LLG 2018 Annual Meeting Transcript

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

karis [ 2018-09-27T03:45:33Z ]

   karis a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2018-09-27T04:40:54Z ]

   krtisfranks a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-09-27T04:40:54Z ]

   lagleki a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-09-27T04:40:54Z ]

   mukti a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-09-27T04:40:54Z ]

   lojbab a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-09-27T04:41:33Z ]

   banseljaj a été ajouté au canal par karis.

phma [ 2018-09-27T07:04:08Z ]

   phma a rejoint le canal.

fatci [ 2018-09-27T08:04:58Z ]

   zmiku a rejoint le canal.

lojbab [ 2018-09-28T18:12:57Z ]

   john.cowan a été ajouté au canal par lojbab.

lojbab [ 2018-09-28T18:12:58Z ]

   veion a été ajouté au canal par lojbab.

lojbab [ 2018-09-28T18:12:58Z ]

   xorxes a été ajouté au canal par lojbab.

lojbab [ 2018-09-28T18:12:58Z ]

   guskant a été ajouté au canal par lojbab.

lojbab [ 2018-09-28T18:12:58Z ]

   noras a été ajouté au canal par lojbab.

lojbab [ 2018-09-28T18:17:50Z ]

   I don't know everyone's "handle" on this forum.  Someone who is familiar with many lojban handles might want to click on "invite others to this channel" and go down the list adding anyone you recognize by the handle as being a voting member. (There is a list of current members on the Lojban web page somewhere, which may or may not be current, but is probably a good place to start since anyone who Mattermost associates with the Lojban account is apparently on the list from which you can invite people).

karis [ 2018-09-30T19:59:21Z ]

   Would @all please make the name listed for this channel match tour name in lojban. Thank you. 

fatci [ 2018-09-30T20:42:25Z ]

   (I'm not an LLG member, for those who are counting)

lojbab [ 2018-09-30T21:32:39Z ]

   Could you explain to people how one would change the name listed for a channel?  I presumed that the name listed is the username we used to create an account with Framateam in  order to log on, and I have no idea how one might change that (other than to create a new user log in  which would then have to be invited/added (by someone else?) to this channel).  And of course anyone linked in from Facebook or some other platform would probably be stuck with whatever procedures apply to those platforms for changing ones handle.

lojbab [ 2018-09-30T21:57:07Z ]

   I attempted to find the answer to my question, and in effect found that there is no answer.  In the settings, which can be gotten to from the menu displayed if you click on those three bars in the upper left, you can apparently enter/change your username, a nickname, and your full name (presumably first/middle/last name).  Then on a different screen there is an option to change how everyone *else* appears in these discussions, with the options being username, nickname, or first name and last name  But of course someone would have had to enter those fields on the other page in order to have anything other than your username available to be displayed.  So karis can attempt to show everyone's lojban name on her own screen by choosing either nickname or firstname/lastname.  But that only works if everyone is on Framateam and they all choose the same field to write their lojban name in (which might be any of the three possibilities.  The difficulty of this is increased by the links to other platforms.  The "lojban" channel on the 27th for me has our Russian LLG member listed as "lagleki" at the 2nd entry, as "gleki" in numerous replies associated with "vecusku" which I think is his mechanism for creating a bridge to this channel from some other platform, and then "Gleki Arxokuna" in his replies from Facebook and Messenger (I think Messenger is actually part of Facebook, so it uses his Facebook handle).  I doubt that there is a way to change what is sent from all of those other platforms as the name label.

karis [ 2018-10-01T04:03:26Z ]

   Thanks, @zmiku. 

phma [ 2018-10-01T21:03:54Z ]

   dei cipra

greg_g [ 2018-10-01T21:23:27Z ]

   greg_g a rejoint le canal.

gleki [ 2018-10-03T07:27:25Z ]

   The only way for a bridge to match names is to manually write out mapping at server side of the bridge

gleki [ 2018-10-03T07:27:40Z ]

   BTW this channel is not bridged

jacus [ 2018-10-03T23:51:27Z ]

   jacus a rejoint le canal.

mukti [ 2018-10-04T14:12:34Z ]

   Perhaps we should include in the roll call a request to identify oneself with one's name as recorded in the membership list.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:30:15Z ]

   That sounds like an excellent idea. 

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:32:53Z ]

   I thought bridging the board meeting was a test for doing this one. 

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:04Z ]

   djeikon a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:04Z ]

   apieum a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:04Z ]

   dersaidin a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:04Z ]

   and a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:04Z ]

   bookofportals a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:05Z ]

   gejyspa a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:05Z ]

   la-robotin-daiter a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:05Z ]

   lalxu a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:05Z ]

   oddmint a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:05Z ]

   porocyon a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:06Z ]

   ueslis a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:49:06Z ]

   vecusku a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:53:33Z ]

   Welcome, everyone!
   
   At this time, 16:50 GMT on October 4, 2018, I, President of the Logical Language Group, hereby call the 2018 Members Meeting to order.

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:55:43Z ]

   As people are still actively joining Mattermost for this meeting I would like to take the next several days for the
   
   ROLL CALL
   
   Please, would everyone please state that you are present and provide the name you use in the lojban community. Thank you. 

karis [ 2018-10-04T16:57:09Z ]

   @channel ^^

banseljaj [ 2018-10-04T18:16:00Z ]

   Ali Sajid Imami / banseljaj, here.

banseljaj [ 2018-10-04T18:17:05Z ]

   Ali Sajid Imami / banseljaj, here.

karis [ 2018-10-04T18:25:51Z ]

   Thanks. The name request was mostly because some people have login names different from their lojbanic one. The latter is generally what others know. 

xorxes [ 2018-10-04T20:43:52Z ]

   mi zvati mi'e xorxes

phma [ 2018-10-04T20:57:07Z ]

   mi zvati mi'e .piier.

noras [ 2018-10-04T23:56:19Z ]

   mi'e noras. .i mi jundi

lojbab [ 2018-10-04T23:57:17Z ]

   mi jundi mi'e lojbab

veion [ 2018-10-05T03:24:36Z ]

   mi zvati mi'e veion

gleki [ 2018-10-06T06:43:58Z ]

   No since most for other messengers a new invite link would have to be advertised.so reusing existing channels would be much more fruitful. Don't multiply entities says Occam

karis [ 2018-10-07T03:08:25Z ]

   That seems silly. This will probably be the most active of the three by far. 

gleki [ 2018-10-07T05:53:45Z ]

   Simply create one channel. if it becomes very active split it into two. Currently u create dead channels. After each move you lose people.

gleki [ 2018-10-07T05:54:37Z ]

   I will move the bridge of llg members to this channel but pls archive the old channel

karis [ 2018-10-08T03:13:48Z ]

   The other channel remains active. It's purpose is different than this one. 

gleki [ 2018-10-08T07:18:35Z ]

   I doubt it remains active. One can notice it lacks any messages for weeks.

gleki [ 2018-10-08T07:18:42Z ]

   And what is its prupose then?

karis [ 2018-10-08T18:22:40Z ]

   It's for whatever conversations people want to have. I expect when more join it will get busier, but at the moment most are going there as a step in being added here. 

fatci [ 2018-10-11T08:27:02Z ]

   ilmen a été ajouté au canal par zmiku.

karis [ 2018-10-11T11:38:44Z ]

   According to lojban.org the following is the list of present members. Please reply to it with any comments. Hopefully some more will join as we are not at the level of having a majority present at this time. Please help by messaging me any contact information for those who have not joined us here, or reach out personally with an invitation. 
   
   Abbat, Pierre 
   Balandin, Arkadii 
   Burka, Alex 
   Déjardin, Sylvain 
   Errington, Jacob 
   Franks, Curtis 
   Imami, Ali Sajid 
   Johansen, Arnt Richard 
   LeChevalier, Nora 
   LeChevalier, Robert
   Llambias, Jorge 
   Lopresto, Adam 
   Martinez-Lynch, Riley 
   Powell, Robin Lee 
   Paulssen, Timo 
   Porter, Thomas 
   Reed, Theodore 
   Rosta, And 
   Shoulson, Mark 
   Stein, Karen 
   Swift, Paul 
   Vilva, Veijo 
   Whitlock, Tommy 

ilmen [ 2018-10-11T11:55:21Z ]

   Hello, I'm present.

karis [ 2018-10-11T18:43:07Z ]

   Welcome! There isn't much yet, but please do read back. 

karis [ 2018-10-12T21:09:25Z ]

   Right now we are trying to get more people into Mattermost, and the lojban channel specifically so they can be added here. 

la-robotin-daiter [ 2018-10-13T13:05:08Z ]

   mi'e la .robotin.daiter. cu nargunma
   
   I am Robotee Deither, a non-member. 

karis [ 2018-10-14T16:41:03Z ]

   Welcome. 

and.rosta [ 2018-10-15T09:50:50Z ]

   I have sent a pertinent message to the llg-members email list, and am now notionally present here.

karis [ 2018-10-15T12:35:06Z ]

   @and I saw your message there. I believe that, since the list posted on lojban.org apparently was not updated when you resigned, we can allow for your continued status as a member. I am not a parliamentary specialist, though, so if our Parliamentarian @john.cowan determines otherwise we will follow his ruling, of course. As for your reason for again wanting to be a member ("when subsequent discussion indicated that the LLG might decide to honour, however perfunctorily or notionally, its charter to promote the development of logical language (as per a motion tabled and, I think, still pending), I had intended to apply to be readmitted... "), I believe this will be covered later. 
   
   You are correct that the meeting has moved slowly so far. This has been so that people without Mattermost accounts and /or familiarity had a chance to find the meeting. We will be moving ahead and let additional people trickle in.

karis [ 2018-10-15T12:42:52Z ]

   @mukti will you please officially state the roll call, including who is and is not a member, so we can proceed.

john.cowan [ 2018-10-15T12:55:03Z ]

   If there are no objections from any member, a new member may be admitted without the formality of a vote.  Unanimous consent is a very powerful tool, as a meeting may do almost anything (except what the Bylaws prohibit) by just announcing it, saying "Any objections?", and if there are none in a reasonable time, then saying "Passed'.

karis [ 2018-10-15T17:36:04Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2018-10-17T00:17:49Z ]

   Is there anyone else here who is using a name on Mattermost that doesn't match your lojban one and hasn't told us what that lojban one is, please do so now. If you think the rest of us should know it's you, I'm sure some of us don't or need to be reminded, so please do.
   
   This will make conversations easier since we can always look back or make our own note. It will make the administrative work much easier for the officers and mukti in particular.
   
   For anyone not aware the current LLG officers are  myself as President, @lojbab  as Vice President, and @mukti as Secretary /Treasurer. 

karis [ 2018-10-18T16:32:33Z ]

   @channel, in order to move along through the administrative part of this meeting quickly here is how the roll stands at present. If I somehow didn't attribute you to the correct identifying information reply to correct me. Also I added an asterisk before the people I know are, or whom I think match members' names posted earlier. If you have one and are not, or haven't one and should also reply please. This is an issue with the member list only including legal names. 
   
   * karis, president
   * lojbab, vice president
   * mukti, secretary /treasurer
   * and
   apieum
   * banseljaj (Ali?) 
   bookofportals
   * DerSaidin (Sylvain?) 
   djeikon
   gejyspa
   greg_g
   guskant
   ilmen
   jacus
   John.cowan
   * krtsfranks
   la_robtin_daiter
   lagleki - gleki
   lalju
   * noras
   odd mint (lojbanic name?) 
   * pHma - piier
   porocyon
   ueslis
   vecuscu
   * vein (Veijo?) 
   xorxes
   zmiku

banseljaj [ 2018-10-18T17:40:42Z ]

   banseljaj == Ali, yes.

ueslis [ 2018-10-18T20:26:44Z ]

   mi'e .ueslis. mi zvati

lojbab [ 2018-10-18T23:27:49Z ]

   xorxes is Jorge

lojbab [ 2018-10-18T23:28:11Z ]

   gleki is of course Arkadii

lojbab [ 2018-10-18T23:31:03Z ]

   vein probably isn't Veijo

phma [ 2018-10-19T01:00:33Z ]

   zo vein ji zo veion?

dersaidin [ 2018-10-19T01:57:18Z ]

   I am not Sylvain, my name is Andrew Browne. I'm observing.

karis [ 2018-10-19T11:47:16Z ]

   Thank you for the clarifications. Hopefully the rest will help us sort them out as well.

karis [ 2018-10-19T11:49:37Z ]

   Beyond making each person's identity less confusing for the rest of us this all makes clear how many voting members are present,which will be important later. 

veion [ 2018-10-19T12:00:04Z ]

   I wonder where that vein came from, I've been present as veion since oct 05.

karis [ 2018-10-19T22:52:17Z ]

   It's probably a typo. 

karis [ 2018-10-19T22:53:40Z ]

   Just remember the only thing you can't do is vote. Participate in all the rest as much as you choose. . 

ilmen [ 2018-10-20T21:53:26Z ]

   Sylvain is me. I am an LLG member.

karis [ 2018-10-22T11:46:17Z ]

   Thank you as well, @ilmen. 

karis [ 2018-10-22T12:45:15Z ]

   With all that sorted out it looks like the current totals are 11 members and 17 other participants at this time. Since @mukti seems busy I believe that can stand as the roll taken until he verifies it. 

karis [ 2018-10-22T12:54:29Z ]

   @channel:
    Next, with all the announcements that I made and however many that were made by @mukti and others, most initially placed over 15 days prior to my calling this meeting to order, is there anyone who objects to the statement that sufficient notice, defined in the minutes as fifteen or more days, was given fire this meeting? Are there any questions? 

kurji [ 2018-10-25T02:01:12Z ]

   kurji a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2018-10-26T02:07:44Z ]

   jawitkien a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-26T02:09:27Z ]

   Welcome to all the newcomers. 

karis [ 2018-10-26T02:10:54Z ]

   This is a specific step in all Members Meetings, according to the bylaws. 

gleki [ 2018-10-28T11:34:17Z ]

   vecusku is the bridge bot present in every channel

karis [ 2018-10-28T15:41:51Z ]

   That's what I thought, but you'd said this chat wasn't connected and never said that had changed. 

karis [ 2018-10-29T09:32:03Z ]

   All right, if there are no objections we will postpone the Reading of the Minutes from the last Members Meeting until @mukti is ready to do so. 

karis [ 2018-10-29T09:34:13Z ]

   This brings us to the Officer's Reports. 

uakci [ 2018-10-30T07:43:42Z ]

   uakci a rejoint le canal.

uakci [ 2018-10-30T07:50:22Z ]

   coi, .i tinbe lo ka zvati kei fa mi mi'e uakci

uakci [ 2018-10-30T07:56:36Z ]

   i mi uakci se gi'u se cmene zo uakci

karis [ 2018-10-31T08:54:43Z ]

   coi @uakci
   Welcome! 

karis [ 2018-10-31T08:55:01Z ]

   vpbroman a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-10-31T08:56:16Z ]

   I apologize, but please either use English or provide a translation. Several of us are not anywhere near fluent in lojban. 

karis [ 2018-10-31T08:56:40Z ]

   coi @vpbroman. 

karis [ 2018-10-31T08:58:41Z ]

   As no one has commented on whether there was sufficient notification for this meeting we will continue as if there is agreement there was. 

uakci [ 2018-10-31T12:00:56Z ]

   yes, of course, it’s English we’re gonna conduct the meeting in, right?

uakci [ 2018-10-31T12:01:30Z ]

   (what I’d said before is unworthy of translating)

uakci [ 2018-10-31T12:03:26Z ]

   okay, I won’t spam too much here anymore for the time being

gleki [ 2018-10-31T15:06:03Z ]

   i xo'o la'a krinu fa le nu sa'u so'o da na jimpe fi la xorlo i e'u zo'o pilno zo le doi la uakci

karis [ 2018-10-31T15:27:40Z ]

   Yes, the meeting will be conducted in English. If that were ever an issue for anyone, though, we'd try and find someone to provide translation. 

karis [ 2018-10-31T15:30:52Z ]

   It's time now for REPORTS. Officers or anyone else with one to present please go ahead and post it. I'm not concerned with the order this is done in, just that the reports are made. 

gleki [ 2018-10-31T15:32:45Z ]

   report. la lalxu somewhat improved the front page of the wiki 

gleki [ 2018-10-31T15:33:40Z ]

   report. this year the bridge was rewritten by me and reached Facebook https://github.com/lagleki/Lojban-1Chat-Bridge/issues

gleki [ 2018-10-31T15:34:17Z ]

   report. the bridge also reached russian vk. com and the russian activity is non zero

karis [ 2018-10-31T15:57:13Z ]

   President's Report for 2018:
   
   The main accomplishments of LLG, from my perspective, for the past year are as follows. The financial report will be provided separately. 
   
   Most obvious is the move of meetings out of an email listserv format to Mattermost. This occurred first with the Board Meeting, with the transition completed in July. Briefly, the Board wanted meetings to be easier to follow, without messages being lost or mixed in with messages about other subjects, saved in full, and in a format more conducive to creating minutes. Feedback during our after this meeting about the new format would be greatly appreciated.
   
