, WE HAVE THE POLLS. Which are rigged so that 2 votes are enough to block change.

So, please, enough of this ideologizing & politicking. Recognize that we are never going to see things the same way.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Quotable Nick w/annotation
     subject: In favor of letting usage decide (sometimes)
    username: kd
   post_time: 2003-05-29 19:29:53
   post_text:

However, I should point out that an explicit statement from the bpfkj to the effect that ''The second priority of the BPFK is maintenance of backward compatibility'' is enough that '''when it doesn't break anything else''', letting usage decide is sufficiently justified by the fact that it restores backward compatibility. Under such circumstances, therefore, letting usage decide is not only acceptable, it is a necessity.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Criteria too strict?
     subject: Criteria too strict?
    username: kd
   post_time: 2003-05-29 21:06:26
   post_text:

It is my opinion that consensus-minus-one voting will stop ''anything'' from changing. I do not advocate open season on innovations, but IMO the BPFK exists to fix known bugs, so we need a system where we can do that. Since fourteen people are unlikely to agree on the correct fix, and in some cases have been seen to disagree about the presence of a bug, should the requirement maybe be loosened a bit? I know that consensus-minus-one is here to stop favored but frivolous changes, so it should still be strict, but wouldn't maybe two-thirds be enough? And if so, how do we change it? Consensus-minus-one for that? Or am I just being an idiot?
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
     subject: Re: reallocation of 'new' cmavo
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-05-29 21:08:33
   post_text:

<blockquote>

I don't think it is a good idea for people to already be eyeballing the cmavo they want for all their little pet new-cmavo.

</blockquote>

I am guilty of this for {lau}, and your chastisement applies to me as well. And fair enough: the issue of whether a cmavo is useful or not is orthogonal to the issue of whether it would be "more useful" (presumably by some criterion of phonological similarity), and such  reallocations will be decided much further down the track, in a distinct process, as Bob already alluded to on main list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/19900.

If we want a cmavo for a new function, we should be prepared for it to be trisyllabic, or xVV, rather than monosyllabic. (I think there's a case that I can make for Unique = lau in LE, but I can live with la'o'e in LAhE, or even xa'e in OGGLY-MOOGLY.) Brevity per se is a weaker criterion. Whether a function should be analytic or not (Jorge's argument, that we should have had lu'e, not la'e, with sentence anaphors) is a distinct argument to that of brevity.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Quotable Nick w/annotation
     subject: Quoted quotable Quotable Nick w/annotation
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-05-29 21:31:50
   post_text:

In almost all, of course, I agree with Jay's rerenderings of my self-important prose, and I thank him for it. Surprised to find myself in the role of scripture, but I guess we all gotta start someplace...

<blockquote>
<blockquote>

The shepherd familiarises themselves with the CLL explication of the paradigm... ...The shepherd searches the entirety of the lojban list, jboske, the phpwiki and all other pertinent technical fora, for all '''past''' debate... ...The shepherd surveys '''past''' usage....
</blockquote>

The goal is to solve issues which have been known, not to construct new problems that "need" solving.
</blockquote>

While I don't want to ban consideration of new issues (which, who knows, may indeed be legitimate), the priority is indeed to address issues that have been gone over and over for the past 10 years, and resolve them at last. What constitutes priority and what not is at the shepherd's discretion.

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
The formulation of the poll must ... include a description of the baslined status quo, the proposed '''fix''' or emendation, and a '''rationale''' for the change or '''addition'''.
</blockquote>

Tossing around polls like "should we get rid of foo" is, IMO, poor form. The above described poll isn't referring to the phpbb ones, but there isn't any reason why we can't have more cogent phpbb polls, either.
</blockquote>

Here, I'm afraid I disagree; though I hadn't thought through what a phpbb poll means at the time, I now think it's fine as an informal, "which way is the wind blowing" poll, which causes no real harm. At the discretion of the shepherd and all, but after all, the real decisions get taken on twiki, and a split vote still means status quo. So while revisionist polls may be annoying to fundamentalists, they are best dealt with with an open vote against, rather than "driving them underground."

(That's not an official ruling. Yet.)

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
...revisionists must use the canonical position as a departure point, and must present fully its strengths as well as its weaknesses. Conversely, fundamentalists must present -- and address -- the inadequacies in the canonical position pointed out in the past.
</blockquote>

Might as well do the same when arguing about things, as well. Yes a particular cmavo is underused. Whats the problem? Plenty of words are infrequent in their use, that's OK!
</blockquote>

To introduce a weaselly, self-serving, but I think still valid rider: the issue is not per se whether it's underused, but whether it can ever be used to make a meaningful distinction. My current opinion, for instance, is that {lau} can't be useful and {tau} can be. (I've presented my argument for it, more or less, elsewhere.) But yes, as was said about NAI on phpbb, underuse is not in itself an argument against cmavo, given that we are all still beginners in Lojban. (And as I said elsewhere, if {lau} doesn't get reallocated, I'll live.)

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
The BPFK is entrusted with the task of elaborating the definition of cmavo, while maintaining backward compatibility with the existing cmavo.
</blockquote>

You're not very well going to get backward compatibility by throwing cmavo away wholesale. Certainly not because they're infrequently used.
</blockquote>

You're right in principle. The case should be stronger: never or almost never used, and never or almost never learned. And if the case founders there as well, because the cmavo in question must remain part of a whole, then fair enough: I live by the sword, I die by the sword.

<blockquote>This is lunacy, rehashing all the same old debates. It should no longer need saying that different Lojbanists have different notions of how and where to draw the line between fine-and-dandy and fucked-up. In order to avoid this pointless rehashing, WE HAVE THE POLLS. Which are rigged so that 2 votes are enough to block change.</blockquote>

But And, the point of all this is that we've had issues festering in the background for the past ten years, that keep coming up again and again, that need to be resolved as a matter of priority.  Which means one last rehash, then a poll, then it's done, and we go our (separate?) ways. That's not illegitimate. Yes, we have different notions; and that is why there have be be compromise measures. That's simply a must. And the compromise needs to be by both camps. After all, if there weren't holes in the design, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we.

So even if we never see things the same way, and even if this leads to schism, at least on this iteration, everything is presented cogently, and in one searchable place, and with explicit argumentation, and with a vote rather than fiat. And the requirement for consensus (not my original idea, but I agree with the rationale) is to make sure we still speak the same language as much as is possible. It's rigged, yes; but so is the baseline. At least now, we're creaking the door slightly open --- as open as the entire community will allow --- and relaxing the baseline enough to fix such problems as the entire community considers legitimate to fix. It's a concession; it may not be enough of a concession to all, but it's as much as we can afford.

People, I know passions are high and will continue to be, and I wish  it could be otherwise but it can't. Let's just have the votes in as much solemn silence as we can muster, and move on...
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-05-31 09:24:27
   post_text:

The purpose of this poll is to discover our *general* preferences regarding reassignment of cmavo forms.

The poll requires you answer as though the following assumptions were true.

1. FormX is a monosyllabic cmavo form.
2. You agree that if no forms had been assigned to functions, then FormX would be better assigned to FunctionA than to FunctionB.
3. FormX is currently assigned to FunctionB. This cmavo has seen little if any use.

And the poll questions pertain to the following scenarios.

I. FormX remains assigned to FunctionB. A nonmonosyllabic form is assigned to FunctionA.

II. FormX is reassigned to FunctionA. A nonmonosyllabic form is assigned to FunctionB.

III. FormX is reassigned to FunctionA. FunctionB is scrapped.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-05-31 09:27:55
   post_text:

In creating the poll, I added a fourth option, "None of the above" (with a request for a followup message to explain why) in case the options don't cover the bases. For some reason, this fourth option seems not to have shown up in the poll.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: fracture
   post_time: 2003-05-31 14:00:06
   post_text:

<blockquote>In creating the poll, I added a fourth option, "None
of the above" (with a request for a followup message to explain
why) in case the options don't cover the bases. For some reason,
this fourth option seems not to have shown up in the poll.</blockquote>

None of the above for me.  None of the senarios have enough information
to make the decision.  My answer depends on what FunctionB is, in
addition to whether it has seen use.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-06-01 10:51:50
   post_text:

You can't answer without knowing the relative importance of FunctionB (and for that matter FunctionA).  Usage is not a reliable indicator of that.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-01 10:55:48
   post_text:

Ditto Mark and Jordan. What I think And is trying to find out is, are there those who would veto any and all reassignments in the interest of baseline compatibility, even if the cmavo has never been used. Jay pretty much has said so; I take it Jordan, like me, is taking a slightly (but only slightly) more moderate tack.

There are oodles of shades of grey here, of course. I don't regard {tau} and {lau} as the same footing; there's a distinction between the underuse of MEX and that of {lau}, and on it goes. If I were And, I'd be heartened that not everyone leapt on "will demo-veto"; but given the profession that we are not here to optimise, I fully recognise that any reassignment is going to be difficult.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject: editing poll
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-01 10:56:25
   post_text:

PS tried to, to insert option 4, but couldn't. Sorry.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-01 11:09:02
   post_text:

<blockquote>Ditto Mark and Jordan. What I think And is trying to find out is, are there those who would veto any and all reassignments in the interest of baseline compatibility, even if the cmavo has never been used. Jay pretty much has said so; I take it Jordan, like me, is taking a slightly (but only slightly) more moderate tack.

There are oodles of shades of grey here, of course. I don't regard {tau} and {lau} as the same footing; there's a distinction between the underuse of MEX and that of {lau}, and on it goes. If I were And, I'd be heartened that not everyone leapt on "will demo-veto"; but given the profession that we are not here to optimise, I fully recognise that any reassignment is going to be difficult.</blockquote>

Nick is right. If there are people who will veto Scenario I, then the only
way to reassign monosyllabic cmavo forms is to vote for III instead of
II.

As for Jordan & Mark, I was trying to get around the "It depends" by means of assumption 2, viz that you agree that the form would have
been better assigned to FunctionA than FunctionB.

Finally, the purpose of having this nonspecific poll is, as Arnt suggested,
to see whether there is any point in having polls about the reassignment
of specific cmavo.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Unconservativeness
     subject: Unconservativeness
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-01 11:19:10
   post_text:

The BF is set up to favour conservatism, but unconservatism in a BF commissioner is not to reject the BF ethos. The BF is our last chance to make improvements that will benefit future Lojbanists. Any improvements found unpalatable by two or more commissioners will (IIUC) be rejected.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Unconservativeness
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-01 11:36:44
   post_text:

What And said. We have set the organisational bias to conservative, so that changes can't happen unless they are duly considered and meet with wide approval, in cognisance of backwards compatibility. I would not dream of going beyond that, and forcing And or Jorge (say) into groupthink; that would insult both them and me. I will, however, adhere to the letter of what we've proposed procedurally; and Jay was right to go through the Quotable Nick bit. The BPFK does have certain goals and biases, and it's appropriate to remind people of them (even if they end up undoing the BPFKJ's pet reassignment :-) ) --- that's keeping the BPFK to the mandate it has. But commissioners are free to vote their conscience, and I do not see any reason to doubt that they do so because each thinks they are doing what's best for Lojban. And in the end the consensus-1 is what decides things.

(As a reminder, though: lobbying is OK. Within reason.)