   Further, I am happy to announce that the LLG officers, myself, @lojbab, and @mukti, were able to have a face to face meeting in Virginia at the home of lojbab and @noras in August. We all found it helpful as well as enjoyable.
   
   Finally, I am quite pleased to see so many people have joined the meeting in our new setting. At this time there are 31 people in attendance. I hope this is indicative that we will have lively discussion and active participation by many of you as the meeting proceeds. 

gleki [ 2018-11-01T06:34:16Z ]

   Lojban timeline page on the wiki should reflect reports or vice versa imo

karis [ 2018-11-02T02:56:27Z ]

   Do you have an estimate of how much they are using it? 

gleki [ 2018-11-02T04:43:26Z ]

   Who are they?

uakci [ 2018-11-02T08:58:52Z ]

   the Russian Lojbanists, of course

uakci [ 2018-11-02T08:59:36Z ]

   (my estimate is:) they’re using the #rusko channel everyday, so I suppose it’s no less lively than the other channels

karis [ 2018-11-02T12:30:11Z ]

   I was curious because it is one more way to see how many people are learning and using lojban in that part of the world. 

gleki [ 2018-11-03T15:08:41Z ]

   ok, using #rusko channel you mean. to answer that question you can just join that channel via Mattermost or Facebook or Telegram and see.

karis [ 2018-11-04T07:37:57Z ]

   zazypap a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2018-11-04T07:38:41Z ]

   coi zazypap

vecusku [ 2018-11-04T08:01:52Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: idlili.png

vecusku [ 2018-11-04T08:02:03Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: je'e

karis [ 2018-11-04T08:06:28Z ]

   I was asking since you've already looked so there seemed no reason for me to duplicate the effort. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-04T08:07:50Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: what uakci said. #rusko channel is not dead.

vecusku [ 2018-11-04T08:10:18Z ]

   **Karen Stein**: Do you, or anyone have any idea how many people are active and roughly how many posts are typical in a week or month? Just saying it isn't dead really days extremely little.

karis [ 2018-11-04T08:13:44Z ]

   @lojbab has notified me that he, as vice-president, has nothing to report. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-04T08:26:33Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: right now i can see one active person that posts every week a new question. the rest are either people known from other channels or lurkers that dont study the language hard.

vecusku [ 2018-11-04T08:33:46Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: my answer is probably useless since there is no resume on how active are other channels. what to compare and using which criteria, paunai

karis [ 2018-11-05T00:31:16Z ]

   Thank you, @lagleki. It is at least a rough idea. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-05T08:03:46Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: just today i got evidence that a second person is definitely studying. if you are smart you dont need help. so the less activity the more people are intelligent. but i cant see fluent ones

karis [ 2018-11-05T11:59:18Z ]

   That's true. You don't need help, but the language is easier, more fun, and you are much more likely to stick with it. 

lojbab [ 2018-11-05T21:02:18Z ]

   It seems to me that we could periodically ASK on the various known channels for people reading to indicate their a) skill with the language and b) activity in reading/writing/studying.  (A secondary questioning would ask the readers about various (LLG promoted) options for enhancing their Lojban activity or sense of community.

vecusku [ 2018-11-05T21:03:25Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: There are 10 fluent speakers.they haven't changed for the last 3 years although some are less active

vecusku [ 2018-11-05T21:03:51Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: (not a direct response to your proposal)

zazypap [ 2018-11-06T00:26:31Z ]

   coi .i e'o pinka lo nenri be la'e zoi zoi. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Proposal_for_reform .zoi ko

karis [ 2018-11-06T05:30:42Z ]

   I love that idea, @lojbab. It would only take a real simple three or four question survey posted and retrieved maybe once or twice a year (to get any you miss the first time).

karis [ 2018-11-06T05:31:40Z ]

   English, please (or both). 

vecusku [ 2018-11-06T06:21:59Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: doi zazypap do stidi gi'enai zukte

vecusku [ 2018-11-06T06:24:34Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: i ji'a mi jinvi le du'u le nu cnegau lo se ke catni zanru ke'e gismu cu na zabna i ku'i pe'u na mutce mabla fa le nu finti lo cnino fu'ivla a lo lujvo a lo gismu

zazypap [ 2018-11-06T17:25:24Z ]

   .i ma tadji lo nu lo na cmima be bypyfyky cu zukte / What is a method for the event in which a non-member of BPFK acts?

vecusku [ 2018-11-06T17:58:16Z ]

   **gleki**: They produce things and present them to others

karis [ 2018-11-07T06:16:25Z ]

   Translate, please. 

karis [ 2018-11-07T06:27:09Z ]

   @lagleki if you continue to only use lojban you will face censure for disregarding both specific and repeated directives and a history of holding these meetings in English. It is certainly the language we are all here to support; however, lojban fluency is not required for membership and the level of familiarity in the group varies widely. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-07T06:27:54Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: okay

vecusku [ 2018-11-07T06:28:48Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: "i dont make efforts to learn it but i do support it", haha

karis [ 2018-11-07T06:29:05Z ]

   Thank you. Please add translations for your earlier comments by editing the posts. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-07T06:40:11Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: So e.g. Russian Lojbanists are not even eligible to join LLG if they dont speak English, right?

karis [ 2018-11-08T01:19:56Z ]

   Of course they may join, but they or we would have to find a translator. Since everyone currently here speaks English they can do this service themselves.

vecusku [ 2018-11-08T05:50:32Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Cultural neutrality of lojban in action

vecusku [ 2018-11-08T05:51:07Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Given that a person speaks lojban and Russian they have to somehow use english

vecusku [ 2018-11-08T10:06:50Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: So shall we make a poll of members of this chat of their level of fluency in logical languages?

karis [ 2018-11-08T15:38:28Z ]

   Drop it, please, unless you want to add the issue to the discussion of new business. This is not the correct section of the meeting for a discussion or poll. 

karis [ 2018-11-08T15:47:51Z ]

   LLG and lojban are not the same, and cultural neutrality is only applicable to the language. LLG doesn't claim it at all. 

karis [ 2018-11-09T02:57:39Z ]

   Anyone with proposals, topics of discussion, etc for this meeting here's a link to the Google document where they may be added. If you do not have a way to access this please send me a personal message with any items you would like to include.
   
   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WIO0e-GcR1vAFcMLtpHO4EeQnjeuQQwmXIcJj65haBs/edit?usp=drivesdk

karis [ 2018-11-09T04:29:26Z ]

   I have added everyone to the chat "links" where you can look up this or other links any time. 

karis [ 2018-11-12T18:28:01Z ]

   If you cannot access the document just tell me and I'll get it to you in some other fashion. 

karis [ 2018-11-12T18:56:04Z ]

   @channel is anyone interested in proposing themselves or someone else, who need not be present, for a voting membership in LLG? It is fine to propose yourself.
   
   If a person proposed and accepted is present at this meeting then they may begin voting once consideration of all such proposed members have been considered and voted upon. 

ueslis [ 2018-11-12T19:13:44Z ]

   May I ask what being an LLG member entails?

karis [ 2018-11-13T02:22:13Z ]

   Sure. Being a member involves active participation in the annual Members Meeting (this), and other meetings as occur at the direction of the Board, which is unlikely. The issues of interest in and dedication to lojban and the purposes of LLG are really key to Membership. Though the Bylaws give the the alternative of competence in specific fields the authors of the Bylaws believed important to these purposes as well, this has been less common in practice.
   
   I've posted a link to the Bylaws in the "links" chat for anyone wanting to read through them. 

gleki [ 2018-11-13T09:45:28Z ]

   is dedication to lojban a part of bylaws?

gleki [ 2018-11-13T09:47:00Z ]

   there's "dedication to purposes" among which is 'promoting the language known as "Lojban - A Realization of Loglan" or alternatively "Lojban". '

gleki [ 2018-11-13T09:47:22Z ]

   so I suppose not dedication to lojban but dedication to promoting lojban

karis [ 2018-11-14T02:52:16Z ]

   Yes, and dedication to supporting the community of people learning and using lojban. If we can get people interested in using lojban for scientific research we'll super that as well. 

karis [ 2018-11-14T02:53:25Z ]

   Does this answer your question sufficiently, @ueslis? 

ueslis [ 2018-11-14T03:12:27Z ]

   Yes, thank you. Did you say we could submit ourselves to be voted as a member? If so I would submit myself, if that's okay.

karis [ 2018-11-14T11:48:35Z ]

   Certainly. 

karis [ 2018-11-14T11:49:18Z ]

   Does anyone else want to be added to the membership? 

karis [ 2018-11-18T13:19:44Z ]

   Well, I've given people what should be more than enough time to speak up, but if you'd like to be added and didn't post or decide you want to later feel free to go to the Direct Messages section of the menu and leave me a message. 

karis [ 2018-11-18T13:26:56Z ]

   @channel, VOTING ON NEW MEMBERS:
   
    Please, would ALL Members please reply to this message to vote on the proposal to "allow ueslis to become an LLG Member" . This voting will close Tuesday, November 20th at 12:00 (noon) GMT. 

gleki [ 2018-11-18T13:35:46Z ]

   I vote 'aye' 
   .i mi curmi le nu la ueslis. cu cmima le te girzu be fi la .lojbangirz.

zazypap [ 2018-11-18T14:50:01Z ]

   .i mi zanru / I approve

vecusku [ 2018-11-18T15:04:00Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: i da'i ro se zanru cu fasnu .ije na ka'e zanru lo nu'o fasnu

noras [ 2018-11-18T18:18:06Z ]

   Aye

lojbab [ 2018-11-18T18:19:14Z ]

   I approve (.ie mi zanru)

phma [ 2018-11-19T00:21:08Z ]

   ie mi zanru

veion [ 2018-11-19T04:43:24Z ]

   i approve

and.rosta [ 2018-11-19T07:09:54Z ]

   Aye

gleki [ 2018-11-19T07:12:49Z ]

   i pe'i lu ie mi zanru li'u na xe fanva zoigy.I approve.gy. i ri se fanva fu lu co'e i'e li'u .a lu i'e li'u .a lu co'i i'e .i mi curmi li'u i ji'a mi na birti le du'u zo zanru ka'e sinxa lo se stidi poi nu'o fasnu

gleki [ 2018-11-19T07:14:35Z ]

   su i pe'i lu ie mi zanru li'u na xe fanva zoigy.I approve.gy. i ri se fanva fu lu co'e i'e li'u .a lu i'e li'u a lu .i mi curmi li'u i ji'a mi na birti le du'u zo zanru ka'e sinxa lo se stidi poi nu'o fasnu
   
   I think {ie mi zanru} is not a translation of "I approve". The latter is translated as {co'e i'e} or {i'e} or {.i mi curmi}. Additionally, I'm not sure that {zanru} can be applied to proposals of events that haven't happened yet.

gleki [ 2018-11-19T07:23:27Z ]

   {ie} expresses agreement so {ie mi zanru} roughly means "(I agree that ...!) I approve" or less precisely "I agree that I approve."

karis [ 2018-11-20T05:11:59Z ]

   I vote aye

ueslis [ 2018-11-22T06:14:33Z ]

   ki'esai Thank you everyone!

lojbab [ 2018-11-23T16:01:16Z ]

   I disagree.  mi zanru ie would have the meaning you suggest.  ie in the beginning expresses agreement without attaching.

lojbab [ 2018-11-23T16:05:01Z ]

   It should be able to apply to any sort of proposition, whether real or theoretical, past, present or future.  That is what tenselessness should permit.  (I'm not going to try to respond to your Lojban-only statements.  Not enough time to figure them out now).

vecusku [ 2018-11-23T16:05:57Z ]

   **gleki**: you mean {ie} and {mi zanru} are both siblings and children of text-0 and therefore {ie} doesn't modify {mi zanru}?

vecusku [ 2018-11-23T16:07:52Z ]

   **gleki**: how to treat the very first examples like {ui la djan. klama} from [1](http://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-section-chunks/chapter-attitudinals.html) ? That {ui} doesn't modify the whole {la djan. klama} sentence?

lojbab [ 2018-11-24T00:50:38Z ]

   From the cited section.  "The simplest way to use attitudinal indicators is to place them at the beginning of a text. In that case, they express the speaker's prevailing attitude."  In other words they don't "modify" anything.  They just express an attitude.

lojbab [ 2018-11-24T00:56:38Z ]

   Now if it is a remark made totally out of the blue, then one might assume that the expressed bridi will pertain to some topic that provokes the speaker to have the "prevailing" attitude.  But I think that is excess analysis.  The intent of the attitudes is to allow the speaker to express attitude or emotion, something that probably isn't subject to close analysis.

lojbab [ 2018-11-24T01:00:02Z ]

   The discursives of UI are somewhat similar but might be more analyzable.  Still, "i ku'i ..." is more or less translated as "But ..." and we don't say in English that the "but" is modifying the sentence.  I think Russian also has discursive particles that can appear before a sentence.

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:29:52Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Yes, attitude but attitude towards what? Why is {ui} placed in {ui la djan. klama}? Because the speaker is happy of what? Happy that he just ate chicken or bought a new car or 1000 other events not relevant to the event of John coming?

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:32:06Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: if we open the next section we'll see even more precise translations: http://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-section-chunks/section-pure-emotions.html

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:32:07Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: .u'a	mi	facki	fi	le	mi	mapku

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:32:08Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: [Gain!] I found my hat! [emphasizes the obtaining of the hat]

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:32:52Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Example 13.15. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:32:53Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: .uenai	la	djan.	klama

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:32:54Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: In Example 13.15, John's coming has been anticipated by the speaker.

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:33:18Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: ".oi	la	djan.	klama

vecusku [ 2018-11-24T07:33:19Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Here the speaker is distressed or discomfited over John's coming."

ilmen [ 2018-11-24T14:18:46Z ]

   I hereby approve the membership of the proposed new members.

lojbab [ 2018-11-26T11:37:14Z ]

   This is the wrong forum for this discussion.

karis [ 2018-11-27T07:14:12Z ]

   Thank you, lojbab, I agree. The general lojban group would, however, be fine. Please continue anything of this nature there. 

karis [ 2018-11-27T07:20:44Z ]

   I have just received something in the nature of a report from selpa'i on the activities of BPFK. he says, "I have nothing to report. There has been absolutely no BPFK-related 
   activity since the last report."

karis [ 2018-11-27T07:27:12Z ]

   Mukti had also provided some information of his actions as secretary/treasurer. He says that while not very active in the meetings currently he can be reached as necessary. He is putting the time remaining after starting a new job keeping up with the quarterly tax filings and is finalizing the annual corporate filing to turn in. The officers listed will be those currently holding the roles at this time.
   President - Karen Stein /karis
   VP - Robert LeChevalier /lojbab
   Secretary /Treasurer - Riley Martinez-Lynch /mukti. 

karis [ 2018-11-27T13:25:27Z ]

   @all, please, please add your votes!
   
   So far there are 9 votes for ueslis becoming a voting member and none against, but he cannot be added without the support of half of ALL members. That means there would need to be more than 12 supporting votes. 

vecusku [ 2018-11-27T13:53:10Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: I vote in favor of la .ueslis. becoming a voting member.

xorxes [ 2018-11-27T20:45:30Z ]

   I vote in favor of ueslis becoming a member

karis [ 2018-12-05T20:30:23Z ]

   Well. We're one vote short, but many haven't voted and there are no votes against so I'm leaving it open for now. 

karis [ 2018-12-05T20:33:57Z ]

   @all now for UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 

karis [ 2018-12-05T20:34:59Z ]

   Does anyone have something to bring up? 

vecusku [ 2018-12-05T20:46:21Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: I'm ready for updating cll fixing all mistypes. Robin is ready to help with publishing. But since no official organisation is ready to revise fixes I won't bring this issue up.

karis [ 2018-12-06T20:46:27Z ]

   Oh? How did you come to decide that? Also, you just did bring it up, so don't pretend that wasn't your intent, @gleki.

karis [ 2018-12-06T20:46:50Z ]

   Is this meant as another jab? 

vecusku [ 2018-12-07T05:03:14Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Were there other ones?

vecusku [ 2018-12-07T05:03:40Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: I just reported unfinished business.

karis [ 2018-12-07T13:48:36Z ]

   Are you making a report or asking for something? 

vecusku [ 2018-12-07T14:07:46Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: sa'e, I made a short report, I won't propose anything in regard to solving it (whether unfinished business should be discussed later in new business or not).

lojbab [ 2018-12-08T20:23:45Z ]

   I think what karis is asking, is for the context of your statement/report.  Specifically, who assigned to you any responsibility for "updating cll" especially given that there is no organization  "ready to revise fixes".  What fixes?  What publishing would Robin be helping with, etc.  

lojbab [ 2018-12-08T20:27:01Z ]

   So far as I know, there has been no decision to update CLL by anyone.  Nor is it even clear that there are any approved updates.  The brief report karis relayed from selpa'i indicates that byfy accomplished nothing in the last year, and byfy would probably have to have approved any updates to CLL

vecusku [ 2018-12-09T13:27:21Z ]

   **gleki**: Changes were approved by John Cowan many years ago in the tiki.

vecusku [ 2018-12-09T13:27:22Z ]

   **gleki**: byfy. is not functional so there is no one to approve them now. If I approved it myself as a member of bpfk that would probably raise concerns despite no official rules of how bpfk operates.

vecusku [ 2018-12-09T13:28:37Z ]

   **gleki**: I don't have any responsibility. It's a volunteer work.

gleki [ 2018-12-10T13:45:22Z ]

   lagleki a rejoint le canal.

lojbab [ 2018-12-10T20:34:24Z ]

   If they were proposed before Robin's update, and If Robin as byfy chair and dictator did not see fit to put them in, then they effectively were unapproved. 

lojbab [ 2018-12-10T20:38:02Z ]

   The rules are whatever selpa'i as jatna says that they are.  If he has said nothing about rules, then  he effectively is dictator in the same way that Robin was.  It is of course up to LLG to decide whether to reappoint selpa'i as jatna, if LLG membership finds the situation unacceptable.  (You presumably could ask to be appointed as the jatna, and then could make such rules and decisions.)

vecusku [ 2018-12-10T20:41:00Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: No, I find all of "one person is jatna" and "few persons are jatna" and "less than 100% decide" and "fluent speakers of Lojban decide" unacceptable even if it comes to mere mistypes in English words.

lojbab [ 2018-12-10T20:41:18Z ]

   I welcome your volunteering in so many arenas because you do get things done., But in the context of official LLG publications about the language design, we have assigned the responsibility to the byfy jatna.  So you need to convince selpa'i (who then needs to report to us, since LLG has to pay for publication).

vecusku [ 2018-12-10T20:43:03Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: i wont convince him since decision of one person can make other people freak out which already happened in past.

lojbab [ 2018-12-10T20:44:17Z ]

   Then you need to propose a new motion governing jatna and/or official publications.  As it is now. one person is jatna, and no one else has the authority to decide.

vecusku [ 2018-12-10T20:45:39Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Well, I won't volunteer in all areas, you know. I did some work, I tried to reach a final action, I haven't yet. Others can continue. All of my work is public. Same links, same repositories. No new tools.

lojbab [ 2018-12-10T20:48:45Z ]

   And personally, I think that a few "mere mistypes in English words" to be insufficient justification for an official revision, and I'm not sure I would support such if there is any charge for revision. which seems likely.  I would rather see an errata page linked directly on the page(s)  wherein someone orders a copy or downloads it.

lojbab [ 2018-12-10T20:49:45Z ]

   But you seem to be saying that you cannot convince selpa'i to approve these changes, which is what I think LLG should require even for an official errata sheet.

vecusku [ 2018-12-10T20:51:45Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: No, I didn't say that. I said "I won't convince him" not that I cannot convince him

lojbab [ 2018-12-11T02:01:21Z ]

   I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make.  We have to have SOME basis for deciding when the official language documents can and should be modified.  At one time, I decided this o my own (or John Cowan did, in effect, by writing something into CLL or the original parser grammar).  People decided that they didn't want me making such decisions, and byfy was among other things a way to devolve that responsibility/privilege away from me.  It seems to have de facto reverted back to a single person deciding under Robin (but he tried for many years before that().  selpa'i seems to have given up sooner, but has never been especially clear on what he wants to be different (I only know that he wants more involvement, and he wants all discussion to be in Lojban, and those two criteria are contradictory at this stage if one isn't a fluent polyglot.)  But still, there needs to be a decision path, and it cannot be "whoever wants to produce a "corrected version can do so, and it will be embraced as official merely on their sayso".

vecusku [ 2018-12-11T07:02:07Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: At least one BPFK decision made other people freak out. It's not that "51% of scientists think Newton's laws are true. Hence they are true."

vecusku [ 2018-12-11T17:21:10Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Robin replied about the list of errata "I just never bothered to review it thoroughly"

vecusku [ 2018-12-11T17:21:47Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: so not included errata are effectively not approved, but not disapproved or rejected.

vecusku [ 2018-12-12T08:08:14Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Question to Robin: in case we prepare a new version of cll how much would it cost to place this new version at print-on-demand publishing house? do they charge for each placement or only charge from sales?

vecusku [ 2018-12-12T08:08:15Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Answer from Robin: If you're not changing the ISBN I think there's a charge but I don't think it was enough to matter; I always paid it myslf.

karis [ 2018-12-16T11:50:37Z ]

   Thank you, @lagleki, for finding out this information. 

karis [ 2018-12-16T11:58:50Z ]

   At the same time @lojbab is completely correct. There is a clear procedure in place for language changes, be they publishing an errata page of corrections, a new CLL version, or any other. It was set up through proposals and discussion and changes to it would need to be as well. 

karis [ 2018-12-16T12:02:50Z ]

   @channel Are there any other matters of OLD BUSINESS to discuss? 
   
   I know that at one time there were, but no one has mentioned any to me personally during this meeting nor added them directly to the agenda. 

vecusku [ 2018-12-16T16:13:11Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: A clear procedure for publishing cll never put into practice

karis [ 2018-12-17T16:19:43Z ]

   How do you want to phrase the proposal, @lagleki? I'm happy to add it to the agenda for new business once it's phrased as one. 

vecusku [ 2018-12-17T16:21:47Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: I have no new proposals. Earlier ones were asking of skills of members, who can help with what, matching Todo list with skills

karis [ 2018-12-19T03:52:34Z ]

   If you want us to discuss a clear procedure for publishing than make a proposal that we do so. That would be a new proposal, as I asked you about. The other issues were discussed in the board meeting. If you want them discussed here them they too need to be written as proposals. I'm surpassed I'm having to explain as you've been following it for that meeting. 

karis [ 2018-12-19T03:53:38Z ]

   For example... I propose that.... 

lojbab [ 2018-12-19T19:05:15Z ]

   I'm not sure where you wish to consider the appointment/reappointment of the byfy jatna, which I would think is old business, since it is dealing with the effects of prior actions.  It isn't clear to me whether selpa'i wants to continue in that role, nor whether there would be any other candidates.  (Since selpa'i has never reported any officially approved changes under his authority, I'm personally at a loss to know what the current official language is, other than the last-published CLL plus xorlo (which really needs to be written up as changes to CLL)

gleki [ 2018-12-19T19:40:46Z ]

   As I said I don't want to bring this issue up. I did some work, it hasn't been applied to publishing process yet.
   I can't add fixes to CLL related to xorlo since it's too much work, basically a new language.  I'd rather ditch xorlo completely or optionally add a chapter on xorxe's su'oi, ro'oi that don't touch existing language. I'd be happy if more chapters were added to CLL like e.g. math-related ones.
   You may wish to take over bpfk, lojbab. I can help you with CLL part provided it's not as bulky as the xorlo thing.

karis [ 2018-12-19T22:17:10Z ]

   Correction. By surpassed I meant surprised. 

karis [ 2018-12-19T22:18:24Z ]

   Correction. By Landis I meant language. 

karis [ 2018-12-19T22:23:19Z ]

   @lagleki, I'm even more confused. By saying you do not want to bring it up do you mean you don't want to take on the job? All I meant was either it is discussed, meaning someone proposes an idea for how they think it should be then we discuss it, or this doesn't happen in which case I don't know what you want to happen. 

karis [ 2018-12-19T22:26:00Z ]

   @all Is anyone willing to email selpa'i and ask if he wants to continue or not? 

gleki [ 2018-12-20T10:05:01Z ]

   Yes, I stated I had done some job. That's all. I have no ideas how to fix anything without raising flame wars except maybe just waiting.

gleki [ 2018-12-20T10:07:30Z ]

   BTW I can help with implementing dotside reform in CLL. That's doable. Provided that it's official

karis [ 2018-12-23T22:43:39Z ]

   I've written selpa'i. When I receive an answer I'll post it. 

karis [ 2018-12-24T05:02:31Z ]

   I apologize for missing wishing any who celebrate Chanukah a happy chanukah. For whomever celebrates the Solstice, I hope you enjoyed your celebration, and for whomever celebrates Christmas, merry Christmas. I send the equivalent to those who celebrate any other holiday this month. 

vecusku [ 2018-12-24T19:52:42Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Lojban lacks a word for Chanukah

karis [ 2018-12-24T22:24:25Z ]

   There should probably be one word for any holiday based on the celebration of light and the return of life. This would include Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, and probably others. They stem from the same root. 

vecusku [ 2018-12-25T01:50:32Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: "Winterval"?

karis [ 2018-12-31T21:34:22Z ]

   Happy New Year to all who celebrate it now!! 

vecusku [ 2019-01-01T08:18:08Z ]

   **gleki**: cnino detna'a di'ai vei ni'e mapti ve'o do

rlpowell [ 2019-01-03T07:36:55Z ]

   rlpowell a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2019-01-03T16:09:06Z ]

   Welcome, @rlpowell. Thank you for joining us. 

karis [ 2019-01-03T16:37:37Z ]

   We are having difficulty determining what business from the last meeting wasn't concluded since @mukti has started a new job and has no time currently to determine this and my access to emails that old is very limited. 

karis [ 2019-01-03T17:01:46Z ]

   I just received an answer to the questions I asked selpa'i. I asked if he wished to continue as the BPFK jatna, and if he believed we should dissolve the BPFK and return the responsibilities given it to LLG.
   
   First, he is willing to continue in his current role if no one else wants to give it a try. He believes it doesn't matter who is leading that group since there seems little interest and nothing has happened for at least a year.
   
   His second answer was along the same lines, that he doesn't feel he should make the decision if whether BPFK should be dissolved. He leaves that to us as a group.
   
   Therefore, @channel, is anyone interested in taking over as BPFK Chair? 

vecusku [ 2019-01-03T17:11:37Z ]

   **gleki**: In parallel I propose that LLG dissolve BPFK but (!) temporarily take over BPFK's responsibilities.

rlpowell [ 2019-01-04T02:21:48Z ]

   all the llg-members emails are archived.

rlpowell [ 2019-01-04T02:22:29Z ]

   http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/

rlpowell [ 2019-01-04T02:23:22Z ]

   I also have complete copies of everything; I'm rather obsessive about that.

karis [ 2019-01-05T02:35:08Z ]

   Thanks, @rlpowell. I'll go through the old emails then, and would love some help finding proposals, second, vote, and result. We also need any topics  postponed for this year.

vecusku [ 2019-01-05T02:35:51Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: Who would be surveyed? How? How will we reach people? How scientific/complete do we want to make this? What are the goals and who will be in charge? What resources will they have? How do we avoid double-counting?

karis [ 2019-01-05T03:20:40Z ]

   As invisioned the survey would be distributed by all of us as widely as possible, and ask in the header for people to share it. We can also use any lists that exist of pysical addresses through the distribution of materials or whatever. My thought for collection would be an email created for the purpose and a physical address as well for any it reaches without the ability to send emails (mine is fine as I expect very few this way). Neither of us expect it to be scientific in method.
   
   The overarching goal is to have a much clearer idea of who makes up lojbanistan. This includes where people interested in, or learning/ using lojban are located. A better idea of how individuals are best reached would also help in the future as would a cheapness idea of how people are actually learning the language. Fire those answering this will be a way to get contract information for LLG, and a sign that we don't just care about and cater to those in North America (or any other regional, economic, or linguistic boundaries. 
   
   Because it won't be rigorously scientific I'm sure we will get duplicates despite asking people to only answer once. These can possibly be weeded out by sorting by location first. One question that should help would be asking for people to provide contact information. Since this is just a preliminary survey, which can be made clear, hopefully many will answer.
   
   As for who will be in charge that will be decided in discussion here. 

karis [ 2019-01-05T03:24:55Z ]

   As the are several topics going right now please put a key word in all capitals at the beginning of posts to identify to which it belongs. 

vecusku [ 2019-01-05T04:04:42Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: SURVEY:

vecusku [ 2019-01-05T04:04:43Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: It might be good to allow them to submit information about how they are learning or did learn Lojban, as well as about what they think that community could do in order to improve or to popularize the language.

karis [ 2019-01-05T04:32:00Z ]

   That sounds like a great idea.  We also discussed the idea of reaching out with some sort survey in an annual or biannual basis. It would be interesting to see how these answers change over time. Mine certainly would have over the past 20 years. 

vecusku [ 2019-01-05T06:06:57Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: I agree that repeating it over shortish timescales would be good.

karis [ 2019-01-08T04:20:09Z ]

   RESIGNATION OF A MEMBER
   Alex Burka posted the following to the members listserv. While I requested that he, and anyone else who chose to resign, send an email to one of the officers and have not yet received one nor heard from either of the others that they have, so I guess it will serve as notice. Here's a copy of his email in order for it to be included officially in the minutes.
   
   From: Alex Burka 
   [email protected]
   Reply to: [email protected] 
   To: [email protected]
   Date: January 3,2019
   
   I didn't receive any notification or invitation to the meeting before now, but in any case I'll resign.
   
   ----
   As to his point about not receiving notice, the announcement was posted in that very place so he must have missed it. 
   

karis [ 2019-01-08T04:28:59Z ]

   UESLIS' MEMBERSHIP
   @channel As a result of this resignation only 11 votes in favor of a new member are necessary. I therefore request that anyone wishing to change your vote on the proposal to "allow ueslis to become a member of LLG" do so now. I will be declaring this vote complete at 00:00 UTC on JANUARY 9, 2019.

karis [ 2019-01-09T03:36:00Z ]

   Well, since no one responded... 

karis [ 2019-01-09T03:37:48Z ]

   UESLIS
   @channel Congratulations, ueslis. You have been voted into LLG Membership! The vote was 11 to 0.

ueslis [ 2019-01-09T04:28:45Z ]

   ki'ecai Thank you everyone!

karis [ 2019-01-09T22:29:41Z ]

   Now to return to something else...

karis [ 2019-01-09T22:47:09Z ]

   BPFK PROPOSAL(S) REQUEST
   
   @channel, we discussed the BPFK earlier in terms of should we re-elect selpa'i, elect someone else, or dissolve the BPFK, which would mean its duties would then be part of the responsibilities of the Membership. We were waiting to learn what selpa'i thought about dissolving it and whether he wanted to remain jatna. Selpa'i has responded as I posted recently. He is willing to remain jatna or turn it over to someone else, and doesn't think it matters really which or if BPFK is dissolved as the group isn't doing anything anyway. 
   
   Now it is up to us. Do any of you want to make a proposal to give our discussion a place to start? The proposal can certainly change or be withdrawn later. 
   

vecusku [ 2019-01-10T07:11:54Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: I propose that on updating CLL and publishing official materials (the ultimate product, consequence of bpfk activity I suppose) we listen to the opinion of la lojbab. and la balgenpre

karis [ 2019-01-10T11:35:26Z ]

   NEW PROPOSAL:
   
   @channel  
   
   @lagleki has proposed that "On updating the CLL and publishing official materials (the ultimate product, consequence of BPFK activity [la gleki supposes] we listen to the opinion of @lojbab  and la balgenpre."
   
   Is there a second? 
   

phma [ 2019-01-10T11:37:28Z ]

   Do you mean "BPFK inactivity"?

karis [ 2019-01-10T11:38:17Z ]

   NOTE. Would someone please tell me if the @channel tag is notifying everyone?

phma [ 2019-01-10T11:38:42Z ]

   I heard a ding

phma [ 2019-01-10T11:39:14Z ]

   I also got email

vecusku [ 2019-01-10T11:42:02Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Well de facto that consequence has never been realized. But my hypothesis is that the goal of the assumed BPFK activity was development of lojban and content related to its grammar, usage, lexicon so that llg would turn that content into published documents

karis [ 2019-01-10T11:58:23Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2019-01-10T12:01:33Z ]

   This proposal seems to assume we have already voted to dissolve BPFK when we haven't taken care of that. 

vecusku [ 2019-01-10T12:03:31Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: No, it doesn't assume that. But it can mean the proposal if accepted gets in conflict with BPFK goals and its de facto organization. So if accepted BPFK needs to be dealt with, yes

dersaidin [ 2019-01-10T17:45:45Z ]

   I get emails on (at)channel too

karis [ 2019-01-10T20:03:07Z ]

   Thank you. "Ampersandchannel" doesn't appear in a different color the way individuals do and I hadn't seen much action other times I've used it so I thought I would check. 

banseljaj [ 2019-01-11T05:47:57Z ]

   I get notifications every time

karis [ 2019-01-11T17:27:50Z ]

   One way or the other we need to discuss the BPFK. 

karis [ 2019-01-11T17:29:10Z ]

   I was just copying the wording gleki posted. 

karis [ 2019-01-12T16:31:08Z ]

   BPFK PROPOSAL #1
   There hasn't been a second for this motion in over 48 hours. Last call for a second. If instead you would prefer to make a different proposal on you're own in regards to the BPFK you may do so at this time. 

gleki [ 2019-01-12T16:33:18Z ]

   Prepaid id?

karis [ 2019-01-12T16:37:19Z ]

   Better? 

karis [ 2019-01-12T16:37:25Z ]

   @channel I have been using this to gain your attention whenever there was a new topic or procedural item so all of you would know able to follow the meeting more easily and therefore find it easier to participate when you like. 
   