Folks, I'd rather not have to defuse things every fortnight. If that's my lot, then so be it; but I honestly don't think I should need to. We all know where we all are coming from.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: jkominek
   post_time: 2003-06-01 13:25:59
   post_text:

<blockquote>Ditto Mark and Jordan. What I think And is trying to find out is, are there those who would veto any and all reassignments in the interest of baseline compatibility, even if the cmavo has never been used. Jay pretty much has said so...</blockquote>

I'd like to clarify: I'm perfectly willing to '''consider''' reassignment, but I can't even imagine an argument which would be compelling enough for me to vote for it. I certainly havn't seen or heard one yet.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-01 13:59:43
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>Ditto Mark and Jordan. What I think And is trying to find out is, are there those who would veto any and all reassignments in the interest of baseline compatibility, even if the cmavo has never been used. Jay pretty much has said so...</blockquote>

I'd like to clarify: I'm perfectly willing to '''consider''' reassignment, but I can't even imagine an argument which would be compelling enough for me to vote for it. I certainly havn't seen or heard one yet.</blockquote>

Suppose the proposal was to reassign a monosyllabic form from a
never-used cmavo to the most frequently used cmavo in the language (which, hypothetically, is disyllabic). Would you reject that reassignment?
If you would, then we can take you as being de facto implacably opposed to reassignments. (For principled reasons, to be sure.)
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: jkominek
   post_time: 2003-06-01 14:13:35
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Ditto Mark and Jordan. What I think And is trying to find out is, are there those who would veto any and all reassignments in the interest of baseline compatibility, even if the cmavo has never been used. Jay pretty much has said so...</blockquote>

I'd like to clarify: I'm perfectly willing to '''consider''' reassignment, but I can't even imagine an argument which would be compelling enough for me to vote for it. I certainly havn't seen or heard one yet.</blockquote>

Suppose the proposal was to reassign a monosyllabic form from a
never-used cmavo to the most frequently used cmavo in the language (which, hypothetically, is disyllabic). Would you reject that reassignment?\</blockquote>

Yes. I wouldn't want to have to relearn the most used cmavo in the language.

And I'm afraid that an extra syllable simply isn't the kind of thing which causes me to stay awake at night, regardless of its frequency.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Criteria too strict?
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-01 20:56:06
   post_text:

Dunno if it's my call or the board's; I'll ask what the board thinks. Assuming it's my call, I'm prepared to discuss loosening it, but not yet, and not by much. (I don't think even 2/3 is big enough.) Remember, the point is establishing a consensus, not one faction or the other winning; moreover, the point is not changing per se, but fixing. That said, if conservatives recognise that there is a problem, they should cut the proponents of change some slack.

I suggest we have some official votes first before considering loosening the requirements. Five or six. I have no problem with revisiting poll results in the light of changed requirements; we're going to be here a while, and we should make sure that everyone is on board. If that means revotes, so be it.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject: ah
    username: jkominek
   post_time: 2003-06-01 22:36:14
   post_text:

Just struck me that I'd consider reassignment to make space for a xA, xE, xI, xO, xU series if it was '''amazing utility''' and the things being moved around were of '''significantly''' lesser utility.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Unconservativeness
     subject:
    username: jkominek
   post_time: 2003-06-03 11:32:41
   post_text:

From Nick's BPFK report on llg-members:

<blockquote>2. Polls of a reformist bent on phpbb, even if of an informal nature, are counterproductive (Kominek vs. Rosta). My ruling (for now, anyway) is that polls on phpbb, being informal and with no binding consequence, are harmless.</blockquote>

I'd like to clarify, that where Nick says "counterproductive", I mean "counterproductive in that there are nigh 600 cmavo, and if we have to have iterations of votes all the way from the reformist end of the spectrum back down to what actually has a chance of passing, we're going to seriously draw out how long things take, so how about people posting polls be self policing and honest with themselves, and try to 1) minimize the number of polls 2) bring the polls closer to what actually has a chance of being accepted"

Also, while I'm at it, please carefully consider your poll options to ensure that they're mutually exclusive and fully cover the opinion space. (If by no other means than a "none of the above" option.)
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Unconservativeness
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-03 11:50:06
   post_text:

<blockquote>From Nick's BPFK report on llg-members:

I'd like to clarify, that where Nick says "counterproductive", I mean "counterproductive in that there are nigh 600 cmavo, and if we have to have iterations of votes all the way from the reformist end of the spectrum back down to what actually has a chance of passing, we're going to seriously draw out how long things take, so how about people posting polls be self policing and honest with themselves, and try to 1) minimize the number of polls 2) bring the polls closer to what actually has a chance of being accepted"</blockquote>

Well, when you put it like that... :-) (Fair response. I think people will get the hint once activity picks up yet further. The message I want to keep sending is: I'm not afraid of the polls, because I trust you people. But yes, once we've gone through  a few iterations of this, I believe people will get the sense of what will and won't fly on their own. And I reserve the right to change my ruling later. (Btw, I'm considering throwing any changes to the existing guidelines to 2/3 majority vote; but that will come once we have the "where are we going" discussion, Real Soon Now. Pity this is riding up against the Members' Meeting so soon.)

<blockquote>Also, while I'm at it, please carefully consider your poll options to ensure that they're mutually exclusive and fully cover the opinion space. (If by no other means than a "none of the above" option.)</blockquote>

Well, I found And's options in the poll I think you're referring to needed elaboration too; he agreed, but it looks like we can't edit polls. In future, people, if you need to revise a poll, make a new thread, and let me know; I'll transfer the existing thread across to the new one, and delete the old one. I'm not going to do so for the poll in question (unless asked), because I think And got his answer, which was "it depends", with greater or lower thresholds of "depends".
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll about cmavo reassignment preferences
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-03 11:51:08
   post_text:

(Follow on from what I just posted about this poll in another thread, same topic.)

As an aside (or not), I'm reminded of what I said once, somewhere, about Lojban factions. In the end, factions or no factions, it all boils down to individual issues, which people will have individual votes on. Yes, we have overall philosophies; but if we are being reasonable, we make judgement calls on each issue as it comes up. I think the poll issue on cmavo reassignment has this same result, which is the best we can come up with, really...
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Criteria too strict?
     subject: Works for me.
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-03 19:43:43
   post_text:

I think consensus-1 is perfect for the BPFK.

I also think that people should start taking boring paradigms to get them out of the way; I would myself, but I already do enough around here.  8P

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Criteria too strict?
     subject: Re: Works for me.
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-03 19:55:41
   post_text:

<blockquote>I think consensus-1 is perfect for the BPFK.

I also think that people should start taking boring paradigms to get them out of the way; I would myself, but I already do enough around here.  8P

-Robin</blockquote>

I've scanned Nick's classification & only linkargs seems utterly boring -- so boring I'm not sure it's worth saying anything at all about them. Apart from that there are the erasures. I can only recall one issue having been raised about how they work, and I can't remember what it was.

But all the others are a bit tricky, for one reason or another.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Criteria too strict?
     subject: Re: Works for me.
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-03 20:04:01
   post_text:

<blockquote>I think consensus-1 is perfect for the BPFK.
</blockquote>

I don't think we should consider altering consensus-1 until we've seen how the voting is going & whether people really do try to reach consensus. But -- & I hope it doesn't come to this -- it is in principle possible that two people could block all attempts to fix problems.

It is premature to suggest this, but if laxer criteria were necessary to declare certain aspects of the prescription 'broken', but consensus-1 were required for actual solutions, then the pressure would be equal on everybody to cooperate on agreeing on some kind of a solution (because there would then be no status quo option to fall back on).
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject: Poll: Hold off on polls?
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-21 03:06:10
   post_text:

As you know, there has been considerable behind the scenes acrimony between Bob and myself on whether polls and decision-making should continue on the bpfk, or whether all decision-making should be held off until all paradigms have been discussed and described. Rather than have an extended argle-bargle about it, and given that And has come out in support of holding off, I'm holding a poll. I'm abstaining, btw.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-21 09:00:37
   post_text:

I think we should have provisional informal opinion polls as we go, with final binding decision-making polls left to the end. So I'm not sure which option I ought to vote for.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-21 12:00:07
   post_text:

<blockquote>I think we should have provisional informal opinion polls as we go, with final binding decision-making polls left to the end. So I'm not sure which option I ought to vote for.</blockquote>

That's what I meant. In which case, vote "hold off". The informal polls have always been allowed.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-06-21 23:49:00
   post_text:

<blockquote>As you know, there has been considerable behind the scenes acrimony between Bob and myself on whether polls and decision-making should continue on the bpfk, or whether all decision-making should be held off until all paradigms have been discussed and described.</blockquote>

OK, so here I will apparently contradict my opinion given elsewhere.  But now this "behind the scenes acrimony" is not limited to the board, as it is affecting our deliberations here.  Could we see what this acrimony is about and what it entails?  All I know is "Bob is upset about changes we're considering."  I shouldn't have to make this decision based on second-hand knowledge of what the arguments are.

I'm in no rush to get the binding votes done, but I would not mind seeing more non-binding referenda here on the board.  Moreover, since the "rumours" of Bob's dissatisfaction have surfaced, not only votes (which never happened anyway) but also discussion seems to have slowed (definitely '''not''' stopped) as well.  Are we afraid we're treading on something that we shouldn't be?  Are we awaiting further clarification of what exactly our mandate is before we delve further?  Because it sure feels that way.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-22 06:07:18
   post_text:

<blockquote>OK, so here I will apparently contradict my opinion given elsewhere.  But now this "behind the scenes acrimony" is not limited to the board, as it is affecting our deliberations here.  Could we see what this acrimony is about and what it entails?  All I know is "Bob is upset about changes we're considering."  I shouldn't have to make this decision based on second-hand knowledge of what the arguments are.</blockquote>

Which is why I wanted Bob to bring his arguments up here himself. This being Bob, I've given him a month to do so, and of course we are all somewhat distracted right now with the LLG meeting. That said, if we could agree to hold off binding votes until "the end", and continue non-binding polls here, then we don't need to get into the unpleasantness of this particular argument.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: The criterion of convenience
     subject: The criterion of convenience
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-22 08:30:11
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>OTTH, if you want to say "from... until..." in the same bridi, it is convenient to do so wih sumti tcita.</blockquote>

Inconvenience != brokenness. If I have to say my sentence with two bridi, so be it</blockquote>

Should we really be disregarding the criterion of convenience? It's true that the majority of current Lojbanists don't care about it, or at least ostensibly prioritize conservatism, for they have never tried to use the language in a sustained and thoughtful way. But I suspect that if you showed Lojbanists two ways to say things, one convenient and not yet official, and one inconvenient but already official, then an actual vote on such a concrete example would show them to be fans of convenience over dogmatic conservatism.

I accept that "if inconvenient then broken" can't be accepted by the BF, else it would open the floodgates to many much-contemned proposals from me. But it does seem to me that when we are trying to settle an issue that is unresolved for some other reason, then we should take convenience into account.

Some will riposte that we are too inexperienced with the language to be able to judge what is and isn't convenient. But I think that there are clear cases where our collective intuitions are reliable. We can also use the experience of those who have done sustained, thoughtful & stylistically attentive writing in Lojban (most obviously xorxes, but also others such as Nick & Jordan).
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-06-22 11:39:38
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>OK, so here I will apparently contradict my opinion given elsewhere.  But now this "behind the scenes acrimony" is not limited to the board, as it is affecting our deliberations here.  Could we see what this acrimony is about and what it entails?  All I know is "Bob is upset about changes we're considering."  I shouldn't have to make this decision based on second-hand knowledge of what the arguments are.</blockquote>

Which is why I wanted Bob to bring his arguments up here himself. This being Bob, I've given him a month to do so, and of course we are all somewhat distracted right now with the LLG meeting. That said, if we could agree to hold off binding votes until "the end", and continue non-binding polls here, then we don't need to get into the unpleasantness of this particular argument.</blockquote>

Well, Bob should definitely do so, if he wants us to take his views into consideration at all.  Otherwise he's grumbling in the privacy of his own home, or yelling at the TV set or something.