   Please note my recent statement regarding the BPFK proposal of @lagleki's. 

ueslis [ 2019-01-12T16:58:30Z ]

   I have been receiving emails, so I think it is working.

rlpowell [ 2019-01-13T06:45:30Z ]

   I don't understand the proposal.  Listen to Bob &c about what, exactly?

vecusku [ 2019-01-13T06:48:04Z ]

   **gleki**: about their opinions on updating cll

rlpowell [ 2019-01-13T06:49:26Z ]

   Are you referring to specific opinions of theirs, or is the proposal "Bob and friends are in charge of picking CLL updates, however they want to do that"?

vecusku [ 2019-01-13T06:58:38Z ]

   **gleki**: I suggest they have ultimate power to decide what goes into CLL as updates.

rlpowell [ 2019-01-13T07:00:25Z ]

   I'll second that.

durka42 [ 2019-01-13T18:27:03Z ]

   durka42 a rejoint le canal.

durka42 [ 2019-01-13T18:29:20Z ]

   Hi

karis [ 2019-01-13T20:41:31Z ]

   Hi, @durka42 !

karis [ 2019-01-13T20:45:52Z ]

   @lagleki's proposal basically returns us to when @lojbab was president and was able to make the ultimate call on language decisions, but limiting it to publications. This, as I understand it, would take a main part of the power from the BPFK jatna. 

karis [ 2019-01-13T20:47:18Z ]

   I wasn't involved during the discussions which led to the formation of the BPFK so my understanding of how the went is spotty.

durka42 [ 2019-01-13T21:02:55Z ]

   how is {la balgenpre} defined?

durka42 [ 2019-01-13T21:05:40Z ]

   sa'e ma poi na du la .lojbab. cu cmima la balgenpre

ilmen [ 2019-01-13T22:24:06Z ]

   ru'a la .djan.kouan.

ilmen [ 2019-01-13T22:24:57Z ]

   coi la .durkavor. ze'u na penmi

ilmen [ 2019-01-13T22:34:47Z ]

   As the LLG is concerned with logical languages in general, I shall bring to their attention the ongoing development of a new tonal loglang authored by Solpahi and called Toaq: http://toaq.org/

ilmen [ 2019-01-13T22:48:39Z ]

   It has a formal grammar, a parser, a work-in-progress translator to logic notation and a few speakers (about 7) with a written fluency comparable to that of the most experienced Lojbanists.

lojbab [ 2019-01-13T23:55:50Z ]

   I obviously have an opinion on this, but I may need a bit to figure out how  to express it.  One issue that is critical is that no one that I know of has much of an idea as to what language decisions are pending.

lojbab [ 2019-01-14T00:00:13Z ]

   One thing that John Cowan used to do which was the right thing to do, IMHO, was to briefly summarize any proposal, and as appropriate, its pros and cons and other ramifications (he included changes to the formal YACC grammar in that summary; I don't even know what the current equivalent would be, since I don't know if the YACC grammar is still considered the fundamental definition of the grammar.  I had hoped that byfy would be doing this. and then passing the set of proposed/approved changes to LLG as part of the byfy jatna's annual report.

lojbab [ 2019-01-14T00:02:26Z ]

   There have been a variety of experimental cmavo proposed and added to jbovlaste (which as far as I know is still unofficial, but ,..) .  I do not know which if any of these cmavo have even been considered by byfy, much less approved.  We need a list.

lojbab [ 2019-01-14T00:07:55Z ]

   I should note that most byfy proceedings have been in-language, and I have approved of this in principle.  But I myself do not really "read" the language, but rather engage in a word-by-word translation.  Thus I have never been able to realistically follow byfy discussions and long ago gave up trying.  So any role I play will be dependent on others doing this summarizing work.

vecusku [ 2019-01-14T07:21:14Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Of course

and.rosta [ 2019-01-14T09:45:22Z ]

   Because I am in membership because of LLG's putative mission to promote loglangs and not because of its other mission to promote Lojban, I intend to keep out of discussions of Lojban. Given the comparative desultoriness of discussion in this "meeting", I think it might be helpful to identify such principled nonparticipation.

ilmen [ 2019-01-14T10:22:26Z ]

   @and: Have you checked out the Toaq loglang?

and.rosta [ 2019-01-14T12:48:36Z ]

   I did when it was first announced. It's as impressive as one would expect from Selpahi. The members meeting probably isn't the right forum to discuss its particulars further, so I've just created a Loglang google group. 

and.rosta [ 2019-01-14T12:54:26Z ]

   I'd said I was going to try to keep out of the Lojban-specific discussion; but with regard to the discussion of the fate of the BPFK, I wonder if it would be more consistent with the will of the LLG membership to leave Lojban and its documentation as it is, dissolving the BPFK without transferring its duties to any new agent, and let those seeking a loglang redirect their energies to other loglang projects (such as Toaq).

vecusku [ 2019-01-14T12:57:27Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: What to do with those that are interested with Lojban and want documentation?

vecusku [ 2019-01-14T12:57:38Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Interested in*

karis [ 2019-01-17T03:04:34Z ]

   I appreciate the explanation. It is always a bit frustrating to run any meeting that people are present for yet not participating and not know why. It is worse when I'm feeling like I am pulling responses out most of the time. 

karis [ 2019-01-17T03:07:31Z ]

   The issue with doing this is many are invested in lojban specifically at this time. They may have come in because it's at least basically a loglang, but stayed because they saw something that clicked, because of the time they've invested, or something else.

karis [ 2019-01-17T03:09:50Z ]

   I believe IF it's dissolved then the work of the committee becomes a part of the duties of the Membership.

karis [ 2019-01-17T03:14:28Z ]

   A list of these cmavo, as well as a list of what has actually been approved, is certainly necessary. This is true regardless of the BPFK's "fate". A gulf exists now that making those meetings solely in lojban widened. 

gleki [ 2019-01-17T09:43:06Z ]

   I already tried to get such a list. Lojbab replied in regards to xorlo I had to contact selpahi which barely makes any sense. Selpahi wasn't a member of bpfk in 2003 or he was where are the records?

karis [ 2019-01-17T11:07:43Z ]

   @lagleki,  did you ask selpa'i if he knew? 

gleki [ 2019-01-17T11:30:36Z ]

   No. Why? Why should I even believe people? There must be documents, not people.

ilmen [ 2019-01-17T13:20:09Z ]

   Solpahi wasn't yet in the Lojban community when Xorlo was made official.

gleki [ 2019-01-17T13:29:45Z ]

   But here is not even some community. LLG is an organization, BPFK is a committee. Relying on fairy tales is not where we should be aiming at. 
   If some materials are lost or can't be provided I think it's worth to say they are not official. 
   Nevertheless it's always possible to make reverse changes to decisions allegedly made in past

karis [ 2019-01-18T01:46:12Z ]

   Hold on a minute. Just because a piece of paper with notes on a decision by some company executives is found missing years later I strongly doubt that policies based on it known throughout the company are reverted. Why should we? 
   

karis [ 2019-01-18T01:48:28Z ]

   I asked if you had spoken to selpa'i about it because if there are internal (to the committee) documents they may have been passed to him whether he were involved then or not. 
   
   If not it is still official enough that a description of it is published on our website as official material, and buried in the archives of emails and meeting notes there should be the report made to LLG about the decision. Others can be asked as well. 

karis [ 2019-01-18T01:51:10Z ]

   Does anyone want to speak on the question of whether or not we should dissolve the BPFK? That is the broadest level of this topic, as far as I see. 

vecusku [ 2019-01-18T05:06:25Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: The problem is that there is no even a description on the website of what xorlo really is. There are some pages marked as BPFK's ones but no indicator how official they are.

vecusku [ 2019-01-18T05:09:04Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: I propose that BPFK present all internal materials with its official decisions to us including but not limited xorlo. It should be an exhaustive list.

vecusku [ 2019-01-18T05:11:58Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: If that is a motion, I second it (after asking that the information be provided in at least English). At the very least, it would be nice to have a consolidate reference list for their work.

vecusku [ 2019-01-18T05:12:07Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: *consolidated

ilmen [ 2019-01-18T17:23:54Z ]

   I think the BPFK reference documentation of Xorlo is actually the BPFK gadri section page: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri

ilmen [ 2019-01-18T17:26:04Z ]

   This page is labeled as among the pages that "have been checkpointed at least once, and hence are expected to not suck too badly" "(except lo'e and le'e)".

vecusku [ 2019-01-18T18:12:45Z ]

   **Gleki Arxokuna**: Yes but that says nothing whether they were approved by BPFK, whether the latter sent any information to LLG on the status of these pages

karis [ 2019-01-19T03:13:38Z ]

   @channel 
   XORLO ETC PROPOSAL
   
   @lagleki has made a proposal, seconded by Curtis Franks via vecusku, of the following
   
   "BPFK present all internal materials with its official decisions to us including but not limited xorlo. It should be an exhaustive list".
   
   Discussion is now open. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T03:16:09Z ]

   @channel, I would like to make a friendly amendment as follows:
   
   I propose changing the wording to start with, "BPFK is directed to present..." 

karis [ 2019-01-19T03:32:30Z ]

   By the way the link to the gadri discussion is now in the links section should anyone want it later. 

banseljaj [ 2019-01-19T13:16:25Z ]

   I vote for the proposal.

banseljaj [ 2019-01-19T13:17:10Z ]

   I believe that having an official BPFK report, with decisions, and possibly discussions will help us move forward with the status of BPFK

gleki [ 2019-01-19T14:19:06Z ]

   Also note the mention llg-members mailing list. Perhaps llg-members archives can provide more clues http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+2003+Report&bl

karis [ 2019-01-19T15:38:31Z ]

   I called for discussion, not a vote yet. We've also gotten an official report. One issue is they haven't done anything in more than a year. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T15:54:17Z ]

   This may be more useful.
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Sections

gleki [ 2019-01-19T15:59:33Z ]

   Karis, I'm surprised you don't know what those pages are. But continuing ilmen's unofficial stream of opinions here's mine. The pages listed at http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Sections were probably born in this older wiki (Twiki). People wrote some pages and then members of BPFK voted on/against whole pages. 
   Unfortunately, the wiki system had a flaw: any member could edit the pages and previous votes wouldn't be annulled. Ultimately this leads to inability to understand which version of the page was voted upon.

gleki [ 2019-01-19T16:00:45Z ]

   Migration to MediaWiki engine lost even those votes (although the original wiki is still up and running, just in somewhat unusable state).

gleki [ 2019-01-19T16:01:58Z ]

   One solution I can envision is to have a hypergraph (or at least GoogleWave-like) voting mechanism where pages are split into tiny issues which are voted upon.

gleki [ 2019-01-19T16:04:52Z ]

   Another option is to use Git. This is how CLL 1.1 was born: peple make commits (=edits) to the text of CLL, make pull requests to merge their changes into the main branch (branch ~= version). Every edit can be commented by others. A bunch of edits can be grouped into one pull request. Github.com has a voting mechanism for each created pull request. The main branch is considered the one Robin (or any person who would have his duties) would use for printing purposes and therefor would be considered an official material.

gleki [ 2019-01-19T16:07:53Z ]

   CLL 1.1 was basically created by Robin, selpahi, Ilmen... other people (sorry for forgetting their names) using exactly this Git system just without any voting process. Gordian knot of voting was iirc solved by benevolent dictatorship.

karis [ 2019-01-19T16:15:51Z ]

   I provided it to try and flesh out the BPFK history of decisions. Since all the work by BPFK, including its formation, took place when I wasn't out was barely following lojban happenings I don't know all of what it's done. That's why I asked what changes were important to know when I got back involved. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T16:23:32Z ]

   As of this link...
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/How_to_use_xorlo
   
   Voting was 11-0, so there is a record that xorlo was voted on. 

gleki [ 2019-01-19T16:29:11Z ]

   And my question is what was vote upon exactly. Xorlo is just a name, it has many versions

karis [ 2019-01-19T16:47:12Z ]

   The vote was on xorlo as explained on that page. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T16:47:33Z ]

   It is therefore the only official version. 

gleki [ 2019-01-19T16:52:15Z ]

   We need records who and when voted for what. You link to mediawiki which was created in 2013, ten years after some version of xorlo was approved. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T17:08:10Z ]

   Then provide a better one, with translation of the final proposal and vote. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T17:09:59Z ]

   And yes, that page is the official version unless we decide otherwise. 

karis [ 2019-01-19T17:15:14Z ]

   Xorlo is only being discussed here as part of discussing the proposal. We aren't making such a list.
   
   Does anyone else have thoughts on the proposal itself? 

gleki [ 2019-01-19T17:17:21Z ]

   we definitely need to stabilize the situation. The migration to mediawiki was done mostly by me. Who knows what I missed when migrating

karis [ 2019-01-19T17:19:23Z ]

   That's a separate issue. Feel free to add it to the agenda. 

gleki [ 2019-01-20T07:52:43Z ]

   Actually one important item in the todo list would be having a nicely formatted document of changes between CLL 1.0 and CLL 1.1

karis [ 2019-01-20T20:40:10Z ]

   True. 

karis [ 2019-01-20T20:42:58Z ]

   I have no idea if anyone from the BPFK has done that or is/was working on it. Would you please reach out to those in the group, on a chat, email to the group, or however you communicate and ask, @lagleki? 

gleki [ 2019-01-20T20:43:50Z ]

   Which group?

karis [ 2019-01-20T21:56:04Z ]

   BPFK

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:02:13Z ]

   Whether selpa'i was or was ot a member at the time xorlo was adopted is not relevant.  He has been the byfy jatna for a few years now and thus responsible for officially documenting the state of the language.  If he doesn't know what xorlo officially is, then xorlo defaults to whatever was presented to the membership when it was officially approved by the membership.  (Of course it is possible that Robin has a writeup of xorlo that he approved when he was jatna, and he could also be asked, but at this point he no longer has any responsibility, having been out of office for so long).  

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:04:29Z ]

   And selpa'i might in fact have done so, in which case his decision is the one that matters, since we made the byfy jatna effectively a benevolent dictator subject to annual review.  But we wonj't know unless we ask (and he answers).

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:09:29Z ]

   As constituted, it is effectively moribund, unless someone we approve of wants to take the jatna job.  So failing that, I think byfy is defunct whether or not dissolved.  The only question at that level is whether dissolution buys us something that moves things forward.  I don't think it does.  And if people pass the buck back to me, I'd rather have the moribund structure to work from than nothing at all.

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:12:09Z ]

   It is up to the jatna.  If he doesn't wish to assert them, then they are merely suggestions for the next jatna to work from. Probably better than nothing at all, and most especially better that jbovlaste which as far as I know has no one reviewing or approving. 

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:14:46Z ]

   "checkponted at least once" presumably has a procedural definition indictaing some sort of approval at some point, even if they are not necessarily current or accurate.  Better than nothing, and indeed much better than what we had to work from when John Cowan wrote CLL

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:19:27Z ]

   So far as I know, selpa'i has never really presented a "byfy report".  He's made a minimal "we still exist and I am still willing to be jatna statement every year until now, and that is all, but the membership wasn't willing to challenge him to do more.

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:23:46Z ]

   Robin was jatna when you migrated to mediawiki, was he not?  If he accepted your migration as becoming the official Lojban pages and those byfy pages you migrated among them, then he effectively approved your migration as official, whether or not it was voted on.

lojbab [ 2019-01-20T23:31:13Z ]

   That should be doable using a diff listing.  But it isn't vital. 1.1 was approved as the new official version by the person LLG put in charge of it, so it is official.  The perils of making Robin dictator is that indeed the language officially became what he said it was.  Of course I don't even have a copy of 1.1 and have no clue how to use git or any other online tool that has been used (beyond what I've picked up in recent weeks of this site); I don't work "online" as a matter of habit.

phma [ 2019-01-21T01:18:29Z ]

   Do we still have the previous wiki, in case we need to get dates from it?

gleki [ 2019-01-21T05:36:19Z ]

   Ok let it be so. But after that other people could edit pages. Does that mean that every edit even if it's vandalism (e.g. erasing whole pages) automatically erases them from official resources?

gleki [ 2019-01-21T05:37:03Z ]

   Didn't I link to it a few days ago?

phma [ 2019-01-21T06:20:02Z ]

   Ah. I see.

karis [ 2019-01-21T09:19:57Z ]

   Isn't that why the Board has been talking about the issue of backups? 

gleki [ 2019-01-21T10:04:34Z ]

   Well I guess no. The wiki does contain the whole history of edits. The problem is that every edit invalidates previous edits and makes the new version of the page official so that every such editor becomes a dictator.
   
   As for backups they would contain the whole wiki with page histories so that losing one hosting won't lead to the loss of the information

gleki [ 2019-01-21T10:06:03Z ]

   In order to understand the problem you need to become an editor yourself.
   