I have to take back what I said about discussion slowing down; it's picked up again and no mistake.

So the point is he wants us to decide '''everything''' and '''then''' take a vote?  In which case the vote is basically a formality, so what's the point?  I thought the moratorium was to give Bob time to formulate his difficulties so we could get it worked out.  And there are matters which don't necessarily depend on "all paradigms" (like the matter of '''Y''' and the existence (but not form) of '''ja'ai''' and a few others).

Is the BPFK here to do its job or not?  Again, I'm not in a particular hurry to get to the binding votes, but I also don't want to be constrained not to have them without good reason.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-22 13:46:41
   post_text:

<blockquote>I have to take back what I said about discussion slowing down; it's picked up again and no mistake.</blockquote>

Current level is just as active as I'd like, and no more.

<blockquote>So the point is he wants us to decide '''everything''' and '''then''' take a vote?  In which case the vote is basically a formality, so what's the point?</blockquote>

Not necessarily; everything must be documented before any decision making should be taken. And Bob also spoke of trust-building between the two camps needing time.

<blockquote>I thought the moratorium was to give Bob time to formulate his difficulties so we could get it worked out.  And there are matters which don't necessarily depend on "all paradigms" (like the matter of '''Y''' and the existence (but not form) of '''ja'ai''' and a few others).</blockquote>

My inclination was to make a ruling on which issues can be decided now, without waiting for other paradigms. But I'm not concerned if we decide that all to be said is said on a topic has been said, move on to the next (leaving the door open in case anyone thinks of something), and then return to the paradigm for the final vote.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: The criterion of convenience
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-22 13:49:59
   post_text:

And, I'm copping it from both sides, and I'm afraid I cannot relent. My ruling is still that convenience remains a low priority cause for change.

As to what Lojbanists do when confronted with alternatives, that's up to them: if it turns out that an official solution is ghastly and everyone votes for a radical simplification, I won't annul the vote on the grounds of conservatism. The policy safeguards do enough for that already: if everyone nonetheless wants change, they shall have it. In the end, after all, there are only individual votes on individual issues.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-22 14:48:48
   post_text:

Bob should have a right to grumble privately without being held to account for it publicly.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: The criterion of convenience
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-22 14:55:42
   post_text:

<blockquote>And, I'm copping it from both sides, </blockquote>

I sympathize with you. I don't *see* you copping it from both sides. If people are trying to influence the BF through backchannels, or if people are encouraging the BF to do its stuff, but intend to destroy it when it is done, then I will be thoroughly pissed off. You and I are doing this BF work mainly for the benefit of Lojban, not for ourselves. Gratitude might be too much to expect, but freedom from sabotage isn't.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-06-22 15:11:45
   post_text:

<blockquote>Bob should have a right to grumble privately without being held to account for it publicly.</blockquote>
Certainly true.  But then ''we'' should not be asked to respond to those private grumblings.  When we are expected to react and decide based on them, they cannot be private, or we have nothing to go on.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-22 22:11:31
   post_text:

Folks, we're getting sidetracked here, but: Bob raised concerns on the board, which I felt legitimate enough that he should raise them in this forum for discussion, rather than me exercising summary judgement one way or the other. Bob has agreed to bring his concerns to public, and will do so when he has time; I've allowed him a month. Since Bob has alluded to his concerns on jboske, I don't think the concerns are private any more; and given the level of objection, I thought it prudent to impose the moratorium on decision-taking, rather than have to undo things later.

I'm sorry about the delay and uncertainty this brings, but I am not going to speak for other members, that's usurping them. I gave the summary of Bob's objections on the members' list, but Bob is entitled to make his own case in his own time. If I don't get objection on delaying final votes till the very end, though, I'd rather just do that and be done with it. I do not think this debilitates the work of the bpfk.

Whether the grumblings are private or not is a different matter; but the concerns raised are legitimate enough that this has to be resolved. I could resolve this by fiat, or by commission vote. Since I have already announced my policy, I think any change to it needs consent, and prefer the latter.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Unconservativeness
     subject: Apology
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-22 22:20:49
   post_text:

I have used intemperate language in describing Lojban Central's prescription of FAhA; this was arrogance and ad hominem on my part, and I apologise for it.

I further admit that on that forum, I am being reformist, and what I think I will end up proposing contradicts the baseline in some regards. I am attempting to make sure what I propose aligns with usage and has good internal motivation, which I personally believe are good cases for considering change --- as I will also be advocating for vo'a. (I will not make final proposals on FAhA until I have surveyed all usage; and I further admit that some of my prescriptive generalisations, in particular about the origin of motion, were overhasty: I don't think now that usage is as confused about it as I'd originally expected.)

But the charter of the bpfk remains as is. If what I propose is regarded by you as tinkering, and motivated by convenience rather than fixing true brokenness, then you must vote against it. But you must then vote for a prescription that resolves the current confusion about the paradigm. An inelegant prescription is tolerable; an ambiguous one is not.

That is all.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Poll: Hold off on polls?
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-06-23 23:37:07
   post_text:

I think that important decisions should be put off for the future, but that there should be an infinite number of unofficial polls.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject: Focus on books: please help.
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-24 16:46:33
   post_text:

I believe, very strongly, that we should be focusing on those aspects of BPFK-ness needed to finish and publish Alice and the Lessons.

If those of you clueful on these matters could please list out what issues those are in this thread, I'll see what I can turn my hand to, and I reccomend others do the same.

Finishing up *just* enough to publish a fully bpfk-compliant Alice will show the community that the bpfk has value.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-24 17:25:48
   post_text:

urrgh. That would mean we couldn't defer dealing with gadri. And we've been postponing dealing with gadri because it is such a nightmare that it could bring everything else grinding to a halt. I know we're discussing the odd bit of stuff here and there that isn't relevant to the books, but that's only because it's easy stuff and so not much of a distraction.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-24 17:53:20
   post_text:

<blockquote>urrgh. That would mean we couldn't defer dealing with gadri. And we've been postponing dealing with gadri because it is such a nightmare that it could bring everything else grinding to a halt. I know we're discussing the odd bit of stuff here and there that isn't relevant to the books, but that's only because it's easy stuff and so not much of a distraction.</blockquote>

Which aspect of gadri needs to be fixed to do Alice?

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-06-24 21:05:03
   post_text:

We don't understand loi, lei, lo'e, or le'e.

But please don't ask me exactly what the problem is, because I too don't want to start that discussion until after the meetings and logfest.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-24 22:44:14
   post_text:

<blockquote>Which aspect of gadri needs to be fixed to do Alice?
</blockquote>

xod's answer is near enough the mark -- those are the main cmavo we're clueless about. But because the gadri form an interrelated system, uncertainty in part of the system makes the entire system unstable.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject: Re: Focus on books: please help.
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-24 22:49:07
   post_text:

<blockquote>Finishing up *just* enough to publish a fully bpfk-compliant Alice will show the community that the bpfk has value.
</blockquote>

Are there people who think the bpfk doesn't have value? Did they vote against it? Is there a need for the bpfk to win hearts and minds? I'd have thought that anybody satisfied with the current prescription is unlikely to be won over.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-06-25 10:17:25
   post_text:

I guess he means "show" as opposed to "convince". We haven't yet produced any results, even though the desire that we do so may be unanimous.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-25 15:23:34
   post_text:

<blockquote>I guess he means "show" as opposed to "convince". We haven't yet produced any results, even though the desire that we do so may be unanimous.</blockquote>

Correct.  "Demonstrate convincingly".

Besides, I myself am itching to publish Alice. 8)

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-25 23:02:34
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>I guess he means "show" as opposed to "convince". We haven't yet produced any results, even though the desire that we do so may be unanimous.</blockquote>

Correct.  "Demonstrate convincingly".
</blockquote>

Robin, as you know, the moratorium on the bpfk producing any results right now is in place because otherwise I would get blanket vetos from Bob, I would be forced to boot him and anyone who does blanket vetos out, and we'd have schism. (There, that's laid on the table.)

And whatever happens with the gadri, conservative or not, things are going to change: there will be an intensional something, the question is whether it becomes lo'e (which Jorge currently uses, thereby constituting a backwards-incompatible change), or a new LE or LAhE gadri. The gadri are a mess, and the three months of jboske was as horrifying as we make it out to be; the one thing that emerged is that the current status quo cannot stand. The issue is then how backward compatible any changes can afford to be.

It's quite likely that me and Jorge could come up with something mutually agreeable in a week: we both know the issues, we have a fair sense of the solution. But not only convincing the rest of you of the solution, but even explaining what the problems are in the first place, is going to take at least two months --and I'm committed to doing MOhI first. And if I'm to propose lau or lau'i as the intensional LAhE (which is what I currently intend), then I have to make a watertight case for why an intensional article is indispensible to Lojban -- and a case that is intelligible to non-jboskeists: I'd have to in effect write two or three chapters of _Lojban for Intermediates_.

Which I intend to do. But in time. So Robin, I don't think I can oblige in a hurry.

Now, if you want me and Jorge to go into a huddle and come up with a gadri solution that will make Alice minimally incompatible with  what I think the ultimate bpfk solution will be, I can do that. Others will be entitled to be miffed though --- not only the conservatives, but also those like xod (and possibly And and Jorge) who want a more radical solution. (To them, I can only say that the hoops I was jumping through to get backward compatibility were a little too arcane, and I will start proposing new cmavo to cut the crap.) And gadri are not the only issue: Jorge's Lojban varies from the prescription in several ways, some of which we're already seeing discussed on ZAhO and VA, and the varying is (unfortunately) usually well motivated enough to need to be discussed.

Robin, you can do as you will, and Alice doesn't have to have a Baseline Compliant sticker. I'd rather it did, so I'd rather it wait. Whatever you end up doing, though, the real Baseline Compliant work will be the chrestomathy, so even if a non-Baseline Compliant Alice comes out, it's not the end of the world...

... as long as you don't object to a second revised edition a year from now. :-1/2
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-06-25 23:04:52
   post_text:

I had no idea that a single irascible individual could shut down the BF.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-26 01:08:07
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>I guess he means "show" as opposed to "convince". We haven't yet produced any results, even though the desire that we do so may be unanimous.</blockquote>

Correct.  "Demonstrate convincingly".
</blockquote>

Robin, as you know, the moratorium on the bpfk producing any results right now is in place because otherwise I would get blanket vetos from Bob, I would be forced to boot him and anyone who does blanket vetos out, and we'd have schism. (There, that's laid on the table.)
</blockquote>

I had no idea it was that bad.

Bob, if that is your actual point of view, kindly setca le do stedu le xarju

That's the *polite* version.  That sort of temper tantrum has no place among a group of adults.

I say move on.  If we need to kick him out, hey, fine by me.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-26 01:11:11
   post_text:

<blockquote>Robin, you can do as you will, and Alice doesn't have to have a Baseline Compliant sticker. I'd rather it did, so I'd rather it wait. Whatever you end up doing, though, the real Baseline Compliant work will be the chrestomathy, so even if a non-Baseline Compliant Alice comes out, it's not the end of the world...

... as long as you don't object to a second revised edition a year from now. :-1/2</blockquote>

For the record, I have no intention of publishing Alice without a Baseline Compliant sticker, and nor, AFAIK, does xorxes.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-26 03:45:43
   post_text:

People, ex cathedra: there are legitimate grounds for Bob's objections, and I have ruled that we hear them out before we collectively decide on how and when to continue with decision-making. How people choose to conduct themselves on the bpfk, once the decision-making is underway, is their call; and whether and how I censure them or not is mine. The point of this is not to allow things to get out of hand before we get to that stage. Let's exercise a fortnight's patience, please.