   Otherwise LLG would turn into a bunch of people who judge something they don't really understand

karis [ 2019-01-21T13:38:32Z ]

   There is a difference between looking official as it's what the page says and being official be means of vote by the appropriate people or presidential decision.

karis [ 2019-01-21T13:45:17Z ]

   By searching xorlo lojban, as anyone learning the language who's looking for clarification might, the link I originally posted comes up first in duck-duck-go. The next several will follow. My point is to show were most people will get their information on it,not that any of these are necessarily correct. 
    https://www.reddit.com/r/lojban/comments/51ypw6/about_xorlo/
   
   which is followed by...
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Talk:How_to_use_xorlo
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/User:Gleki/xorlo_as_seen_by_La_Gleki
   
   https://conlang.stackexchange.com/questions/91/what-does-xorlo-do-and-is-it-an-official-part-of-the-lojban-language
   (This refers to the 11-0 vote as well.)
   
   https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lojban
   
   https://www.reddit.com/r/lojban/
   
   https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/M9Jug4X-0pc/Bp0m-eP3X0sJ
   
   http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%253A%2BYou%2527rec%2BDoing%2BIt%2BWrong
   
   and so on.
   

lojbab [ 2019-01-22T01:29:56Z ]

   This may partly be a matter of byfy policy and practice.  IIRC, when Nick and Robin originally set things up, byfy pages were locked once they were checkpointed, and before checkpointing, each page was managed by a "shepherd".  I think it was set up that only the shepherd could modify the main language descriptive text, but others could comment on it because the discussion pages were separate.  There was also an email list which sent out change pages and comments to people like me who did not actually work on pages (again because I don't work well with online tools).  It looks like that mailing list continued to function up until 2012 and thus I could probably find when any particular change was made (and maybe who made it) up until then.

lojbab [ 2019-01-22T01:31:31Z ]

   Vandalism should be grounds for losing permission to change any page.

lojbab [ 2019-01-22T01:36:19Z ]

   Per my last, it seems like what has changed is that everyone has permission to change any page, rather than having shepherds responsible for the official descriptions pages and others restricted to discussion pages.  That methodology seems to prevent the problem that gleki refers to.  (Of course the jatna has the authority to remove a shepherd whose dictatorial instincts run against the sense of the community, just as the members/board have the same authority wrt the jatna.

gleki [ 2019-01-22T06:00:02Z ]

   Yes Shepherd could modify but the number of votes was not annulled after each edit

gleki [ 2019-01-22T06:00:35Z ]

   This has nothing to do with instincts. This was a flaw of the wiki

karis [ 2019-01-23T03:59:45Z ]

   The shepherd system seems reasonable.

karis [ 2019-01-23T04:09:26Z ]

   I found work as late as 2016 or 2017. It seems, though, that people were burning out which may have been exacerbated by the requirement that everyone be able to hold the discussions in lojban. I know there were also good reasons for this, which are discussed somewhat as part of the essay by Robin  (@rlpowell) which is one of the links I provided above. I found it interesting and well reasoned. If any of you haven't read it I suggest you do. While not written in his official capacity nor posted as an official document it directly relates to our discussion of the future of the BPFK. 

sukender [ 2019-01-24T06:34:54Z ]

   sukender a rejoint le canal.

gleki [ 2019-01-24T14:18:40Z ]

   I also propose that LLG declares Lojban language exactly as it is now described in CLL 1.1

gleki [ 2019-01-24T14:20:17Z ]

   I also propose that LLG accepts a policy never to change Lojban without corresponding changes in CLL and that approving a new version of CLL automatically mean approving of the new version of the language and deprecating all the other ones.

karis [ 2019-01-25T02:05:45Z ]

   Hold on, @gleki. A proposal is on the floor. If anyone gets an idea for another proposal please add it to the agenda. If you cannot, you may message it to me since @mukti is quite busy. 

karis [ 2019-01-25T02:06:40Z ]

   Agenda:
   
   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WIO0e-GcR1vAFcMLtpHO4EeQnjeuQQwmXIcJj65haBs/edit?usp=drivesdk

karis [ 2019-01-26T03:34:20Z ]

   @gleki, do you accept changing the wording of the proposal under discussion to read, "BPFK is directed to present all internal materials with its official decisions to the LLG Membership including, but not limited to xorlo. It should be an exhaustive list."? 

karis [ 2019-01-26T03:35:24Z ]

   This just changes the beginning to be clearer and specifies who "us" is in your original proposal. 

gleki [ 2019-01-26T06:14:31Z ]

   Yes, I accept.

karis [ 2019-01-26T16:20:07Z ]

   I'm not sure how this proposal, with either wording, does anything more than simply asking for the records. If they exist we get what can be found and we don't get what can't either way. By asking I believe there's a better chance of getting full cooperation.

gleki [ 2019-01-26T16:20:58Z ]

   Sure

karis [ 2019-02-02T04:13:52Z ]

   @channel BPFK RECORDS VOTE
   It's been a week with no discussion on this proposal so I am now calling for votes. 
   
   I apologize for not doing this a couple of days ago, but I had a major procedure done on my foot to try and hassle several tendons and several ligaments I damaged in a fall and I have been dealing with the pain and not much else.
   
   Please cast your votes for the following proposal:
   
   "BPFK is directed to present all internal materials with its official decisions to the LLG Membership including, but not limited to xorlo. It should be an exhaustive list."

vecusku [ 2019-02-02T05:30:55Z ]

   **Wesley Wilson**: I approve

vecusku [ 2019-02-02T05:31:59Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: Approve.

phma [ 2019-02-03T02:31:40Z ]

   I approve.

karis [ 2019-02-04T19:39:03Z ]

   @channel anyone else care to vote? 

and.rosta [ 2019-02-04T21:31:25Z ]

   I abstain.

vecusku [ 2019-02-05T04:08:49Z ]

   **Robin Lee Powell**: I abstain

gleki [ 2019-02-05T06:15:23Z ]

   Just a reminder. The main channel is in Mattermost. If you use bridges to it I have ti inform that they can be unstable for various reasons. One of them is that the bridge to Facebook is a reverse-engineered thing and a bridge using official API is impossible since there is no such API.

lojbab [ 2019-02-05T23:28:55Z ]

   I approve.

karis [ 2019-02-06T08:55:22Z ]

   I approve
   
   I am hesitant because I feel this may be a burden on the jatna since the group is mostly inactive. It does seem a good offal to have this information all in one document rather than spread through whatever notes there are in reports to LLG and their own internal notes. 

gleki [ 2019-02-06T08:56:24Z ]

   Burden?

gleki [ 2019-02-06T08:57:55Z ]

   Burdock could be bardana btw

karis [ 2019-02-06T08:57:58Z ]

   Yes. Corrected. 

karis [ 2019-02-06T08:59:41Z ]

   Burdock is a plant that grows all over my property, which may be why the autocorrect went with it. 

gleki [ 2019-02-06T09:01:21Z ]

   If there is no reply there are plenty of other options

gleki [ 2019-02-06T09:01:58Z ]

   There are people that can support documentation whether or not that would lead to a perfect language

gleki [ 2019-02-06T09:02:07Z ]

   Whether inside bpfk or not

gleki [ 2019-02-06T09:02:57Z ]

   But aiming at reachable goals would be another proposal on the agenda. Let's stick to the current ones first ofc.

karis [ 2019-02-06T09:03:18Z ]

   Since my autocorrect is set for English bardana would be less likely, but it certainly could have been that. Lol

karis [ 2019-02-06T09:06:44Z ]

   @lagleki that was somewhat confusing, specifically the second and third posts. 

karis [ 2019-02-06T09:11:03Z ]

   I don't know what you mean by other people supporting documentation. Do you mean providing it? By perfect language are you referring to accurate language based on BPFK decisions? 

gleki [ 2019-02-06T10:32:52Z ]

   I mostly mean official documentation, its accessibility. We lack both now.

gleki [ 2019-02-06T10:33:25Z ]

   We have unofficial documentation though. E.g. Complete Lojban Grammar book

gleki [ 2019-02-06T10:34:35Z ]

   Hm, It can be named official because it was published by LLG but it's certainly in conflict with what the website says

lojbab [ 2019-02-07T10:51:37Z ]

   CLL is official, and has been since 1997.  The website does not supersede that status (especially since almost anyone can change it).  Only an explicitly approved change by byfy would sffect the official description, and the jatna has not reported any such approved change since he took office.

gleki [ 2019-02-07T10:53:23Z ]

   What about earlier jatna? Didn't they report on xorlo becoming official?

karis [ 2019-02-08T02:06:23Z ]

   I'm not positive, having been inactive, but I do believe the only grammar change of which LLG was notified is xorlo. I'm less sure of the status of what's known as dot-side. The rest of the changes, as I understand, were words. Does anyone else know the certain answer to this? 

karis [ 2019-02-11T04:02:48Z ]

   I apologize for not being active the last several days. I'm having a health issue at the moment who've should resolve in a few days at which  point I'll return. 

vecusku [ 2019-02-11T04:22:09Z ]

   **Curtis W. Fraŋks**: We wish you the best. Take your time!

lojbab [ 2019-02-12T22:09:26Z ]

   xorlo was approved by the membership at a meeting in the 2000s, I believe at the recommendation of the then-jatna, but it possibly was between jatna (Nick and   Robin).  The only other issue that may have been decided by a byfy (but I am not sure) is "dotside", for which there was strong support, but we may have been waiting for some documentation of exactly what the change was.

gleki [ 2019-02-13T06:07:52Z ]

   Any records of that approval?

veion [ 2019-02-14T04:45:02Z ]

   I sent a mail list record of the 2007 Meeting vote on adding xorlo to the interim baseline to llg-members

karis [ 2019-02-14T10:10:26Z ]

   @ channel Would those of you who were on the mailing list in 2007 and 2008 please see if you can find this and provide me a copy? Either you or I can then put a summary here. I can then add it as a link in the "links" section of this chat. 

karis [ 2019-02-14T10:20:42Z ]

   VOTE TOTALS
   @channel, the vote on the following proposal by @lagleki is now closed. The results follow the restatement of the proposal itself. 
   
   "BPFK is directed to present all internal materials with its official decisions to the LLG Membership including, but not limited to xorlo. It should be an exhaustive list."
   
   FOR - 5
   AGAINST - 0
   ABSTAIN - 2
   
   I therefore direct the current and former jatna of the BPFK to do all possible to compile such material to be presented to the Board as soon as possible, though definitely before July 31, 2019 as this meeting will hopefully be over soon. The Board will provide all materials obtained to the Members at the next Members Meeting. 

karis [ 2019-02-14T10:31:05Z ]

   @channel (I apologize for so many pins in such short order),
   
   We are now returning to the question of whether we are dissolving the BPFK and, because of the proposal just approved I am postponing this topic to the next Members Meeting in order to allow for compilation of its decisions before this is decided. Anyone who would prefer to make the decision now may certainly provide their reasoning.
   
   Instead I now direct this meeting to return to the discussion of, whether we are reelecting the current jatna to the BPFK. Discussion is open. 

veion [ 2019-02-14T12:51:31Z ]

   The mailing list record of the 2007 xorlo vote is now attached here

gleki [ 2019-02-14T13:23:31Z ]

   That's just terrible. They voted not on a document but a name. And Xorlo was my dog so they voted in favor of her

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:26:33Z ]

   Well the documentation might have been in a previous thread. Could somebody check that out?

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:27:26Z ]

   Not all the LLG members of that time necessarily knew what were the details of Xorlo, I suppose there must have been some previous explanation or link to a description of Xorlo

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:40:06Z ]

   I'm reading the LLG archives, specifically the part where voting on Dotside was talked about

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:40:15Z ]

   It seems something went awry in the procedure

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:45:07Z ]

   [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business
   
   Lojbab, 2016-03-20: ``I think that mukti has made two motions, and both have been seconded.  I do not see any other motions, nor any amendments or request for them.``
   
   ``1. "Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK’s findings on “dotside”, I move that we do so."``
   
   ``2. "If the chair of BPFK would accept re-appointment to that position, I would also like ask that we vote to recognize his leadership for another term."``
   
   ``For 2., the conditional probably requires that selpa'i actually say that he accepts, but I won't hold up the motion waiting for that.``
   
   ``Discussion on either motion can continue if desired, but if I see no explicit objection, or an explicit request to hold up either question for additional discussion, then both motions will be considered approved after end of day next Wednesday (23rd).``
   
   ————————————————
   
   
   Mukti, 2016-04-24: ``On March 18, I moved that we accept BPFK’s report on dotside and on March 24 it was deemed to have passed without opposition.I don’t think that further action is required, but someone please object if this is not correct.``

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:48:28Z ]

   Ah no, I misunderstood. It seems the lack of objection to the motion ``Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK’s findings on “dotside”`` was interpreted as an implicit approval of the officialization of Dotside.

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:48:42Z ]

   Is that correct?

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:51:49Z ]

   Mukti, 2016-03-08:
   ``I want to once again thank selpa’i for his leadership at BPFK, and for his report to the membership. ``
   
   ``If further action is warranted, it's for this body to formally recognize the findings of BPFK, and in particular, the “dotside” rule linked in the BPFK report:``
   
   ``https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla``
   
   ``"All cmevla must begin and end with a pause or glottal stop, regardless of grammatical context. The syllables la, lai, la'i and doi are no longer subject to special restrictions inside cmevla.”``
   
   ``According to the BPFK reauthorization passed by the membership at the last meeting (https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Reauthorization), a supermajority vote is necessary for LLG to adopt a document presented by BPFK as an official standard of LLG.``
   
   ``In recognition of BPFK’s work and to reaffirm the relationship between LLG and BPFK, it seems to me that this should be brought to a vote when we reach “new business”. Unless BPFK objects, I intend to raise such a motion at that time, or would gladly second a motion that someone else raises.``
   
   ``—Riley``

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:53:11Z ]

   Can the previously mentioned motion be accepted implicitly (by lack of objection) under the rule Mukti/Riley mention here, ``a supermajority vote is necessary for LLG to adopt a document presented by BPFK as an official standard of LLG``?

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:55:19Z ]

   If everything is okay, then we probably should register in a visible place that Dotside is now officially endorsed by the LLG.

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:58:10Z ]

   The other decisions that have been made by the BPFK since its reauthorisation are listed there:

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:58:13Z ]

   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Decisions

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T17:59:44Z ]

   I don't think the 2016-03-15 and 2014-12-27 items have been submitted to the LLG for ratification.

gleki [ 2019-02-14T18:31:01Z ]

   Notice that I put one proposal on the agenda that disallows any ratification of such proposals unless they are included into CLL candidate editions

veion [ 2019-02-14T18:31:54Z ]

   The original text of the page https://mw.lojban.org/papri/How_to_use_xorlo had been available for about three years at the time of the vote. Most probably it contains the definition approved to be added to the interim baseline.

gleki [ 2019-02-14T18:32:52Z ]

   The mediawiki didn't exist in 2007 so no. In any case what I said. Voting for names is meaningless

veion [ 2019-02-14T18:34:51Z ]

   The original text of the page was written by the head of BPFK Robin Lee Powell with the words: "That's it. Hope you enjoy our Christmas 2004 present."

gleki [ 2019-02-14T18:35:47Z ]

   What if the notion of xorlo changed during those three years?

gleki [ 2019-02-14T18:36:46Z ]

   What if some bad guy starts saying that xorlo meant something else? You could see such things happening here in log a few years ago

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:01:13Z ]

   Until 1.1 was completed, any discussion of further "candidate editions" was not considered.  I don't know if the current jatna, selpa'i, expressed any plans for updating CLL further.

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:02:58Z ]

   Thus at minimum your proposal would have to specify who or what determines if and when there would be a new CLL candidate edition, who would be responsible for producing/editing it, etc.  I rather doubt that Robin wants to do it again %^).

gleki [ 2019-02-14T19:03:04Z ]

   Sure lojbab. History is history. But we need to move on once human resources and technology are at our expense

gleki [ 2019-02-14T19:06:21Z ]

   For the content (le se cukta) I propose lojbab and Cowan as ultimate deciders. For printing the book (le cukta) I propose either myself or Robin. For updating the content (that is moving content into compiled files one can send to publishers) I propose myself

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:06:40Z ]

   The byfy jatna has total authority to define and document xorlo (and to rule on whether someone else's notion was in fact valid).  (The LLG membership could overrule the jatna in theory, but it isn't likely.)

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:13:27Z ]

   I would have to discuss this with Cowan to determine if either of us wants this responsibility.  I have not yet done so because I've been unsure what you were proposing.  While I am not declining this at this point, my actions of recent years have been to try to get myself out of the critical path in case by health gets worse (recently my health has improved due to major weight loss, or I would have declined)

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:17:12Z ]

   Meaningless or not, that is in fact what the membership voted for.  Probably it was understood that it was xorlo as defined by the jatna (Robin), with the expectation that baseline documentation would eventually be produced by byfy along with other baseline documentation.

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:23:07Z ]

   Do we know who prepared this page?  Is this one of those pages that is changeable by everyone. or just by the byfy jatna and/or his delegated authority.