When I get time, btw (not tonight, because I'm doing overtime preparatory to the continued members' meeting), I will post what I currently think the gadri paradigm should end up looking like; I intend to propose at least two new cmavo (LAhE for collective, and LAhE [for now] for Unique). I am simply not ready to get into gadri, but I think I owe it to you guys to throw something out there.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: xorxes
   post_time: 2003-06-26 10:43:49
   post_text:

<blockquote>
For the record, I have no intention of publishing Alice without a Baseline Compliant sticker, and nor, AFAIK, does xorxes.

-Robin</blockquote>

I am not especially interested in the sticker, but I have no problem waiting, especially since it is you who will be doing most of the extra-linguistic work involved.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-06-26 10:46:32
   post_text:

Nick, you can't expect to teasingly post proposed gadri and expect us to hold our tongues. You will be officially starting the gadri debate.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-26 13:46:52
   post_text:

<blockquote>People, ex cathedra: there are legitimate grounds for Bob's objections, and I have ruled that we hear them out before we collectively decide on how and when to continue with decision-making.</blockquote>

How long, *precisely*, will we be waiting until we give up?

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-06-26 14:03:32
   post_text:

Sounds like a fair bit of intrigue is unfolding behind the scenes. Can any of those "in the know" assure us that further participation in this nascent institution is worth our time inasmuch as it can be held hostage by a single disgruntled conspirator? Shouldn't Bob come forth with his misgivings, instead of secretly flexing unilateral power behind the shadows?
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-06-26 14:15:19
   post_text:

<blockquote>Sounds like a fair bit of intrigue is unfolding behind the scenes. Can any of those "in the know" assure us that further participation in this nascent institution is worth our time inasmuch as it can be held hostage by a single disgruntled conspirator? Shouldn't Bob come forth with his misgivings, instead of secretly flexing unilateral power behind the shadows?</blockquote>

He posted on the board list, so you should have seen it.  The date was...

Subject: Re: [llg-board] bpfk vote majority
From: Robert LeChevalier &lt;lojbab@lojban.org&gt;
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:45:58 -0400

It was approximately 300 lines, and I didn't read it because of that.

Basically, he's promised to write a shorter, less harsh version for the general BPFK's perusal.  Nick has promised to hold off any votes until then.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-26 14:52:06
   post_text:

<blockquote>Nick, you can't expect to teasingly post proposed gadri and expect us to hold our tongues. You will be officially starting the gadri debate.</blockquote>

That debate brought me to the brink of insanity, so I'll not be in a hurry to rejoin the fray. But that said, if Nick is prepared to go against conservatism and propose new gadri and go against CLL on loi/lei, then the only problem will be Nick's in persuading conservatives to assent. OTOH if he goes with something like his earlier baroque scheme then we can just wash our hands of it. But I am probably being overly sanguine, and no doubt there will be slatherings of rancour, alas.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-06-26 14:56:26
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>Sounds like a fair bit of intrigue is unfolding behind the scenes. Can any of those "in the know" assure us that further participation in this nascent institution is worth our time inasmuch as it can be held hostage by a single disgruntled conspirator? Shouldn't Bob come forth with his misgivings, instead of secretly flexing unilateral power behind the shadows?</blockquote>

He posted on the board list, so you should have seen it.  The date was...

Subject: Re: [llg-board] bpfk vote majority
From: Robert LeChevalier &lt;lojbab@lojban.org&gt;
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:45:58 -0400

It was approximately 300 lines, and I didn't read it because of that.

Basically, he's promised to write a shorter, less harsh version for the general BPFK's perusal.  Nick has promised to hold off any votes until then.
</blockquote>
This puts a different complexion on things. There was me thinking that Nick oughtn't to be reporting Lojbab's qualms if they were privately expressed, but if they were circulated to the board then the current situation is unacceptable.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-06-26 15:51:11
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Sounds like a fair bit of intrigue is unfolding behind the scenes. Can any of those "in the know" assure us that further participation in this nascent institution is worth our time inasmuch as it can be held hostage by a single disgruntled conspirator? Shouldn't Bob come forth with his misgivings, instead of secretly flexing unilateral power behind the shadows?</blockquote>

He posted on the board list, so you should have seen it.  The date was...

Subject: Re: [llg-board] bpfk vote majority
From: Robert LeChevalier &lt;lojbab@lojban.org&gt;
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:45:58 -0400

It was approximately 300 lines, and I didn't read it because of that.

Basically, he's promised to write a shorter, less harsh version for the general BPFK's perusal.  Nick has promised to hold off any votes until then.
</blockquote>
This puts a different complexion on things. There was me thinking that Nick oughtn't to be reporting Lojbab's qualms if they were privately expressed, but if they were circulated to the board then the current situation is unacceptable.</blockquote>

Of course, not all of us can see the board list (see another discussion).  Bob has said that he's not going to mess with this until at least the meeting is over, because there's too much going on, and I am willing to accept that.  Nick has said he would give Bob a month, and I guess that's okay, especially given how busy Lojban-wise the past month has been.  I am willing to defer all binding votes until at least we hear from Bob and resolve how we are going to respond to his concerns.  Only fair at least to hear him out, and also fair to give him some time, under the circumstances.  So live out the month Nick has allotted, and we'll see the concerns and air them all out.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Focus on books: please help.
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-06-26 21:06:13
   post_text:

<blockquote>How long, *precisely*, will we be waiting until we give up?</blockquote>

I'd given him a month when he posted  three weeks ago. Because of the meeting, I'm giving him one extra week (since I'll be away on holidays that week anyway): July 13 deadline.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject: To undo the logjam
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-04 18:42:05
   post_text:

Rather than wait for Bob to refomulate, and to give you something else to do after the meeting, I propose the following:

All adjustments to the bpfk charter (as I call my screen on twiki) are subject to 2/3 majority, with quorum of 6. That includes these.

Shepherds, when presenting their proposals, divide them between baseline-violating and baseline-maintaining.

Baseline-maintaining go straight to polling and negotiation. Baseline-violating are considered at the end, as are any baseline-maintaining proposals contingent on them.

We have a liberal notion of baseline-violating, including anything that contradicts any example sentence or semantic definition in CLL.

New cmavo disambiguating existing cmavo do not violate the baseline. New cmavo shrinking old cmavo's existing semantic space do.

Obstructionism in voting --- blanket votes for or against --- is grounds for expulsion. So is long-running inactivity: failing to vote (even as abstain) more than 5 polls in a row. Noone is immune, although if the bpfkj is expelled, well, hope the board has an alternative in mind.

Explusion is subject to ratification by 2/3 of commissioners, with quorum of 6.

OK. Discuss.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-07-04 19:36:16
   post_text:

Is a blanket vote one where the vote on a given issue is not motivated by a rationale specific to that issue?
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject: clarification of Nick's post
    username: lojbab
   post_time: 2003-07-05 00:19:14
   post_text:

Nick asked me to post this clarification.  He has left on holiday for the next week or so.

On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 08:56 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

Nick wrote:
<blockquote>Obstructionism in voting --- blanket votes for or against --- is grounds for expulsion. So is long-running inactivity: failing to vote (even as abstain) more than 5 polls in a row.</blockquote>

lojbab asked:
<blockquote>Please clarify: are these straw polls or final polls?  How long are polls open for  (I can imagine 5 straw polls being posted one day, and if the voting period is short enough, someone could be expelled for being out of town for a weekend.)</blockquote>

Nick replied:
<blockquote>Final, and 2 weeks. Please post this on bpfk, as i am leaving in 5 minutes.</blockquote>
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: How will BPFK report to the community?
     subject: How will BPFK report to the community?
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-07-06 07:09:42
   post_text:

This question needn't be decided yet, but a rough idea of the answer many help us in conducting our BF business.

It strikes me that many of the issues that the BF pronounces on are likely to be quite complex and technical & requiring lengthy explanation, and so will require quite a substantial report, written by people with a particular talent for explaining things to the less technically-minded. Is that the plan?
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-06 17:52:50
   post_text:

<blockquote>Is a blanket vote one where the vote on a given issue is not motivated by a rationale specific to that issue?</blockquote>

That's part of it. The spec is, a vote with the overt purpose of disrupting the smooth operation of the bpfk.

I don't want to get drawn into debate in this, because this really does end up as "how long is a piece of string"; after all, that's why I want any such expulsions subject to ratification. We know the kind of behaviour I'm talking about, and why; I just want explicit warning about it on the books.

Nick, with five minutes to kill at an airport.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: How will BPFK report to the community?
     subject: Re: How will BPFK report to the community?
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-06 17:56:20
   post_text:

<blockquote>It strikes me that many of the issues that the BF pronounces on are likely to be quite complex and technical & requiring lengthy explanation, and so will require quite a substantial report, written by people with a particular talent for explaining things to the less technically-minded. Is that the plan?</blockquote>

That this will be required is clear, but I don't regard this as the bpfk's job, but as individual paedagogues. Anything I say about gadri, I say on my own time in writing _Lojban for Beginners_ --- but only once the bpfk makes its decision.

The issues do have to be explained in enough detail that comissioners of good will and less formal background in logic or linguistics can make sense of them; but that's not the same as writing the textbook explication of them. I think it unfair to expect all that as well out of the bpfk; better to have dedicated textbook writers.

OK, back offline...
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject: Vote on revisions to charter
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-12 11:11:00
   post_text:

I am seeing a real risk now of bpfk turning into jboske #2 --- reformist discussion club, making proposals conservatives will reject, and not actually achieving anything.

We must start having polls soon, at least on baseline-maintaining issues, so that the bpfk can be seen as doing something.

So I intend to submit my proposals in this thread for vote by the commissioners in a week's time. Now that the members' meeting is winding down, I ask for discussion here. once this framework is in place, we'll have a poll on Arnt's descriptive document on by, which notionally frees him up for another paradigm (with the baseline-violating votes on lau etc pending, since Arnt has also written up the formal pros and cons). And then we start making a sweep on other issues that have arisen, identifying what has been proposed that is baseline-compliant.

I started writing up my brief description of gadri in Sydney, but my Palm keyboard died, and I've got some other projects. I'm taking Monday off (the wonders of flexitime --- and of a boss also away on holidays), so I will try and make some headway on both this and mo'i...
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-07-17 18:39:31
   post_text:

Sounds fine to me, although the quorums seem a bit small.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject: Polls posted
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-20 08:33:05
   post_text:

http://www.lojban.org/twiki/bin/view/BPFK/July20Meta-BPFKPolls

Let's get moving.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-07-23 09:38:26
   post_text:

<blockquote>Baseline-maintaining go straight to polling and negotiation. Baseline-violating are considered at the end, as are any baseline-maintaining proposals contingent on them.</blockquote>

And more officially, from the poll:

<blockquote>Discussion of baseline-violating proposals, or proposals which contain baseline-violating alternatives, shall be deferred until the BPFK has completed its inspection of all relevant parts of the language and made all possible baseline-compliant proposals. For cmavo, this means that all 70-odd paradigms have been gone through; for gismu, all gismu; for the grammar, all of the grammar rules. At that stage, the proposals are brought forward again, and subject to the procedure of polling and establishing consensus as normal.</blockquote>

I was willing to hold off on all polls for a while, pending hearing Bob's objections to whatever he's objecting to--which I still have not seen.  I'm even willing to stipulate that baseline-violating proposals have to get some extra thinking time.  But waiting until everything is done seems extreme.  It may even be counterproductive, as it makes it easy to forget what the particular matter was about by the time voting comes around.