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:26:42Z ]

   I would interpret my comments, as you have quoted them, as supporting this interpretation, and that dotside has therefore been approved per the byfy text that mukti cited.

lojbab [ 2019-02-14T19:33:52Z ]

   I would also suggest that, if there is a corresponding description of the various gadri affected by xorlo among the byfy pages, that a similarly worded citation would meet gleki's complaint about xorlo being adequately documented.  It certainly was the case when I was active in byfy that the various pages labeled "BPFK Section ..." were considered to be the standard for formal documentation prior to any planned update of CLL.  In those days, I believe that only the jatna and the "shepherd" for that section could make changes to the formal definition page.

gleki [ 2019-02-14T19:37:52Z ]

   Well one would need to know how exactly to update CLL to introduce a certain change to the language. Those is one of my complaints. The other one is that one person can ruin the language. I'd prefer changes that have many ayes and zero nays

gleki [ 2019-02-14T19:40:04Z ]

   And we should clearly separate history from New stuff of course

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:38:30Z ]

   I am the one who wrote this page, and I am member of the byfy. I can point to the BPFK mailing list threads where those different decision were voted on, if need be.

gleki [ 2019-02-14T20:40:23Z ]

   I think that page contains just links to decisions but not the text of decisions themselves. One can only ask whether the list is exhaustive

gleki [ 2019-02-14T20:40:30Z ]

   Oops

gleki [ 2019-02-14T20:41:10Z ]

   I think that page contains just links to decisions but not the text of decisions themselves. One can only ask whether the list is exhaustive

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:42:02Z ]

   There are links to the descriptions of each decision

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:46:28Z ]

   Those were all the recent decisions I know of that were voted upon and whose vote results were declared by the byfy jatna

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:47:12Z ]

   There might be some semantic clarifications discussed in the BPFK list which weren't voted on and which are not registered elsewhere than in the mailing list

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:48:19Z ]

   In actuality there was a last vote ongoing on the BPFK list, namely the vote on banning {broda be ba brode} from being grammatical; the vote was fairly advanced by never finished, as the voted issue was somewhat controversial

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:51:08Z ]

   The proposal of disallowing {broda be ba brode} got positive votes from 4 byfy members (Solpahi, Guskant, Durka42 and Xorxes), and Pierre seemed to be in favor as well so maybe 5 positive votes; I abstained, Xalbo voted against and Cirko did not express their opinion

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:51:33Z ]

   The result of the vote has never been proclaimed by the jatna

ilmen [ 2019-02-14T20:51:54Z ]

   So I did not add it to the BPFK Decisions page

karis [ 2019-02-15T17:47:55Z ]

   Thank you very much. 

karis [ 2019-02-15T17:56:37Z ]

   This proposal will not go forward, nor will any other, until we finish the very necessary decision of whether we are reelecting selpa'i. I haven't forgotten its on the agenda, but it hasn't been opened for discussion.
   
   At the same time I appreciate @lojbab taking the time to think about the responsibility and for checking with @john.cowan since I'm not sure he's following these proceedings closely. 

karis [ 2019-02-15T17:57:57Z ]

   Very true. Also we aren't deciding if the decisions were done as we would like, just if they were accepted by LLG. 

karis [ 2019-02-15T18:43:45Z ]

   @channel I have reposted the information @ilmen supplied in the "links" chat. If you need access please ask.
   
   They are out of order. 

karis [ 2019-02-15T19:01:33Z ]

   Having read this, it appears that only two people voted. Is this true? 

gleki [ 2019-02-15T19:01:58Z ]

   Lojbab I don't propose you do something for a long time. Even I myself might go offline like what many others did here. The fallen flag will be picked by others in future

veion [ 2019-02-16T05:46:23Z ]

   The votes were cast as follows:
   
   Theodore Reed           mi sarji le se stidi
   Arnt Johansen             yes
   Graig Daniel                .iesai mi sarji lo xorlo
   David Barton               abstain
   John Cowan                 aye
   Pierre Abbot                yes
   Jorge Lambias             yes
   Mark E. Shoulson        abstain
   lojbab                          abstain
   Veijo Vilva                   abstain
   Robin Lee Powell        go'i ra'o   ref .iesai mi sarji lo xorlo
   And Rosta                   yes/abstain
   
   All the votes in Lojban were in effect 'yes'

ilmen [ 2019-02-17T17:32:54Z ]

   Can you find whether there was a presentation of Xorlo in the LLG mailing list prior to the vote?

karis [ 2019-02-19T20:01:33Z ]

   I asked selpa'i about what decisions were made by BPFK and he sent me this link.
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Decisions
   
    It has everything except xorlo listed. I've also looked through the meeting notes for when xorlo was voted on in the LLG Members Meeting and it does appear that at least some explanation of xorlo was provided. 

gleki [ 2019-02-19T20:12:22Z ]

   Please send the full text of that explanation

karis [ 2019-02-19T23:28:46Z ]

   The following came after an earlier comment that xorlo had been decided by vote. 

gleki [ 2019-02-20T09:29:12Z ]

   Okay but what does "This should be all of it" mean? All of the BPFK decisions ever approved? In this case this is certainly a contradiction to earlier assertionsthat some xorlo reform was approved by BPFK in past (note that LLG voted on a reform with the same name, "xorlo", which in general case should not be immediately considered identical to BPFK's "xorlo" reform).

gleki [ 2019-02-20T09:30:59Z ]

   By the way, have we got an answer from BPFK on the full list of BPFK decisions? Is the screenshot above somehow related to that expected answer?

karis [ 2019-02-20T22:02:06Z ]

   This is the reply. Xorlo, which was approved by BPFK and passed on to LLG who also approved it, is the _only_ decision not in selpa'i's letter. 
   
   OK, we have our list. All the proposals that group approved, as requested, have now been verified. While we might want them to be spelled out further, we do have the answer the entirety of what decisions BPFK actually approved, which was what was thought necessary before we decide if we should dissolve it. I see no reason to keep discussing if xorlo further, such as whether it was presented to LLG in detail before this body voted to approve the decision of BPFK. We aren't revoting on it. 

karis [ 2019-02-21T00:18:16Z ]

   @lagleki, since you are particularly interested in determining what BPFK decisions are brought before this meeting and ratified (a term from the meeting containing the origin of BPFK), I leave it to you to search the minutes of the Members Meetings to find anything on dot-side discussing it, particularly specific voting. Thank you. 

lojbab [ 2019-02-24T14:12:20Z ]

   Per the stuff you quoted from ilmen in the links section, this needs no further research  mukti moved to accept dotside, and per my ruling, the motion was adopted without objection.  There was no formal vote.

gleki [ 2019-02-24T14:20:02Z ]

   Offtopic: we now have a bridge to Discord. In case some people prefer Discord to Mattermost just tell me which server to use so that I can deploy the bridge pier there.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:32:24Z ]

   Is the question of what to do with the BPFK still open? I have a few ideas.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:36:23Z ]

   It was mentioned that there's been a lull in BPFK activity recently.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:40:11Z ]

   If the goal is to spur activity, the best solution is to make the process more accessible. Having a closed group of people off somewhere deciding things makes the process feel very inaccessible.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:42:09Z ]

   There are several solutions that might be used to address the problem. The first one is issuing a public call for applications, or in some other way inviting new members. That proposal is limited in how much it changes things, but that also means it would be likely to have limited results.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:47:20Z ]

   The way open programming languages address the same problem (soliciting ideas while also maintaining expert control) is to have RFCs, whereby the community can submit and comment on proposals for change. How to adopt, reject, or otherwise dispose of the proposal is then decided by a group of experts.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:47:42Z ]

   One example is the Rust RFC system, which is quite well developed: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:51:54Z ]

   After a proposal is made, comment is solicited. Then any member of the relevant expert groups (they have different groups for different areas) can propose to adopt the change, reject it, or postpone it. In practice, people do things like accepting on an experimental basis or requesting specific changes. The team then votes and the proposed resolution is adopted if at least half of the team has supported it and no one has opposed it (crucially, all opposition must state a specific concern). If the team is divided, they discuss, try to reach consensus, and presumably eventually hold a vote.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:53:24Z ]

   The advantage of the structure is that it makes it easy to quickly iterate on an idea. People bring ideas, concerns are considered, the idea is refined, and then all is resolved by an expert group.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T00:54:05Z ]

   Might something similar work for Lojban?

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T01:15:32Z ]

   See, for some examples of things that really deserves to be written up, discussed, and voted upon:

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T01:15:34Z ]

    https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/a-simpler-connective-system/ 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T01:15:48Z ]

   https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-simpler-quantifier-logic/

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T01:16:15Z ]

   https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/noiha/

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T01:16:29Z ]

   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Proposal_for_reform

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T02:58:07Z ]

   If this is supposed to be a complete list of all BPFK decisions *ever*, it is very incomplete. The BPFK also changed or clarified the definitions of many cmavo. Among other things, they changed the meanings of ZAhO  when used as summit tcita, substantially tweaked the definitions of some of the irrealis attitudinals, and fiddled with the way ZOI works with erasures by changing the mechanisms used for magic words. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Sections

karis [ 2019-02-25T05:49:07Z ]

   @bookofportals i was simply passing along what I was told. It may be selpa'i was referring to only during his term in office.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T05:51:59Z ]

   @karis I'm very sorry if my comment sounded adversarial; rereading it I can see that it might be read that way. I was commenting merely on the completeness of the list itself and I certainly didn't mean to blame anyone for its current state.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T05:57:25Z ]

   **gleki**: bookofportals: your suggestion seems useful although it's not much relevant to BPFK. How do you imagine implementing your system? There should b some software used, right?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T05:58:37Z ]

   **gleki**: Btw, you mentioned BPFK was a closed group of people. That's not true. Anyone who speaks fluent Lojban could and can join BPFK.
   
   

karis [ 2019-02-25T05:58:40Z ]

   I put off the question of whether to dissolve BPFK until the next meeting thinking that it would take must longer to get a detailed list of their decisions. Personally I wasn't a fan of the move to transfer language decisions to a group where functional fluency was necessary for participation. At the time I found out this had happened the group had been working for a number of years. Your idea is certainly worth discussing for the future, either of this committee or any we decided to form at another time. 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T05:59:19Z ]

   bookofportals a mis à jour l'entête du canal en : The Logical Language Group's annual meeting. All Lojbanists are welcome.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:00:36Z ]

   la gleki, how isn't it relevant to the BPFK? They set language standards, don't they?

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:03:36Z ]

   Yes, Rust uses automation for vote counting and that kind of thing. There's a bot they use - if there's enough interest, we could ask Robin Lee Powell or whoever handles technical stuff these days to set it up.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:03:52Z ]

   **gleki**: Fluency in Lojban is necessary to be a member of BPFK. Almost everyone who was active in Lojban community on the internet and could speak fluent Lojban joined BPFK. So there was no possibility to add many more members to it.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:04:20Z ]

   **gleki**: As for voting I once mentioned here that Newton's laws can't be voted upon.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:04:52Z ]

   **gleki**: What's the bot Rust community uses? Link to the source?
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:05:44Z ]

   https://github.com/anp/rfcbot-rs

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:08:02Z ]

   **gleki**: I see, it's for github. So we should first create repositories in some github-like system with support for discussing issues?
   
   

karis [ 2019-02-25T06:08:13Z ]

   I didn't take it as adversarial. I am having to go by what other people tell me of BPFK's work, so I was explaining the source. 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:09:04Z ]

   We'd probably use GitHub, just for simplicity. Registering an account is free and trivial.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:09:39Z ]

   We already have one for the CLL.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:10:03Z ]

   https://github.com/lojban

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:11:28Z ]

   Thank you for pointing out that the BPFK isn't closed.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:12:26Z ]

   I'm not sure if that fact is widely known; no one brought it up when I asked about how to join on the (general Lojban) mailing list.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:13:46Z ]

   Still though, karis is right that requiring fluency to propose (formally, anyway) language decisions is a pretty high barrier to entry.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:14:33Z ]

   I mean I get the "decisions should be made by those who know their way around the issue" factor, but the BPFK hasn't done anything in a year.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:15:00Z ]

   I don't know of a formal language change that's been made in ages.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:28:07Z ]

   Isn't it possible that having discussions in English, with a group of those experienced in Lojban making the final call (perhaps starting with the current members of the BPFK), would help bring more ideas into the process and get it moving again?

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:28:53Z ]

   **gleki**: GitHub is closed source software. We can't deploy it elsewhere ourselves. In case Microsoft deletes ou accounts we lose all of the content. Issues can't be exported.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:29:18Z ]

   True.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:29:54Z ]

   > bookofportals: We already have one for the CLL.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:29:55Z ]

   **gleki**: Who are "we"? That's a repository that de facto hosts the code of CLL. Historical reasons.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:30:21Z ]

   We is in this context intended to refer to the Lojban community.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:30:42Z ]

   There's a reason almost all major open source software (except Linux, the GNU project, and some of the others who are big enough to host their own version control) trusts GitHub.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:31:16Z ]

   **gleki**: CLL has been upgraded and published by Benevolent Dictator. So it was his choice to use or continue using GitHub.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:32:22Z ]

   **gleki**: We are not open source software. I don't want to lose mine (and others') records of my thoughts/proposals/memories just because some Microsoft decides to delete them.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:33:12Z ]

   They've never done that.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:33:14Z ]

   **gleki**: Any software we use must be deployable on our servers and must have ways to export all the logs.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:33:29Z ]

   They won't ever do it, because all of their users would leave overnight.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:34:52Z ]

   Yes, you can export issues. They don't provide a way to do it, but there is is one. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41369365/how-can-i-export-github-issues-to-excel

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:35:02Z ]

   > bookofportals: They've never done that.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:35:03Z ]

   **gleki**: I can delete github.com/lojban repositories in a few minutes. What shall you do next?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:35:09Z ]

   > bookofportals: Yes, you can export issues. They don't provide a way to do it, but there is is one. [2](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41369365/how-can-i-export-github-issues-to-excel)
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:35:09Z ]

   **gleki**: that's hacking
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:35:37Z ]

   It's an entirely permissible use of their API.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:35:50Z ]

   **gleki**: not just exporting to Excel but importing them back.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:36:14Z ]

   **gleki**: If you can deploy a similar system for GitLab let us know.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:37:02Z ]

   Isn't the choice of systems tangential to the basic idea?

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:39:06Z ]

   I understand the reasons for your concern about GitHub. I believe that they're vastly outweighed by the usability advantages, but that's a value judgement that can be discussed and voted upon later.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:39:19Z ]

   If the idea is adopted.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:39:29Z ]

   > bookofportals: Isn't the choice of systems tangential to the basic idea?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:39:29Z ]

   **gleki**: No. E.g. you mentioned simplifications of  connective system. Do you know that similar ideas were rejected years ago?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:40:02Z ]

   **gleki**: And there are records or this rejection. If we lose such records we will have to discuss them from scratch over and over again.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:40:22Z ]

   I didn't. On the other hand, our current records all still exist.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:40:28Z ]

   As far as I know.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:40:36Z ]

   Do you know why it was rejected?

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:41:44Z ]

   > bookofportals: I didn't. On the other hand, are current records all still exist.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:41:44Z ]

   **gleki**: Thatdoesn't answer the question what we did to avoid the possible removal in future.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:42:14Z ]

   > bookofportals: Do you know why it was rejected?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:42:15Z ]

   **gleki**: I know. And even your proposal on using Github was discussed in past.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:42:50Z ]

   Would you please explain why both of those proposals were rejected?

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:44:18Z ]

   **gleki**: I won't explain. This is not the right place. We are not discussing particular proposals to change Lojban. We are discussing the system of BPFK functionality itsel. You may delve yourself into the archives.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:44:35Z ]

   **gleki**: ✎ I won't explain. This is not the right place. We are not discussing particular proposals to change Lojban. We are discussing the system of BPFK functionality itself. You may delve yourself into the archives.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:44:58Z ]

   Very well.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:45:14Z ]

   **gleki**: I used your link on changing connective system as an example how things could go wrong whenone loses their memory.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:46:42Z ]

   My point was that one could decide whether to do RFCs at all *and then* decide whether to use GitHub, GitLab, or just plain email.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:47:16Z ]

   **gleki**: Yes, that
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:47:55Z ]

   You will notice that two of those alternatives do not require anything off LLG servers.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:51:07Z ]

   **gleki**: which two?
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:51:38Z ]

   The later two.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:51:56Z ]

   **gleki**: GitLab and plain email?
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:52:01Z ]

   Yes.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:52:10Z ]

   https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-set-up-a-gitlab-server-and-host-your-own-git-repositories/

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:52:13Z ]

   **gleki**: how does GitHub require LLG servers?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:53:28Z ]

   **gleki**: You may first show how to use RFC on gitlab.com I doubt anyone would deploy gitlab just to see if anyone would use it.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:53:46Z ]

   I elided a bit, sorry. I meant "You will notice that two of those alternatives do not require that we have anything off LLG servers."

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:53:48Z ]

   **gleki**: It's usually the job or those who propose to convince others of usefullness.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:54:18Z ]

   **gleki**: You probably meant GitHub and plain email don't require servers
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:55:09Z ]

   I meant that the problem of losing data wouldn't affect us if we used GitLab or email (e.g. GNU Mailman).

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:55:14Z ]

   If we did it on GitLab, we would probably run the RFC by hand, which, while annoying, is quite feasible.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:55:30Z ]

   **gleki**: ah of course. So GitLab was indeed proposed in past.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:55:56Z ]

   And what was the outcome of this past proposal?