I know which way I'm voting.

(BTW, I suppose I could just try, but is it possible to change your vote once you have voted, before the deadline?)
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-30 11:00:54
   post_text:

Sorry about delay, I had a mini Lojban burnout.

<blockquote>I was willing to hold off on all polls for a while, pending hearing Bob's objections to whatever he's objecting to--which I still have not seen.  I'm even willing to stipulate that baseline-violating proposals have to get some extra thinking time.  But waiting until everything is done seems extreme.  It may even be counterproductive, as it makes it easy to forget what the particular matter was about by the time voting comes around.</blockquote>

Start Mini-flame:

The point of the "wait till everything is done" was to placate Bob and Bob's constituency, so I'm unhappy he's not said anything about it, although I explicitly advanced the poll to forestall him anyway.

If motions fail, I will not have the bpfk grind to a halt of course. Well, I will keep being burnt out, but I will not blame that on the polls. If a motion fails, I'll enter into negotiation for a motion that won't fail. On the "wait until all is done", then, I solicit alternatives. Go to vote immediately on baseline-violating, I hope we can agree at least, is also counterproductive. Maybe 6 month delay, maybe block votes on issues whose interdependence has been resolved (somehow).

<blockquote>(BTW, I suppose I could just try, but is it possible to change your vote once you have voted, before the deadline?)</blockquote>

My understanding is, yes.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-07-30 11:13:38
   post_text:

As an addendum:

I know people don't *have* to justify their votes on the poll, but since the votes on the division between baseline-preserving and baseline-violating are probably not going to pass by the margin I've set, and because people aren't necessarily voting the way I expected them to, I invite people to discuss their concerns here after the poll concludes (on the 5th). In particular, I can't work out whether most people objected to the division itself or to the length of delay.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-07-30 16:55:30
   post_text:

<blockquote>As an addendum:

I know people don't *have* to justify their votes on the poll, but since the votes on the division between baseline-preserving and baseline-violating are probably not going to pass by the margin I've set, and because people aren't necessarily voting the way I expected them to, I invite people to discuss their concerns here after the poll concludes (on the 5th). In particular, I can't work out whether most people objected to the division itself or to the length of delay.</blockquote>

.clsn. convinced me that such a delay would make it impossible to maintain a reasonable memory of what the issues were when the vote actually occured.  My memory is pretty pathetic, so this holds extra for me.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-07-30 18:23:04
   post_text:

<blockquote>As an addendum:

I know people don't *have* to justify their votes on the poll, but since the votes on the division between baseline-preserving and baseline-violating are probably not going to pass by the margin I've set, and because people aren't necessarily voting the way I expected them to, I invite people to discuss their concerns here after the poll concludes (on the 5th). In particular, I can't work out whether most people objected to the division itself or to the length of delay.</blockquote>

Regarding the division, I don't believe it is possible to determine what is and isn't baseline-preserving (the baseline documents are too unclear & were never written to be definitional documents), and I don't want to generate a whole new species of argument about this question.

Regarding making decisions as we go, in an ideal world I'd be in favour, but in practise I am against it, because I am sure that many commissioners would oppose reopening a decision that had been taken, even if it turned out to be questionable or if it turned out to have adverse ramifications for later decisions.

That said, I don't very much mind if my views on meta-BF matters are ignored or not solicited in the first place. Since the goals of the BF are not goals I care about much, the way the BF works doesn't matter that much to me either.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: lojbab
   post_time: 2003-07-31 20:38:40
   post_text:

People have heard skewed accounts of my objections to what the byfy is doing.  I've finally had a chance to write those objections in a form suitable for the byfy to consider.  My apologies to Nick and others for taking so long, but the Board and the community set higher priorities for me than supporting byfy. (My apolgies also for the length.)

My implicit overall objection is to the apparent concept that the existing baseline is so ill-defined that there are NO parts of it which can be satisfactorily defined without the byfy considering changes to the status quo.  Debate seems to be proceeding on that basis, and I am profoundly disappointed if people really think this is true.

I want to revisit the baseline statement, with its charter for the byfy, because I think people have lost focus on what the current job of the byfy is, and this is skewing decision-making about how to do that job.  Note that I believe that it is NOT within the charter of the byfy to make any modifications to the policies in the baseline statement.  After the 5 year period which starts when the baseline is finalized, I'd likely support the Board turning over the matter of baseline policy to the rump byfy.  But not now.

I quote selected portions of the baseline statement:
<blockquote>COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN PHASE

The specific requirement to complete the design phase will be the preparation for publication of a baseline version of the following: gismu list with rafsi, cmavo list, a limited number of lujvo (100-500) with place structures to serve as examples, and if time permits, a sampling of reviewed and defined fu'ivla borrowings and cmene names, also to serve as examples.

With a rising tide of usage, accompanied by substantive debates about the logic and semantics of the language, we have learned a lot in the last 5 years. The baseline being assumed, most of these debates have been resolved as semantic enrichment of the documented grammar and word lists. But some inconsistencies were noted; some errors were recognized in the published texts; and some questions arose that were not answered in the word lists, where those answers are fundamental to the meanings of words. The new policy endeavors to provide official resolution to these questions, and to correct noted errors.</blockquote>

And for the byfy:
<blockquote>The primary task of the language design commission (banpla fuzykamni) will be to complete brief definitions of the cmavo. The target date for this effort shall be 15 May 2003, in order for consideration by the members at the annual meeting of 2003; if that target date cannot be met, then the member ratification of the final baseline declaration will be delayed until the following year. It is intended that this effort shall take priority over work on other tasks charged to the byfy.

The secondary task of the byfy will be to define, with place structures, between 100 and 500 lujvo including those most frequently used in actual text. Some portion of these lujvo should be words fitting the patterns of the jvojva as described in The Complete Lojban Language, and some should be explicitly chosen as examples of naturalistic or metaphoric lujvo that cannot be predicted based on jvojva. The format for place structure definitions will use conventions in the manner of the jvojva examples in The Complete Lojban Language.

The tertiary task of the byfy will be to define with place structures a small number of example fu'ivla from multiple fields, and to prepare a small list of validated Lojbanized cmene from a variety of source languages.

The final task of the byfy will be to consider other proposals for justified changes to the various baseline documents based on the following principles: </blockquote>
[there then follow several guidelines for change which I will list below]

As stated, it should be clear that the byfy should NOT be considering any proposals for changes to the baseline documents (which fall under the final task) UNTIL it has finished the primary, secondary, and tertiary tasks.  On this basis alone, I am implacably against any votes to make such changes at this point, and for that reason I have opposed the issues that Nick is currently polling, which assume that such changes are in order; they aren't.  They all lose track of the byfy's primary job, which is hardly started, and which seems to be no ones real priority, as people seem more interested in debating the changes than in defining the status quo.  I have thus threatened blanket opposition to all changes that I would consider part of the final task, while the baseline as-is remains undefined.

This does not mean that I will blanket veto all changes, should they come up at the appropriate time when byfy gets to the final task.  I ran LLG on a consensus basis for 16+ years; I have no desire nor intention to tear LLG apart by refusing to practice consensus.  But I insist that byfy do its first assigned job FIRST.  I'm sorry if this sounds obstructionist, but I want that first job done - finishing that job was what &gt;I&lt; needed in order to support a byfy that would consider changes to the baseline.  Moreover, my commitment to the existing baseline is such that I simply cannot consider changes to the baseline until we are agreed as to what that baseline IS, so that I have some grasp over the full scope of all the proposals to modify that baseline.

In particular, I see this problem with the piecemeal issue-by-issue scheme presently being practiced:  I cannot in good conscience support a change which by its approval sets a precedent for approving similar changes, when I don't know what and how many such changes are being proposed overall (which seems to be the case now).  Voting on each change in isolation, without knowing what other issues will come up, and without the existing baseline having been fully examined, seems to me to encourage open-ended and unlimited change, perhaps even snowballing in scope as each little change that is accepted loosens the commitment to the status quo a little bit more (despite the fact that I accept Nick's principled conservatism as probably the best policy for the byfy in the long term, and would probably have little trouble supporting him on nearly all issues if byfy priorities are honored).

The difference between defining the status quo (the primary task) and considering necessary changes (the final task) is made clear in the guidelines for the latter:
<blockquote>Because all portions of the language (except for the lujvo, fu'ivla and cmene lists) have been under a preliminary baseline, the status quo is presumed by default.

In the event of inconsistencies, the published printed text of The Complete Lojban Language, will take precedence by default.

The published gismu and cmavo lists will be presumed as valid, by default. The byfy can choose at its discretion whether to abide by the intent of earlier language designers or by the strict wording used, and can add clarification or modify the wording based on its decisions.

The byfy will have the power to correct typographical errors, to resolve contradictions and inconsistencies (including any that are internal to the reference grammar), and to expand upon the text of word definitions in order to clarify meaning.</blockquote>

Up to here, we are clearly talking "status quo".  Thereafter in the guidelines, we are talking "changes":
<blockquote>If usage has established a pattern clearly inconsistent with the existing documents, but consistent with the design goals for the language, the byfy reviewers will have the power to approve changes to the baseline to reflect that usage. A critical goal is to preserve the fundamental design goal that Lojban words have a unitary and self-consistent meaning. Thus, if multiple meanings for a word have emerged in actual Lojban text, the byfy shall select one meaning, justifying any change from the default. Usage based on alternate meanings shall not be acknowledged in the baseline documentation, and are formally discouraged by LLG. Usage patterns cannot be established on the basis of only one or two individuals, however prolific; they must represent the practice of a plurality of competent Lojbanists.

If formal logical analysis is inconsistent with either usage or the documented status quo, the byfy may consider adding a brief note to this effect.

Reflecting the desire of the community for language stability, the byfy will prefer a position as close as possible to the status quo in case of uncertainty. </blockquote>

Now it seems quite clear to me that adding new cmavo, while a "position as close as possible to the status quo" is still a change to the status quo.  I am thus not willing to accept Nick's conjoining of cmavo additions as part of the status quo (see support for this in the baseline statement quotes on cmavo additions below).  I thus voted against that portion of Nick's poll, although I would likely accept a tri-partite division into status-quo, cmavo additions, and other changes, if it tracked with the text below.

It has been pointed out that there are some cmavo that are so vague, that the status quo definition will not be adequate.  I accept this possibility, but I don't think we can make any tough decisions until we have gone down the list above:  CLL by default, then word lists, with the byfy choosing between literalism and the supplicatory model, correcting typos, and then resolving any self-contradictions.

Note that the procedures for defining the baseline described above are not "changes" - it is only "changes" that require "consensus-1" agreement.  Defining the status quo baseline can use some less stringent procedure, if it is necessary, though I think consistency recommends consensus-1 for that as well.

My counterproposal to Nick's methodology in the current vote is outlined as follows:
0. Nick comes up with a cmavo definition according to the status quo, meeting the standard of the baseline policy, and his own standards for clarity of definition, examples of usage, and support.  All shepherds must strive to emulate that standard so as to minimize editing of the resulting document.  If this example requires a change page to CLL (see below), all the better to serve as an example.

1. Each shepherd comes up with the status quo definition for each cmavo within his paradigm.  The definition should be accompanied by discussion showing how that definition was derived: from CLL, word lists, or whatever.  The shepherd suggests wording to resolve any contradictions, and poses supplicatory model questions to me and other "old designers".  (I would like to see such supplicatory model questions in a separate "paradigm" so that we can clearly see which questions these are - they may take a fair amount of research and debate, and right now these questions are getting lost in the current paradigms without us "supplicatory respondents" even noting that we have questions to research and answer - if you really care that we answer a question, you need to make sure that we know you've asked it).