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:55:59Z ]

   **gleki**: RC by hand? why not write a bot for gitlab? but i'd be surprised such a bot wasn't created already
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:56:32Z ]

   > bookofportals: And what was the outcome of this past proposal?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:56:32Z ]

   **gleki**: BPFK is moribund no matter what is proposed,how and where
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T06:56:40Z ]

   **gleki**: ✎ RFC by hand? why not write a bot for gitlab? but i'd be surprised such a bot wasn't created already
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T06:57:39Z ]

   Barely anyone uses GitLab. Most people just use GitHub. It works, even if it's closed source, and they're a remarkably friendly company. So it makes sense that no one has written an RFC bot for it.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T07:02:54Z ]

   **gleki**: Ok can you show us working examples of this bot? Looks to commits, issues? For Rust or any other repository. Not everyone here is programmer
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T07:03:03Z ]

   **gleki**: ✎ Ok can you show us working examples of this bot? Links to commits, issues? For Rust or any other repository. Not everyone here is programmer
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:04:05Z ]

   This is really an implementation detail. Lots of people do RFCs without a bot to help.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:04:23Z ]

   I'll find some, but what do you think of the core model I'm proposing? 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:06:12Z ]

   So the bot works like this: 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:06:26Z ]

   Someone proposes an action (in this case, to close the proposal): https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2618#issuecomment-451278318

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:06:57Z ]

   The bot comments with a bunch of boxes that members can check: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2618#issuecomment-451278320

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:07:34Z ]

   When a majority have supported, and no one has objected, the bot declares a final comment period: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2618#issuecomment-453676755

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:08:01Z ]

   If there are still no concerns at the end of the period, the proposed action is considered taken: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2618#issuecomment-456216027

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T07:12:03Z ]

   **gleki**: How does one support? By using likes?
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:12:35Z ]

   Either by checking the box next to one's name or by saying "@rfcbot reviewed"

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:14:01Z ]

   If you want to propose a close, you say "@rfcbot close". If you want to propose something be merged (i.e. adopted) you say "@rfcbot merge", and the same, mutatis mutandis, for a postponement. 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:14:51Z ]

   If you have a concern you say "@rfcbot concern <name>". If you want to withdraw one you say "@rfcbot resolve <name>".

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:15:18Z ]

   All of these need to start on a new line, but can otherwise go anywhere in a comment.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:16:16Z ]

   Here's an extended example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2532

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:17:39Z ]

   By the way, the records of the adopted decisions are all in the git repository, so even with GitHub that's transferable. It's the other stuff that isn't really.

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T07:18:44Z ]

   **gleki**: i see. once we used an embedded system of reviews: [3](https://github.com/lojban/cll/pull/274)
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T07:19:33Z ]

   **gleki**: I have no more questions to the RFC bot bookofportals described.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:19:48Z ]

   That's available too, but it doesn't do the automatic vote counting and concern monitoring. As I said though, it's quite possible to do an RFC without a bot. 

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:20:13Z ]

   By the way, if someone deleted our repo, we could probably just email support and ask them to restore it. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9247961/recover-a-deleted-repository-github-issues

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:23:38Z ]

   If they deleted it, of course, that's another matter, but we'd have to violate the terms of service rather badly for them to do it with no warning. If they tried to start charging for public repositories or something (it's very unlikely they'd do that), we would undoubtedly have plenty of notice and someone would invent a tool to transfer a repo, issues and all, if there isn't one already.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:24:53Z ]

   Microsoft is unlikely to move in the direction of charging for public repositories, given that they just *stopped* charging for private ones for individuals (albeit with a condition about a maximum of three people who can view or edit it). https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/github-free-users-now-get-unlimited-private-repositories/

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:25:57Z ]

   They've also explicitly guaranteed that they won't ever start charging for public ones. https://github.blog/2016-05-11-introducing-unlimited-private-repositories/

vecusku [ 2019-02-25T07:26:45Z ]

   **gleki**: "someone would invent a tool to transfer a repo, issues and all, if there isn't one already." you just mentioned la su'o da
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:28:16Z ]

   la su'o da already did it, as it happens. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:28:47Z ]

   So, if the universe implodes, there is your emergency hypothetical backup plan.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:32:43Z ]

    I'd love to hear more feedback on my proposal from anyone who's interested. I hope that we can find a good solution to the current lack of language development. I believe mine will work, but I am certainly open to hearing criticisms and alternate ways of solving the problem that better address them.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:32:51Z ]

   I'm going to sleep now.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T07:33:06Z ]

   I will try to check back sometime tomorrow.

karis [ 2019-02-25T09:46:02Z ]

   I can see how this system would take the decision making currently entirely in the hands of a specialized subset of the population of lojbanistan and open a significant part up to the rest of the community. I don't know how much functional fluency being necessary for involvement in making language decisions has stifled inventive ideas and thinking outside the box, as no one does. What I do know is it has kept the ideas of many from being even heard. 

karis [ 2019-02-25T09:52:38Z ]

   You state exactly why this is a closed group by listing the details of the subset in which someone had to be a member to be allowed into BPFK illustrating the point against which you are arguing. 

karis [ 2019-02-25T09:59:45Z ]

   I don't. How would any of us not fluent enough to "count"? 

karis [ 2019-02-25T10:06:05Z ]

   You have proposed we make BPFK produce all such records and it has passed. As I've asked before of you, @lagleki, please provide documentation of the decisions of which you are aware. As part of BPFK and a proponent of the need for complete records I would hope you would have ready access to these from your own involvement. This would be an important way to support your own proposal. All that is necessary is to translate it to English for submission to this meeting. 

karis [ 2019-02-25T10:07:30Z ]

   Then why not either email or send a personal message of both to @bookofportals? 

karis [ 2019-02-25T10:08:36Z ]

   See my note to your previous post. 

karis [ 2019-02-25T10:10:07Z ]

   None of this is necessary here, but you may continue in a private chat. Anyone may initiate this. 

karis [ 2019-02-25T10:13:11Z ]

   It wasn't presented as an official proposal, but rather as an example from what I can tell. No need to explain is needed at this time as you yourself, @lagleki ,point out at other times during this discussion. 

gleki [ 2019-02-25T11:36:01Z ]

   You want me to translate from lojban to English all passed decisions of bpfk?

gleki [ 2019-02-25T11:36:35Z ]

   Okay, that will take time

gleki [ 2019-02-25T11:38:09Z ]

   I think fluency prevented approval of changes that would deviate lojban even farther from logical notation

gleki [ 2019-02-25T11:39:12Z ]

   But I don't think fluency has something to do with bpfk becoming moribund

gleki [ 2019-02-25T13:40:15Z ]

   So you want me to translate whole threads from lojban to English, right? That's a lot of work and I'm not sure who would be interested in that. Who would even read the translation?

gleki [ 2019-02-25T13:40:50Z ]

   That actually sounds like yet another proposal, to make BPFK decisions available in English language.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T18:27:36Z ]

   I haven't proposed the RFC idea formally yet, but if comments are favorable, I will (as formally as I can; I'm not a member, so I suppose I can't move for voting on something). I want to have a forum where I and others can present ideas for peer review and consideration, without already being fluent in Lojban. I believe that an RFC process is almost certainly the best way of accomplishing that goal. I have strong opinions about the best way to implement such a process, but implementation details are less important to me than that some process exist.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T18:29:48Z ]

   If I understand karis correctly, they're more asking for a summary of what the decision was and why it was made than a translation of every comment in the thread.

gleki [ 2019-02-25T19:00:33Z ]

   That's easy. If you open https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Decisions and then click on dates you'll get pages with explanations in English what each decision consists of

bookofportals [ 2019-02-25T19:02:35Z ]

   I think they meant the rejections (the GitHub proposal and the connectives simplification, plus anything else of such a sort).

gleki [ 2019-02-25T19:08:15Z ]

   I am totally lost. @karis please clarify what I need to present.

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:37:31Z ]

   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Decisions only lists the decisions made after 2014

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:38:17Z ]

   there exist other change proposals in the BPFK Sections for cmavo: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Sections

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:39:27Z ]

   The BPFK Sections list the current BPFK definitions for each cmavo (and there are quite a few of them), with indications of how those definition significantly differ from baseline definitions, if there's any such difference

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:40:01Z ]

   Those definitions were meant to become a cmavo dictionary

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:40:20Z ]

   but the work has never been finished, although it is really pretty close from completion

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:41:45Z ]

   Cirko once wrote a tool for transferring those BPFK cmavo definitions to GitHub, although the tool didn't work perfectly if I remember correctly

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:48:26Z ]

   https://github.com/mezohe/bpfk-import

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:48:36Z ]

   Here is the tool

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:52:11Z ]

   Among the changes from the baseline scattered in the BPFK Section pages, a few examples coming to my mind are Xorlo, semantic changes for VI/ZI cmavo, change in the logical scope of NA, a drastic change in the meaning of the attitudinal {.e'e} (this was controversial, maybe never really approved, I don't know), an important change in the meaning of {me}, and other stuff

ilmen [ 2019-02-26T13:54:13Z ]

   The bottommost decision listed at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Decisions was made *before* the BPFK Reauthorization, so the officialness status of that change ("The BPFK banned semivowels preceded by a consonant from Lojban's morphology") is not clear.

gleki [ 2019-02-26T14:30:16Z ]

   The new BPFK also discussed changing from BNF to PEG. I'd call it a drastic change too (topic of unambiguity touched)

bookofportals [ 2019-02-27T00:37:47Z ]

   Okay, I'm now working on a proposal for more specific discussion. It seems pretty clear that the current BPFK process isn't working.

karis [ 2019-02-27T02:33:22Z ]

   I made two corrections to my post Monday morning at 5:06 EST.  I suggest, @lagleki, that you read it as corrected and see if it answers your questions about what I meant.
   
   Here's another way of putting it. Your proposal passed so please collate the decisions BPFK made that haven't already been listed here, including the ones @bookofportals asked about, and provide English summaries. I see no reason to ask anyone else to provide this if you aren't satisfied with what we have been given. 

karis [ 2019-02-27T03:40:10Z ]

   Thank you, @ilmen ,for the links and explanations. 

karis [ 2019-02-27T03:49:43Z ]

   Thanks for the clarification, @lojbab. 

karis [ 2019-02-27T04:13:44Z ]

   It's been since the beginning of February that we've been hashing through what decisions were and were not made by the BPFK, and what the Members Meeting did or did not approve. I appreciate all the contributions, and I expect more to come so I am starting a separate channel just for them. It's called "BPFK/byfy Decisions". I hope that helps keep them clear and organized. 

karis [ 2019-02-27T04:34:47Z ]

   @channel: PROPOSAL TO REELECT SELPA'I
   
   Since the discussion has wandered again without a proposal on this being made being made, I propose that, 
   
   LLG re-elect selpa'i for another year as the jatna for the BPFK.
   
   Is there a second? 

gleki [ 2019-02-27T07:52:42Z ]

   okay so the list of decisions provided to us is here:
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Decisions
   
   If you click on the links with dates you'll explanations of each proposal:
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK:_lo_nu_broda_ba_brode
   
   la selpa'i explained the reasoning behind such proposal as such:
   
   1mai) cafne nunsrera (to mu'a 
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/tense/modal_is_not_equivalent_to_cu_gotcha 
   toi) .i ku'i ji'a: 
   
   2mai) logji cizra fi lo ka na sarxe lo fasnu pe «lu mi ba broda gi'e 
   brode li'u» noi ba'e *na* smudu'i «lu mi ba ku broda gi'e brode li'u» 
   
   which roughly translates as :
   1. it's a common mistake
   2. it's logically strange not to be harmonious with the structure {mi ba broda gi'e brode} which IS NOT the same in meaning as {mi ba ku broda gi'e brode}
   ----
   Not sure which parts of CLL this would touch. Certainly, it would touch the formal grammar.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T07:53:40Z ]

   Dotside:
   
   This is an old proposal, common pro/contra are listed here: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/the_Case_Against_LA

gleki [ 2019-02-27T07:55:47Z ]

   The ban on CgV (like in {-kua-})
   
   No links to explanations why this change was made, possibly it's hard to pronounce by some speakers.
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Ban_on_consonant-glide-vowel_strings

gleki [ 2019-02-27T07:56:18Z ]

   Questions asked by bookofportals: I can't see where and when they were dicussed by BPF, I have no records.

phma [ 2019-02-27T09:10:39Z ]

   I second it.

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:12:10Z ]

   Re bookofportals suggestions. I think Rust RFC process and bit are awesome. I think language evolution tracked using GitHub has been suggested before and had resistance on the grounds that it is too hard for some (I disagree).

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:13:21Z ]

   I think software development has a very refined process for version control that many  people could benefit from

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:15:08Z ]

   I would suggest one modification to Rust process... During discussion of issue, add summary of arguments for/against to the RFC text. Then they are preserved in the gut repo.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T09:16:01Z ]

   I disagree too. But I oppose using GitHub either unless one present a clear way or redeploying infrastructure on our own servers. We discussed this several times:
   1. Ali expressed a desire to install software on out servers
   2. Guskant suggested using GitHub
   3. The fact we use Mattermost is due to its open source nature among other features.

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:16:41Z ]

   That fixes Rust's current (occasional) problem of issue threads growing huge and too big to read or follow.

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:17:11Z ]

   You clone the repo

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:18:28Z ]

   Git itself is open source, and everything you are preserving is in the repo

gleki [ 2019-02-27T09:18:29Z ]

   During an appropriate time I will make one more proposal: that LLG must retain history of Lojban discussions. In fact this is what Robin de facto did all the time. We have a full log of mailing list and IRC discussions for many years.
   
   This is something Lojbab was conerned with as well: people ask the same questions over and over again despite them being discussed many years ago.
   
   We shouldn't be babies having no memories.

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:19:22Z ]

   Might loose some discussion on issue that hadn't been summarized into repo yet, but that's relatively minor.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T09:19:25Z ]

   That's beside the point. I would like to see the full infrastructure not bound to Github.com. As bookofportals noted RFC bot worked for GitHub.com only.

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T09:25:49Z ]

   You would like to see open source and not at all under GitHub control... Ok, that is an admirable principle. But is it the best option for the LLG?

gleki [ 2019-02-27T09:51:06Z ]

   I definitely think that yes. The whole idea of "we own our data, we can take out whenever we want" has been implemented by Robin for years and I think the best we can do is to continue implementing it.

phma [ 2019-02-27T10:31:24Z ]

   Should we all have login accounts on our Git server, or how should we manage it?

gleki [ 2019-02-27T11:37:18Z ]

   In case of GitHub you make an account yourself and ask for permissions to comment on a given commit. In case of own servers the admin sets who can register and how, e.g. The admin can allow anyone to register as in the case of GutHub (i.e. via sign up form)

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:20:16Z ]

   **la .eris.**: I disagree. GitHub has vastly better ergonomics than any alternative. The probability of us losing our data is so vanishingly small that I don’t think it’s worth talking about.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:22:15Z ]

   In which features is GitHub better than gitlab? 

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:22:29Z ]

   **la .eris.**: There’s a reason GitHub is used by Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Python, Rust, and all of these branches of various governments [4](https://government.github.com/community/)
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:23:27Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Ergonomics, primarily.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:24:19Z ]

   Used to present their code doesn't necessarily mean used to store their code

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:24:32Z ]

   **la .eris.**: It just feels a ton nicer to use. Everyone I’ve heard who’s tried both uses it.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:24:48Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Pardon. I don’t get the distinction you’re making?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:25:49Z ]

   **la .eris.**: If you’re using Git, you have local copies of all code anyway.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:26:29Z ]

   **la .eris.**: The other major asset of GitHub is community size.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:28:06Z ]

   In case GitHub is selected I'd still strongly suggest any features that prevent real-time backups be disabled or at least not used.

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:28:24Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Like what?
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:28:25Z ]

   "Issues" belong to them as I understand.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:29:02Z ]

   "git push --force" or any permissions that allow deleting code or rewriting history must lso be disabled for everyone.

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:29:57Z ]

   **la .eris.**: If issues are one, so are pull requests. And those two things are the primary point of using GitHub, BitBucket, GitLab, or any other such projects.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:30:14Z ]

   **la .eris.**: If you want we could do weekly backups to GitLab or something?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:31:41Z ]

   **la .eris.**: A vanishingly small probability of losing a few days work?
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:32:34Z ]

   **la .eris.**: I agree about force pushing.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T16:34:47Z ]

   **la .eris.**: I’ve got to go right now. Suffice it to say that the risks you’re worried about are very small and there are ways to mitigate even those. If a motion is offered to require that all data be held on LLG servers, I’d like more time to explain the costs and benefits as I see them before people start voting on it.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:38:58Z ]

   I do offer that all the data be held on LLG servers and certain data are allowed for anyone to be downloaded. In fact this was already discussed and offered by Ali.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:41:12Z ]

   Ali's proposals were neither rejected, nor aproved as I understand

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:41:34Z ]

   Paralysis of the workflow of LLG.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T16:42:08Z ]

   Plenty of people who are ready to help, much resistance or silence from organizers.