2. If usage does not track with the status quo definition, or if there is agreement that the status quo is broken, THEN proposals are made for changes.  Discussion of these changes even to the extent of straw polls is out-of-order until the status quo baseline is defined EXCEPT to the extent that discussing changes helps us clarify what the status quo is.

3. Each cmavo definition gets voted on with three options: "adequately defines the status quo and acceptable", "adequately defines the status quo but may need changing", and "inadequately defines the status quo".

4. By the time all the cmavo have been status-quo defined, we should have a set of ideas for baseline changes to be considered.  These can then be gone through in an order determined by the byfy chair.  At this point, for example, cmavo additions can be considered as lesser changes than revisions, per Nick's recent proposal, and handled first.  I believe that the byfy chair should determine the order, rather than having shepherds posting polls at will, so as to structure the debate to maximize deciding what is easy to decide, and to keep related issues together even when they cross paradigms.

5. Before a proposal is voted on, it must be written up to at least the standard of the baseline statement.  that means that we need a rationale for the change, the definition(s) as they would be if the change is adopted consistent with step 0 and 1 above, AND the final two guidelines for byfy from the baseline statement:
<blockquote>Changes will be documented, including the text of the change, the nature of the change as typo or other correction, expansion of definition, conflict resolution, elimination of inconsistency, or reflection of usage, and the rationale justifying the change (including examples of usage). A collection of multiple related changes (such as typographical corrections), provided that all are accepted by consensus, may be combined in one change record.
Any decision of the byfy which would affect the text of the reference grammar (including the formal grammar and EBNF in the appendices), shall be documented as an erratum to that document. When the final baseline is declared, a complete set of approved errata will be published by LLG, and insofar as it is possible, LLG will consider producing a set of PDF-form pages which could be inserted in a copy of the existing book. </blockquote>
I have seen no sign that ANY shepherd has written up a single cmavo definition for the baseline dictionary, or defined a single change page to the reference grammar; without a definition of the status quo, the documentation of a change to the status quo is impossible.  The definitions and the FORMAL change descriptions are the two "deliverables" that byfy is supposed to be producing, and I want le jatna to keep us focused on producing those deliverables.  I don't think I am alone in wanting this - I specifically note that Robin Powell and a couple others have asked what byfy is producing and when, and I was disappointed when le jatna could not answer the question, even though it was laid out in the charter that we all approved.

I cannot support a final vote on any change issue that is not documented in accordance with the policy above.  Nick's proposals do not clearly require documentation in accordance with that policy as quoted, and I cannot therefore support them.

On the other hand, once we've documented according to step 5, if all the other stuff has been done, most of Nick's proposals for how to conduct the vote would be far more acceptable to me than they are today.  I am concerned about the 2-week vote, but will not go into it at length; I would rather that polls be opened, and kept open until the whole mess is done: this allows one of the fundamental methods of consensus - the horse-trade (I'll support X if you support Y).  Only when one issue is defined as dependent on the resolution of another issue, does a vote on the latter need to be closed early - again this is a reason for le jatna to structure the voting.

I will close by citing the portions dealing with adding cmavo.  I don't have anything to say about them other than to summarize them; they are clear upon rereading to be changes to the baseline with a clear set of "degrees of change" from lesser to greater:

1. assigning a non-experimental cmavo definition to an experimental cmavo that has seen significant usage.

2. resolving a conflict in an existing definition to a cmavo by splitting it into multiple cmavo within non-experimental space

3. freeing xVV and other experimental cmavo space for non-experimental use

4. adding new selma'o or otherwise changing the formal grammar for selma'o, and producing a new YACC'd parser (note that the policy is clear that the YACC grammar remains the standard, and not the EBNF)

<blockquote>Note: the byfy will, as part of the process of documenting the cmavo list, have the authority to assign meanings to unused cmavo. These assignments will be for two purposes:

If an experimental cmavo has seen significant actual usage by multiple skilled users of the language during the last 5 years, the byfy may assign a cmavo in non-experimental space to that usage, recognizing that the usage is no longer experimental.

If multiple conflicting interpretations of the meaning or usage of a particular cmavo exist, the byfy may select one of these meanings as the standard one, and assign the other meaning(s) or usage(s) to other unused cmavo in non-experimental space.

Recognizing that most experimental cmavo in current use have been of the CVVV form, the byfy will have the authority, if it runs out of unused cmavo space in implementing a and b above, to move the xVV cmavo space out of the experimental realm and assign that as well. This however is a more significant change than merely adding cmavo, and should be thoroughly justified.

Newly assigned cmavo shall utilize only existing selma'o, since a baseline change to the formal grammar such as would be needed to handle a new selma'o would require the highest level of justification, and shouldn't be considered unless a serious error or conflict is identified as part of the work of the byfy.

We note that there is one case that has been identified where the formal grammar and the text of the reference grammar conflict in a minor way. The byfy will have the responsibility to resolve such conflicts. The Board leaves to the discretion of a consensus of the byfy whether to consider additional grammar rules that are consistent with usage and with design goals, do not conflict with any existing standard, and can be successfully YACCed, such as the ongoing discussion of ka'enai; a new official parser must be created if any changes are approved (additional cmavo assignments will require a new parser as well). The requirement for consensus and full documentation will make such changes difficult enough that the Board does not fear that any changes approved will be excessive or unwarranted.

Experimental usages will not appear in the baseline lexicon. The editor of the official dictionary publication will have the discretion to include an appendix documenting experiments that have seen significant usage, noting the fact that these experiments are not officially approved.</blockquote>

lojbab
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-07-31 20:45:40
   post_text:

<blockquote>I want to revisit the baseline statement, with its charter for the byfy, because I think people have lost focus on what the current job of the byfy is, and this is skewing decision-making about how to do that job.  Note that I believe that it is NOT within the charter of the byfy to make any modifications to the policies in the baseline statement.</blockquote>

Without having read the rest yet, I want to point out that enough people believe that the gadri are completely broken that if the byfy can't recommend *any* changes to the baseline document (there's only one, remember), we might as well all go home.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-07-31 22:09:23
   post_text:

I think we are able to fix the gadri errors with experimental cmavo. Since their existence lies well within the baseline, no act of the BF is actually required to define them. The only one that might require some discussion might be "lo", and whether or not it can be understood to mean "any".
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-08-01 08:48:44
   post_text:

I thought Lojbab's views temperate & well-argued, but overtly based on a premise I cannot accept:

<blockquote>My implicit overall objection is to the apparent concept that the existing baseline is so ill-defined that there are NO parts of it which can be satisfactorily defined without the byfy considering changes to the status quo.  Debate seems to be proceeding on that basis, and I am profoundly disappointed if people really think this is true.</blockquote>

Ironically, it was you that convinced me of the utter inadequacy of the baseline and that destroyed my residual confidence in it. This was in debates we had in which it seemed to me that in response to attempts to cite the baseline to support some position you opposed, you would always find some way to interpret the baseline differently and cast doubt as to what it truly said. Before this, I had merely thought the baseline incomplete as a definition; afterwards, I had been convinced that it was worthless if treated legalistically as a 'legislative' document.

So, while it seems to me to be viable for the BF to take a conservative stance by default, it seems impossible to distinguish between what is truly part of the baseline and what isn't, and any attempt to do so will mire us in the petty minutiae of scriptural interpretation.

I want to make clear that I'm not agitating for a BF as I would wish it to be, since the goals of the BF aren't mine, & I have no real stake in the outcome. I'm simply stating how, as I see it, things can and can't work.

A final point. The people actually actively contributing to the BF are largely nonconservatives and are happy with sufficiently well-motivated changes to the baseline.  I think that conservatives need to think through why it is that the people willing and able to do BF work are nonconservative and how it can be possible to have a rigidly conservative BF composed of such people.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-08-03 11:04:29
   post_text:

Well.

First, I've been burned out and reluctant to get back into the bpfk; and Bob ain't exactly encouraging me back in. I could flame him more, but that wouldn't achieve anything.

Second, Bob has a notion that definition of cmavo can proceed, in toto, without any discussion or proposal of change to any existing paradigm. I am now surprised to find that's what I've signed onto, and that the "primary, secondary, tertiary" in the baseline statement are taken to be temporal sequence rather than mere ordering of relative importance (I want to emphasise that) --- or that the deliverable of the definition of all cmavo would not include changes from the existing cmavo. In fact, I thought the whole point of our lengthly discussion on the board, and of the need to relax the baseline while the bpfk did its work, was that such cmavo definitions would necessarily involve change to the baseline, even if it were only additive --- and I now don't see how it could be. I frankly don't think that Bob's ordering understanding --- no discussion of changes before all definitions of status quo are complete --- is tenable, and I think my proposal is the only one that can placate both constituencies: document and vote on what is not in conflict with the existing baseline now, resolve what may turn out to be in conflict later.

I am not seeking schism on either side, but I've already flamed Bob and Nora royally in attempting to document fa'a, and I will not promise not to do so again: too much of the existing baseline *is* muddled, and I find myself exasperated that I have to define, let alone defend, something parts of which make no sense to me. And if Bob is disappointed that Lojbanists should think so, why, he should be disappointed at the authors of the baseline first. We will not think the baseline coherent by fiat. If we are missing some inherent coherence in the baseline, then it is the founders' DUTY to tell us what that coherence is, and to defend their design decisions. Remember: the bpfk is set up to be conservative, but not to accept the status quo without explicit justification.

To And, who thinks the decision of conflict with baseline is scripturalism: I will not allow that to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The decision of what is and isn't compatible with existing baseline shall not be Bob's, and shall not be lawyered; it shall be the the shepherd's, with bpfk Chair's overview, and subject to bpfk consensus --- with the understanding that when in doubt, we deem the matter to be baseline-conflicting. If we don't wait till the very end to discuss baseline-conflicting proposals, but say 3 or 6 months, or at some schedule to be negotiated issue by issue, then so be it; but we must identify areas of minimal controversy, and produce something.

I have no fear of people proposing changes, and I shall not impede them. I have no fear, because I know that the structure in place is conservative; and this is something I have gotten the reformists to accede to, I believe. But the minute anyone says "implacable" about anything, I will not play ball with them. That's not what the bpfk is about.

Now, I will admit culpability in that I haven't kept things on track as much as I might. (Not that anyone should be under the allusion that this is easy to do.) But I repudiate the notion that noone in the bpfk has done the definitional task required: Arnt pretty much has, as has Jorge for all of his paradigms but the bits where he had his own reformist agenda :-1/2 ; and if things ever get started again, Arnt's is the paradigm we will start with. And we need to establish what we're doing in the commission, and what we're about in order to be able to keep doing so. Bob's intervention may (*may*) have been necessary to get us to refocus; but it has also disrupted what the bpfk has been doing, and I remain unhappy about it.

In fact, forget unhappy; I am too outright angry right now to consider Bob's counterproposal --- although something tells me we will end up having to do something like this anyway: if for no other reason then because it is one way of countering people's reluctance to remember state between baseline-compliant and baseline-violating proposals. So I will let others step up on this first.

But there is a very specific issue in Bob's point 1 that I have to air in the open now, because it's been at the back of all this for too long. This is not just about conservatism; this is power and the perception of it. What enrages me most (and I am not proud to admit this, but I have to lay my cards on the table) is my perception that Bob expects deference of me, or to prove my bonafides to him. Bob may well not intend that, but that's how it comes across. (I remind him "Supplication" is an ironic coinage; indeed, John coined it with the comment that this is a model that should "die in the arse", as it has demonstrably failed to work in the past. It's a term that should be used carefully, especially by the "supplicatee". And in my current temper, I cannot view positively his request that things be made easier for the Founders by putting requests in a separate forum --- even if the request is reasonable, and I will likely end up doing it: founders have the same responsibility to stay tuned to what goes on in this forum as other commissioners.)

All of us have only the honour we have earned in Lojban, and none of us have to prove anything. We are all working, each in our own way, for the good of the language. We will find a way of working together, or we will have schism. At this stage, I don't know which will happen. I know that if there is schism, both factions can go to perdition as far as I'm concerned: I will not have anything to do with a language that casts out either half of it. My duty is to avert schism. But that is a duty that weighs on conservatives no less than reformists.

The compromise I may propose if I calm down is that the initial document for any paradigm can contain already proposals for fixes and changes --- as long as they are clearly delimited from the rest of the text, and the paradigm contains some attempt to describe the baseline status quo, whether it makes sense to the shepherd or not. But to ban shepherds from saying "this needs fixing" before they go cap in hand to the Founders -- that is untenable, and I will not support it. My reformist selbaumi'u have been doing the honourable thing by the bpfk --- even if their support of it is at times equivocal. In return, I have fettered them with a demand for consensus, as I am obliged to, and as they recognise. I shall not compound that with a gag.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-08-03 11:37:00
   post_text:

<blockquote>Without having read the rest yet, I want to point out that enough people believe that the gadri are completely broken that if the byfy can't recommend *any* changes to the baseline document (there's only one, remember), we might as well all go home.</blockquote>

Bob's referring to the board's statement on the baseline, not the baseline itself, and that any vote the bpfk takes on how the baseline is to be administered does not take priortity over what the board decided.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-08-04 07:59:28
   post_text:

<blockquote>Bob's referring to the board's statement on the baseline, not the baseline itself, and that any vote the bpfk takes on how the baseline is to be administered does not take priortity over what the board decided.</blockquote>

Bob's concern is misplaced, however, because I am not calling for the bpfk to vote on how the baseline is administered, or what the board baseline statement covers, but my own guidelines on how the bpfk is run.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-08-06 11:30:07
   post_text:

The motions have passed, except for the division between baseline-preserving and baseline-violating, and the delay on baseline-violating. And I emphasise that since the division did not pass, I must take it that people either want everything decided right away, or nothing decided right away.

Our impasse therefore remains, and will remain until a different compromise can be reached. Since my current notion of compromise involves bastinados and two prominent Lojbanists, I insist that someone else get the ball rolling. Though I feel I'm being held hostage by a perverse interpretation of the board statement, it seems the only solution is to capitulate, and have no deciding now, but full documentation. I will insist on the right to simultaneous (even if separate) proposal of fixes, though. Anything else strikes me as an insult to my intelligence.

I'm giving you another week. By that time, if noone else bothers, I will impersonate Wile E. Coyote yet again...
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-08-06 14:45:27
   post_text:

<blockquote>The motions have passed, except for the division between baseline-preserving and baseline-violating, and the delay on baseline-violating. And I emphasise that since the division did not pass, I must take it that people either want everything decided right away, or nothing decided right away.

Our impasse therefore remains,</blockquote>

I'm sorry, I understand neither your interpretation nor your statement of impasse.

The BPKF has voted that they see no substantive *administrative* difference between -preserving and -violation.  Note that lack of adminstrative difference does not mean that both will be treated the same by the members WRT their decision to vote.

Great, that's settled.  Can we fucking get *on* with it now, please?

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: xorxes
   post_time: 2003-08-06 14:54:40
   post_text:

<blockquote>
The BPKF has voted that they see no substantive *administrative* difference between -preserving and -violation.  Note that lack of adminstrative difference does not mean that both will be treated the same by the members WRT their decision to vote.

Great, that's settled.  Can we fucking get *on* with it now, please?

-Robin</blockquote>

I second the motion.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-08-06 15:09:01
   post_text:

<blockquote>The BPKF has voted that they see no substantive *administrative* difference between -preserving and -violation.  Note that lack of adminstrative difference does not mean that both will be treated the same by the members WRT their decision to vote.  </blockquote>

That's how I see things too. I don't understand what the impasse is either.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-08-08 11:44:46
   post_text:

*tries to keep from blowing a gasket*

We have a conflict of interpretation. Under my original interpretation, we vote as we go. I didn't see an enthusiastic clamour for that here; everyone pretty much said yeah, we might need to wait a bit on some, to consider things together, otherwise we'll forget things or have to undo votes on things. Under Bob's interpretation, any vote before the bitter end violates the charter. I do not feel like expelling the Founder of the language from the commission, and I see a very good reason not to vote on everything as we go; I don't think that's what people want.

I see this as an impasse, which I still think needs to be resolved by treating some votes differently administratively. (Remember, the BPFK didn't vote to conflate; it failed to achieve 2/3 majority --- but over half of it did vote to distinguish. Failure to pass a motion means reverting to the status quo; the catch being, right now, it's not clear WTF the status quo is.

But if the vote means that 2/3 want to start voting on issues right away, then hey, maybe I'm completely wrong.

Am I? (And can I get *one* conservative to say something here on the subject? You're the constituency I'm supposed to be defending; do you even exist?!)
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-08-08 12:51:57
   post_text:

How about the following compromise?

We vote as we go, according to Nick's rules of time limits and participation.

We can change our votes any time until the end. (But only if we voted first time round.)

If a later proposal directly or indirectly entails reversal of an earlier decisive vote, the vote on the later proposal can include a revote on the earlier proposal.

Once the BF's work is done, and all votes have a winning majority, and nobody is changing their own votes, the final results of votes are declared official. This could be a messy process given that one's vote on issue X may very often depend on the outcome of the vote on issue Y, so the final process will require a fair bit of organizational effort and collective goodwill.


<blockquote>(And can I get *one* conservative to say something here on the subject? You're the constituency I'm supposed to be defending; do you even exist?!)</blockquote>

I second that. Is there any way you can send out a call on Lojban List or llg members for new commissioners? Something like "this is your chance to have your say and make sure that the community is well represented"? For currently, the total silence of all conservatives is making things extremely difficult: we have no proposals from conservatives, and no feedback from conservatives on proposals (except for one or two in one or two debates, such as Nora's contribution to the cmevla rule debate).
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: clsn
   post_time: 2003-08-08 14:22:18
   post_text:

<blockquote>*tries to keep from blowing a gasket*

We have a conflict of interpretation. Under my original interpretation, we vote as we go. I didn't see an enthusiastic clamour for that here; everyone pretty much said yeah, we might need to wait a bit on some, to consider things together, otherwise we'll forget things or have to undo votes on things. Under Bob's interpretation, any vote before the bitter end violates the charter. I do not feel like expelling the Founder of the language from the commission, and I see a very good reason not to vote on everything as we go; I don't think that's what people want.

I see this as an impasse, which I still think needs to be resolved by treating some votes differently administratively. (Remember, the BPFK didn't vote to conflate; it failed to achieve 2/3 majority --- but over half of it did vote to distinguish. Failure to pass a motion means reverting to the status quo; the catch being, right now, it's not clear WTF the status quo is.</blockquote>

The vote didn't allow us enough choices (not your fault; it was that way by design).  So people apparently like some sort of distinction, but not quite what was proposed.

I am, as I said, against delaying anything "until the end" on the simple grounds that "the end" can be a mighty long ways away.  I can see that baseline-affecting changes may have more far-reaching implications than other changes; maybe we should stipulate the ability to re-open them, or allow some delay to handle things we '''expect''' to affect them, if it won't take too long.

<blockquote>Am I? (And can I get *one* conservative to say something here on the subject? You're the constituency I'm supposed to be defending; do you even exist?!)</blockquote>

I don't know; am I a conservative?  Probably more so than some commissioners, and plainly less so than others.  Conservatism is well and good, but I don't see it as a reason to defend things that are '''broken''' in the baseline, but rather something to argue against changing more than is necessary to un-break things.

<blockquote>I second that. Is there any way you can send out a call on Lojban List or llg members for new commissioners? Something like "this is your chance to have your say and make sure that the community is well represented"?</blockquote>

If anything, the BPFK already has plenty of members.  Even if we didn't have the unanimity-1 rule, we would still need some sort of vague consensus, and the more people we have the harder it will be to achieve.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-08-08 15:42:52
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>I second that. Is there any way you can send out a call on Lojban List or llg members for new commissioners? Something like "this is your chance to have your say and make sure that the community is well represented"?</blockquote>

If anything, the BPFK already has plenty of members.  Even if we didn't have the unanimity-1 rule, we would still need some sort of vague consensus, and the more people we have the harder it will be to achieve.</blockquote>
True enough, but none of the active commissioners exhibit the kind of fanatical conservatism allegedly rampant in the community. In the current situation we're being exhorted to respect an ethos that most of us here are not in harmony with or on the same wavelength as, and there's nobody here to advocate or explain it, or even prove that it is as rampant as it is alleged to be.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-08-09 14:46:26
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>I second that. Is there any way you can send out a call on Lojban List or llg members for new commissioners? Something like "this is your chance to have your say and make sure that the community is well represented"?</blockquote>

If anything, the BPFK already has plenty of members.  Even if we didn't have the unanimity-1 rule, we would still need some sort of vague consensus, and the more people we have the harder it will be to achieve.</blockquote>
True enough, but none of the active commissioners exhibit the kind of fanatical conservatism allegedly rampant in the community. In the current situation we're being exhorted to respect an ethos that most of us here are not in harmony with or on the same wavelength as, and there's nobody here to advocate or explain it, or even prove that it is as rampant as it is alleged to be.</blockquote>

Indeed. It's well and good to give people a voice, but if people are going to fall asleep at the switch, they have squandered their right to complain when those who are on the ball pass measures they don't like. Right now we're treading too carefully. So long as we confine our discussions & decisions to public fora, as we have both here and on jboske, if anyone later wants to blame us for their having wandered off and missed events, we will collectively flip them the bird.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-08-10 03:30:11
   post_text:

<blockquote>And for the byfy:
<blockquote>The primary task of the language design commission (banpla fuzykamni) will be to complete brief definitions of the cmavo. The target date for this effort shall be 15 May 2003, in order for consideration by the members at the annual meeting of 2003; if that target date cannot be met, then the member ratification of the final baseline declaration will be delayed until the following year. It is intended that this effort shall take priority over work on other tasks charged to the byfy.

The secondary task of the byfy will be to define, with place structures, between 100 and 500 lujvo including those most frequently used in actual text. Some portion of these lujvo should be words fitting the patterns of the jvojva as described in The Complete Lojban Language, and some should be explicitly chosen as examples of naturalistic or metaphoric lujvo that cannot be predicted based on jvojva. The format for place structure definitions will use conventions in the manner of the jvojva examples in The Complete Lojban Language.

The tertiary task of the byfy will be to define with place structures a small number of example fu'ivla from multiple fields, and to prepare a small list of validated Lojbanized cmene from a variety of source languages.

The final task of the byfy will be to consider other proposals for justified changes to the various baseline documents based on the following principles: </blockquote>
[there then follow several guidelines for change which I will list below]

As stated, it should be clear that the byfy should NOT be considering any proposals for changes to the baseline documents (which fall under the final task) UNTIL it has finished the primary, secondary, and tertiary tasks.
</blockquote>

That last sentence is based on a definition of the words "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" that does not match their meaning in any dialect of English I am aware of.  I therefore feel no urge to read further.

While Merriam Webster does, in fact, say that those words can be used for time ordering rather than importance ordering, I have never heard them used such, and honestly have difficulty imagining that you actually believe that is what was meant, rather than are being stubborn.

Furthermore, if it indeed turns out that, say, the gadri solution requires extensions or changes to what the CLL says, it is *impossible* for the BPFK to complete the cmavo list before recommending changes to the CLL, because the cmavo list will implicitely do so.

I want to state, once again, for the record that I will not support any change to the CLL (quit talking about "the baseline documents", the CLL is the only one) until I am convinced that it is Really Necessary to have the change occur for the language to be as useful as we were all promised it was.  You're not the only conservative, but you *are* the only person who is being completely unreasonable and absolutely refusing to compromise.  It just makes you look bad.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-08-10 03:38:11
   post_text:

<blockquote>In particular, I see this problem with the piecemeal issue-by-issue scheme presently being practiced:  I cannot in good conscience support a change which by its approval sets a precedent for approving similar changes, when I don't know what and how many such changes are being proposed overall (which seems to be the case now).  Voting on each change in isolation, without knowing what other issues will come up, and without the existing baseline having been fully examined, seems to me to encourage open-ended and unlimited change, perhaps even snowballing in scope as each little change that is accepted loosens the commitment to the status quo a little bit more (despite the fact that I accept Nick's principled conservatism as probably the best policy for the byfy in the long term, and would probably have little trouble supporting him on nearly all issues if byfy priorities are honored).
</blockquote>

This is not the first time that you seem to be confused on the following point:

The BPFK has not voted on *ANYTHING*.  At *all*.

You do not have the right to criticize the BPFK's voting methods when no votes have occured.  Unless you want to look silly.

-Robin, reading Bob's amazingly long post piecemeal, because he doesn't have 2 hours at a sitting to do it.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-08-10 03:47:56
   post_text:

<blockquote>I have seen no sign that ANY shepherd has written up a single cmavo definition for the baseline dictionary, or defined a single change page to the reference grammar;
</blockquote>

Given that as soon as the ball got rolling, you stopped it, I have no idea why this surprises you.

<blockquote>I don't think I am alone in wanting this - I specifically note that Robin Powell and a couple others have asked what byfy is producing and when, and I was disappointed when le jatna could not answer the question, even though it was laid out in the charter that we all approved.
</blockquote>

Actually, I was quite satisfied with the response, which was basically, "Umm, I'm only one person, I can't do all the work myself, help or shut up.".

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Lojbab finally speaks
     subject: Re: Lojbab finally speaks
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-08-10 03:52:26
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>I don't think I am alone in wanting this - I specifically note that Robin Powell and a couple others have asked what byfy is producing and when, and I was disappointed when le jatna could not answer the question, even though it was laid out in the charter that we all approved.
</blockquote>

Actually, I was quite satisfied with the response, which was basically, "Umm, I'm only one person, I can't do all the work myself, help or shut up.".

-Robin</blockquote>

Actually, you know what, that gets to the heart of why the way you're acting pisses me off.

Instead of writing 30-page diatribes, why don't *YOU* produce the kind of cmavo definition you want to see, hmm?  Couldn't possibly take much longer, now could it?

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: nitcion
   post_time: 2003-08-11 01:40:46
   post_text:

<blockquote>How about the following compromise?</blockquote>

I should have stated explicitly that yes, votes can be revisited as more information comes to light; I expect multiple revotes, in fact. After all, the point is establishing consensus, not voting, and that's going to take a while. So I am agreed with And's proposal. Anything to get us moving again...

<blockquote>I second that. Is there any way you can send out a call on Lojban List or llg members for new commissioners?</blockquote>

As has been stated elsewhere, the numbers aren't the problem, the piping up is. I think I count as a conservative, but I'm also chair, and am revisionist on my own pet projects, so I don't necessarily count.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: arj
   post_time: 2003-08-13 16:49:02
   post_text:

<blockquote>
(And can I get *one* conservative to say something here on the subject? You're the constituency I'm supposed to be defending; do you even exist?!)</blockquote>

You got it.

I do not have very strong opinions on the preserving/violating issue, but here is why I voted yes on 3 and 5. The viewpoint of *one* conservative follows:

While I agree that "primary", "secondary", etc. in the charter does not refer to the temporal order of completion, it appears that if things are left to themselves, people will do the things in any way they please. (I know I do!) Things that are postponed to the very end, will tend to be done more poorly, due to the lack of energy and incentive.

It is even more important to deal with dependencies between separate issues. While we could of course revote if we discover that two solutions on separate matters are conflicting, I don't think that's the most efficient way. I think dependency conflicts will be much easier to resolve if we start with the obvious and rock-solid, work our way up through the parts of the CLL that is slightly muddy and needs clarification, until we end up with things that really needs to be changed (ie. baseline-violating proposals).

Someone (clsn, I believe) mentioned that this would lead to most people having forgotten what we had been talking about in cases when votes had to be postponed because of the "violating proposals last" rule. But I don't think that it is of any major importance that the ''discussions'' that led to the proposals need to be fresh in memory in order to cast a sound vote. Maybe I'm underestimating the complexity of some of these issues, but the final proposals ought to be able to speak for themselves.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-08-13 17:00:03
   post_text:

As a user, Arnt, you probably like me want to deal with the larger issues first, and defer the issues of less impact, so that we have a usable language as soon as possible. I can't write any serious text in Lojban while the gadri are broken, for instance, while other issues remaining in dispute for another year would not inhibit me from usage. Also since our energy is limited, and there is a chance of burnout .ii, then we should make sure the major problems are fixed before anyone does burnout da'i.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: arj
   post_time: 2003-08-13 17:13:19
   post_text:

<blockquote>As a user, Arnt, you probably like me want to deal with the larger issues first, and defer the issues of less impact, so that we have a usable language as soon as possible.</blockquote>
You are assuming that changes take effect as soon as they have been voted on. I hope this is not the case, because if it does, we have a language that changes from day to day. Not Good.

.i ji'a mi na birti lo du'u la lojban. na pilno kakne .i da'i mi ja'a go'i .inaja mi na pilno la lojban.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-08-13 17:18:06
   post_text:

It depends on what you mean by "changes". I sure as heck am not going to wait several years to start using unbroken gadri; in fact, if there is a decent scheme written up, I'll start using it instantly, even if the BF were to, hypothetically, vote to maintain the status quo (presumably via 2 vetoes or such).
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Sept 2003: What is happening?
     subject: Sept 2003: What is happening?
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-09-10 14:10:04
   post_text:

What is happening with the BF? We were supposed to be having discussions involving participants of all stripes, constituted in such a way that the participation of conservatives would serve to curb the proclivities of progressives, with Nick making sure that the whole enterprise was making progress on the task the BF was mandated to accomplish.

Yet the participation from conservatives has never materialized, and Nick has gone silent. The BF is inactive and makes no progress, and meanwhile those progressives still active race ever further ahead making so much progress (in terms of their own agenda) that it would be increasingly hard to rein them back from it.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Sept 2003: What is happening?
     subject: Re: Sept 2003: What is happening?
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-09-10 14:15:31
   post_text:

<blockquote>What is happening with the BF? We were supposed to be having discussions involving participants of all stripes, constituted in such a way that the participation of conservatives would serve to curb the proclivities of progressives, with Nick making sure that the whole enterprise was making progress on the task the BF was mandated to accomplish.

Yet the participation from conservatives has never materialized, and Nick has gone silent. The BF is inactive and makes no progress, and meanwhile those progressives still active race ever further ahead making so much progress (in terms of their own agenda) that it would be increasingly hard to rein them back from it.</blockquote>

For my own part, I think we have plenty of conservatives, but I seem to be in the minority in that POV.  In fact, I consider *myself* quite conservative.

I think the point that's being lost is that there are some changes that even the conservatives, like me, feel are necessary to get the language we believed we always had in the first place.

As far as Nick goes, I for one am trying to give him the space to get to a point where he wants to be involved again.

In the mean time, I hope he understands how important he is to us, and that we care about his feelings and his need for some downtime.

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Sept 2003: What is happening?
     subject: Re: Sept 2003: What is happening?
    username: And
   post_time: 2003-09-10 19:56:51
   post_text:

<blockquote><blockquote>What is happening with the BF? We were supposed to be having discussions involving participants of all stripes, constituted in such a way that the participation of conservatives would serve to curb the proclivities of progressives, with Nick making sure that the whole enterprise was making progress on the task the BF was mandated to accomplish.

Yet the participation from conservatives has never materialized, and Nick has gone silent. The BF is inactive and makes no progress, and meanwhile those progressives still active race ever further ahead making so much progress (in terms of their own agenda) that it would be increasingly hard to rein them back from it.</blockquote>

For my own part, I think we have plenty of conservatives, but I seem to be in the minority in that POV.  In fact, I consider *myself* quite conservative.

I think the point that's being lost is that there are some changes that even the conservatives, like me, feel are necessary to get the language we believed we always had in the first place.</blockquote>

We've plenty of conservatives but not ones active in the work of the BF.

I do understand that many people, such as you and Nick, don't want gratuituous change, but want enough change as is necessary to get the grammar onto a sound footing. The problem as I see it is that the people doing most of the work towards achieving the sound footing have a comparatively liberal interpretation of what counts as gratuitous change.

<blockquote>
As far as Nick goes, I for one am trying to give him the space to get to a point where he wants to be involved again.

In the mean time, I hope he understands how important he is to us, and that we care about his feelings and his need for some downtime.
</blockquote>

Absolutely I share in wishing Nick well & am happy for him to have all the downtime he needs. I wasn't speaking with reproach: I was just wondering what was happening. If Nick announced that he was taking time off & that the BF would be in hiatus while he is away, then I missed the announcement.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: Sept 2003: What is happening?
     subject:
    username: xod
   post_time: 2003-09-12 14:56:10
   post_text:

The work of the "progressives" has not yet been submitted for BF consideration, and therefore is no concern to it (yet). But Dr. Rosta should be commended as he has in his labors remained cognizant of and influenced by conservative impulses in the community, despite their proponents' recent lack of attention and participation in the discussions currently in process on jboske and the wiki.
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-09-16 15:02:47
   post_text:

<blockquote>*tries to keep from blowing a gasket*

We have a conflict of interpretation. Under my original interpretation, we vote as we go.</blockquote>

*enthusiastic clamour*

-Robin
----
  forum_name: Meta-BPFK
 topic_title: To undo the logjam
     subject:
    username: rlpowell
   post_time: 2003-09-16 15:08:22
   post_text:

<blockquote>How about the following compromise?

We vote as we go, according to Nick's rules of time limits and participation.

We can change our votes any time until the end. (But only if we voted first time round.)

If a later proposal directly or indirectly entails reversal of an earlier decisive vote, the vote on the later proposal can include a revote on the earlier proposal.

Once the BF's work is done, and all votes have a winning majority, and nobody is changing their own votes, the final results of votes are declared official. This could be a messy process given that one's vote on issue X may very often depend on the outcome of the vote on issue Y, so the final process will require a fair bit of organizational effort and collective goodwill.
</blockquote>

That's a lovely idea.

<blockquote>
<blockquote>(And can I get *one* conservative to say something here on the subject? You're the constituency I'm supposed to be defending; do you even exist?!)</blockquote>

I second that. Is there any way you can send out a call on Lojban List or llg members for new commissioners? Something like "this is your chance to have your say and make sure that the community is well represented"? For currently, the total silence of all conservatives is making things extremely difficult: we have no proposals from conservatives, and no feedback from conservatives on proposals (except for one or two in one or two debates, such as Nora's contribution to the cmevla rule debate).</blockquote>

Done.

-Robin