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T16:56:51Z ]

   Git is a *distributed* VC. Commit all information you want to preserve and it is very easy to backup or keep redundantly.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T17:03:57Z ]

   https://github.com/anp/rfcbot-rs  lacks installation instructions for those not familiar with Rust and no docs on the config files. Besides we would need prefilled config files for our project

gleki [ 2019-02-27T17:04:26Z ]

   But only the git part

dersaidin [ 2019-02-27T17:05:59Z ]

   I think having a known state, and making changes to it, and capturing the process in git is the most important improvement. The RFC not stuff is just a very nice addition.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T17:51:44Z ]

   I also urge all members of LLG to stop observing the paralysis and actively participate in organization actions like: 
   1. completing the project of moving to servers not owned by Robin with regular backups (back to Robin's servers once he wishes but to other servers as well).
   2. approving deploymet of any new systems of developing Lojban: git, hypergraph discussion thread, Google Wave-like threads etc.
   3. improving the wiki
   4. creating a new website with official materials as opposed to the live wiki
   This of course doesn't touch the subject of "Let's vote whether Newton's laws are correct"

bookofportals [ 2019-02-27T18:15:29Z ]

   The RFC bot is one possible tool. It is by no means the only option or even the best one. I'm concerned that it might not be flexible enough for our purposes, for one thing.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T18:17:59Z ]

   what do you suggest then? writing a new one? then in your proposal there will be specifications of the necessary functionality?

bookofportals [ 2019-02-27T18:20:09Z ]

   I propose that, once we're to the point of agreeing to adopt some such system, the BPFK, who will actually have to run it, discusses different consensus models and decides on a process. A bot is secondary. If no one writes a bot, we can still run the process by hand.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-27T18:20:40Z ]

   I think a lot of this activity should be supervised by the BPFK, once the BPFK becomes active again. Among other things, language documentation and the CLL should be BPFK run. I also think the BPFK should sponsor and coordinate the creation of more educational materials. In short, the BPFK should do much more than just decide on the language rules. It should be a full technical committee, in charge coordinating volunteers and generally encouraging all forms of language development.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T18:21:11Z ]

   How can we agree on something that nobody saw? Look at the logs of Rust community? We'd need to test it first

bookofportals [ 2019-02-27T18:22:02Z ]

   Of course. We'd look at several different communities, see how their systems run, decide on something to try, test it, and change it as necessary.

gleki [ 2019-02-27T18:22:05Z ]

   The question is "once the BPFK becomes active again". This won't happen magically.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-27T18:26:23Z ]

   I know. However, there are several people interested in becoming involved. This is something I'm planning to talk to la selpa'i about, but I think the appropriate general course is to decide to adopt some RFC process, and then announce a call for nominations for those who want to become involved. I guarantee that there will be volunteers. 

greg_g [ 2019-02-27T21:49:39Z ]

   For what is worth (I am not an LLG member), I think it cannot be emphasized enough how important it is to have a central repository online that people can refer to to see what is official and what is not, and what is bei

greg_g [ 2019-02-27T21:51:20Z ]

   ...ng worked on and track it. Github makes this very easy and has the least amount of friction (many people already have accounts), so I would fully support it.

vecusku [ 2019-02-27T23:00:58Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Just in case someone can’t see this, bookofportals and I are the same person accessing the channel via different platforms.
   
   

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:15:06Z ]

   seeing the talk about technical difficulties about git, just simply letting this here: https://kune.ourproject.org/

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:16:10Z ]

   and just want to mention launchpad which work very well as an alternative to github ( with git too )

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:17:00Z ]

   personnaly github is dead

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:20:41Z ]

   I just don't see the point in finding alternatives to GitHub. I mean, I prefer open source software, all else being equal. I just think that all else is very unequal in this case. GitHub is extremely well maintained, has excellent support, is exceptionally friendly to use (with the caveat that it's git underneath, which is very powerful but takes getting used to), and is guaranteed to be free forever for public repositories. It's closed source, but it has about the friendliest approach towards the open source community that any closed source software can have.

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:21:36Z ]

   I won't give my data to microsoft

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:21:44Z ]

   it's my point lol

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:21:48Z ]

   And it has a ton of users (more than any competing platform) and many people already have an account.

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:21:57Z ]

   not for long

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:22:25Z ]

   people stopped to use it, I keep my repo but stopped all activity, it's a dead tool for me

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:22:29Z ]

   But the data is public anyway, if it's open source. You're not giving them anything they wouldn't already have.

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:22:32Z ]

   I felt like stabbed

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:23:05Z ]

   I don't like Microsoft. I strongly dislike Windows.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:24:07Z ]

   But the fact that Microsoft purchased a company doesn't mean that that company is corrupted and turned evil. So far GitHub hasn't done anything even vaguely bad.

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:25:48Z ]

   if any time microsoft a company it crashes, then microsoft will finish to crash, that's clearly an achievement 

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:26:14Z ]

   if you stop using a tool it crashes

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:26:34Z ]

   launchpad is very good, I've used it for years

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:26:38Z ]

   As far as I can tell, the only things Microsoft has done to GitHub is to add new features and make it free for private repos with three or fewer contributors. 

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:29:13Z ]

   I won't argue on it for days, it's a personnal choice of what I consider important or not, to me it's not a detail who own the company, like it's not a detail if a software is free or open source, whatever their act, their goals are always clear.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:30:02Z ]

   Fair enough. I clearly disagree, but such is life.

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:32:03Z ]

   maybe you've not spend hours to develop website for 3 versions of web browser because ms wanted to impose his norm, or meet problems with your laptop because the only os you use is linux and your bios is locked due to the same company purposedly to attack free and open source software....

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:32:39Z ]

   to much fights for years

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:34:40Z ]

   Again, fair enough. My prioritization evaluates things differently. Thank you for sharing yours.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T00:34:53Z ]

   I'm going to nap now.

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T00:39:25Z ]

   **la .eris.**: I don’t really want to continue this argument right now, but just to share more facts with anyone who’s concerned: [5](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/8/17441096/microsoft-github-acquisition-reaction-linux-foundation)
   
   

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:45:02Z ]

   yes they have a politic like that, and the goal is constantly the same taking control

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:45:35Z ]

   I just pointed out others ways, respect your choices, have different mind ;)

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:47:22Z ]

   kune come from esperanto btw

apieum [ 2019-02-28T00:50:26Z ]

   just mentioning something you may have missed, they acquired github tools too like atom which was a serious concurrent of their ide and collected private data from dev to improve. let's see the future of atom in 1 year

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:15:15Z ]

   The current central repositories are jbovlaste and the wiki. For official materials a static site is needed, git and wiki won't help much there

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:16:09Z ]

   **la .eris.**: That isn’t actually true. GitHub, among its many features, has built in static site display through GitHub pages.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:16:29Z ]

   I said git, not GitHub 

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:17:09Z ]

   Anyway I thought you were suggesting git as the new Elephant

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:17:21Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Then I don’t understand what you’re trying to point out. I’m not disagreeing, just confused.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:17:52Z ]

   **la .eris.**: And what do you mean by Elephant?
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:18:37Z ]

   Oh. My. Goodness. Anyone else doesn't know what is the Elephant?

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:19:19Z ]

   I guess we need introductory courses into lojban history for every new member

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:20:33Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Thank you for your detailed clarification. xo’o
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:20:39Z ]

   **la .eris.**: [6](https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Elephant)
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:20:41Z ]

   For now you can query the wiki, the mailing lists or the live dictionary for any questions including connective system, the Elephant etc.

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:22:34Z ]

   **la .eris.**: And yes, git would serve as our Elephant.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:23:37Z ]

   There needs to be an exam to be able to become an LLG member

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:24:12Z ]

   **la .eris.**: You’d lose the fun of people figuring it out as they go along.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:28:00Z ]

   A duolingo like system would solve it

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:28:26Z ]

   Also lower the possibility of hasty decisions

vecusku [ 2019-02-28T04:29:00Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Hopefully the consensus process can help with those.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:47:31Z ]

   Well as I said Newton's laws can't be voted upon. Take the discussion of changing to PEG grammar where the notion of unambiguity was replaced with something else (ignoratio elenchi) and the new proposed grammar wasn't even checked for internal flaws.

gleki [ 2019-02-28T04:48:18Z ]

   And with all that the majority was in favor of accepting it

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T07:18:20Z ]

   A PEG Grammar *is* unambiguous, as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T07:18:44Z ]

   Besides, someone has to decide on language standards or there won't be change.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T07:22:08Z ]

   I really don't understand your talk about Newton's laws. Laws of physics are, as far as we know, immutable. Languages aren't; they follow whatever standard the protocol the speakers can negotiate (usually implicitly). 

gleki [ 2019-02-28T07:34:14Z ]

   E.g. one person can suggest changing the grammar of Lojban. Others would say "aye". In 5 years it would be discovered that this change had introduced ambiguity into the language that was supposed to be unambiguous.
   
   So expertise is needed. BPFK decided on fluency as a requirement but fluency in Lojban is not fluency in other fields that could be required for BPFK work.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T07:39:07Z ]

   I understand that there could be a problem with the grammar. But if I understand how a PEG grammar works correctly, it is impossible for one to be ambiguous ever.

gleki [ 2019-02-28T07:42:31Z ]

   A grammar is just one example.
   And you are somewhat right about PEG. This is where the straw man argument lies. That's what i was hinting at.

gleki [ 2019-02-28T09:18:12Z ]

   As for Wikipedia the statement "A PEG Grammar is unambiguous" is a misleading statement, especially in regards to using it for Lojban.

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T17:56:02Z ]

   ki'a go'i

gleki [ 2019-02-28T19:39:53Z ]

   uanai i ma mo

bookofportals [ 2019-02-28T22:18:17Z ]

   "a misleading statement, especially in regards to using it for Lojban". In what way is it misleading? Why especially for Lojban?

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:04:07Z ]

   @channel All the active discussion is great, but it would be helpful if we covered the motion on the floor. It is to reappoint selpa'i to be the BPFK jatna. The motion has been seconded.
   
   
   DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION IS NOW OPEN. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:06:46Z ]

   This isn't likely to ever be true. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:11:16Z ]

   Thank you for mentioning this. There isn't any way to tell. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T04:13:28Z ]

   If you set display->Teammate Name Display to "full name" in the Mattermost settings, this account shows up as la .eris., so technically there is, but I'm not sure anyone else has done that.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T04:14:34Z ]

   I think before the LLG can decide whether to select la selpa'i as jatna it needs to hear their opinion on an RFC process. If they oppose that and don't have any other ideas on how to make BPFK active again, someone who does should be elected. I'm not suggesting that that is likely to be the case (for the record, I have considerably respect for both their judgement and their experience), just that it is very relevant to the subject of the election.

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:14:55Z ]

   Making suggestions is welcome. Hang onto the idea, please, as this entire discussion is actually off topic at the moment. You can direct message it to me, if you like. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T04:16:16Z ]

   I'm not suggesting that they should agree to details of a process or anything at this point, just that it would be good to hear their general sentiment on the idea.

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:18:31Z ]

   HOLD ON! These projects haven't been chosen be the Membership or the Board as goals or even broadly where our materials and web presence are going. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:22:25Z ]

   We are silencing no one nor resisting any ideas. Meetings do have a designated structure and I am attempting to follow it. Any ideas can be presented as proposals to be then discussed. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T04:25:33Z ]

   I opine that reactivating the BPFK, in some form, ought rightly to be the greatest priority of the LLG. Both the LLG and the BPFK have stalled for years, which has halted any official development of the language and lead to stagnation. I think the decreasing interest and increasing apathy can be directly attributed to people not feeling like anything is being done. I've heard from or seen comments by a couple people who want to get involved, but don't feel like there is a way for them to do so in the current structure.

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:42:38Z ]

   There was a discussion of whether to dissolve the BPFK which, I believe, would be an appropriate place for discussing alternatives. However a proposal was made and voted for to first collect all of its discussions to date and there was fairly strong insists that each of these should include a clear description. Currently it isn't complete. In the meantime, having received a response from selpa'i stating his willingness to take the job for another year, we are rewired to vote on who the jatna of the BPFK will be until this vote occurrs again during the next Members Meeting or the BPFK is dissolved.
   
   I'm in total agreement that the BPFK's structure is part of why it is stagnant. I disagree about this in regards to the LLG. My personal opinions, however, also need to wait to be further expressed. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:49:58Z ]

   I am sorry there are people who don't feel they can get involved as things stand. They are certainly welcome here, to work on any of the many projects listed on a part of our main website, or to contact an officer, other board member, or voting member with an idea or ideas so they can be discussed. There is one website reorganization outline under production right now that came out of a conversation on the lojban Google group I noticed. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T04:51:34Z ]

   I beg the chair's pardon. However, I must disagree. The question being discussed is the election of the chair of the BPFK. I think the candidate's opinion on how the committee should execute its responsibilities (via an RFC process, for example) is very relevant to the motion. By the way, does anyone know why la selpa'i isn't attending the meeting? They're not required to be, I'm just wondering.

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:55:01Z ]

   As for whether it is best to present this idea to selpa'i before the vote, I'm not seeing why for two reasons. First, selpa'i is willing to hold the role, but would almost certainly call for a new election if we decide to reestablish the committee with a new structure. Second, we realistically are looking at a period of only about 6 months. It only took this long because we first waited to a response if he was interested, then for several long and varied discussions. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T04:56:34Z ]

   It is, as far as I know, within the BPFK's discretion to start using an RFC process tomorrow if it wants to. The LLG doesn't need to vote on it.

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:57:09Z ]

   <>

gleki [ 2019-03-01T04:58:01Z ]

   Right now I oppose selpa'i being a jatna of BPFK since he hasn't provided any information about his plans for the next year. But if he does then I can reconsider my choice. What's the purpose of electing someone that promises nothing?

karis [ 2019-03-01T04:59:57Z ]

   It is, or it can come from us. I hope this meeting can end well before the next is supposed to begin, though, so I would like to get through this piece of business. If, during the course of the meeting he offers to step down or decides to change the BPFK discussion and voting system that is fine. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:01:02Z ]

   I've seen no evidence that any jatna has been asked for this prior to their election, though. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:02:07Z ]

   How can one elect someone without knowing how they're going to do the job?

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:02:08Z ]

   True. But that's my choice and my reasoning. If la selpa'i chooses he can share his plans.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:02:35Z ]

   It is more or less the LLG's sole purpose for existence to develop Lojban. Currently, it is failing in the purpose for which it is chartered. I don't think the member's meeting should end until the problem is solved. It can be solved by the chair agreeing or the committee being rechartered, but I don't think business can be considered closed until that time.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:06:53Z ]

   Development of lojban is a part of the purpose of the LLG. Support of the language and its users is right up there too. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:09:40Z ]

   Fair enough. I maintain, however, that the LLG is failing to live up to its charter and that the business of the meeting cannot be considered closed until this issue is remedied. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:10:55Z ]

   There is momentum to make a change now. Who knows if it will exist in the future?

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:12:43Z ]

   What sort of change to LLG do see there being momentum to support? Changing BPFK isn't a change to LLG structurally. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:14:21Z ]

   There is momentum to change the BPFK. It isn't exactly a change to the LLG, but the BPFK is a committee of the LLG, and is supposed to fulfill one of primary responsibilities of the charter. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:14:37Z ]

   So I'm not proposing that there should be a change to the LLG's structure.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:15:33Z ]

   I think the LLG is set up sensibly. It's a bit slow to act, but that can be fixed by delegating more of its responsibilities to committees and having it supervise them, rather than trying to do things itself.

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:16:01Z ]

   @bookofportals if you have any plans that are relevant to LLG actions (but not to development of lojban it's which is a job of BPFK) please share them so that we can vote to elect you as ehm... someone

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:17:57Z ]

   I think the BPFK should be what the Node Technical Committee is for the Node Foundation. That is, I think the LLG should only exist to handle financials and servers, etc., whereas the BPFK should handle volunteer supervision, maintaining the CLL and other documentation, *and* developing the language. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:18:44Z ]

   Ok do you volunteer to be a jatna of BPFK?

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:18:57Z ]

   As I understand the change being discussed is that decisions would involve a two stage process. First anyone could make a stiffest and anyone could discuss it (presumably in English as it is studied throughout so much of the world or with translations provided), then at some point the topic and discussion would be considered by a select group with specific knowledge in related areas such as lojban, linguistics, philosophy, etc. and a decision would be made. This decision would then be presented here for ratification and then dissemination. Am I correct? 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:19:45Z ]

   In general. The details would have to be worked out, and would be subject to change, but yes. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:20:46Z ]

   Do you have an idea how these specialists would be chosen, and encouraged to participate if needed? 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:22:30Z ]

   I expect some specialties will be easier to fulfill than others, but it seems the process would work better if it weren't just people who speak /write lojban more fluently. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:24:28Z ]

   I don't see the requirement of speaking lojban being a problem although certainly it's not enough

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:24:55Z ]

   La selpa'i and la gleki would be on it, presuming they're interested, and probably some others they'd recommend from the old BPFK. Those would be the fluent Lojban speakers. la gleki also has experience working on documentation (they wrote a textbook, I believe), and la selpa'i has the best language change proposals of anyone I've seen and is just plain talented. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:25:38Z ]

   One of the issues has been that not enough people who speak lojban well are participating and there are people who want to participate and can't because of this. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:26:45Z ]

   La selpa'i wants the BPFK to be active. La glee's activity will clearly not be a problem. For the others, yeah, we'd need to find people who were either already active or really wanted to be.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:26:52Z ]

   @john.cowan wrote the grammar, but isn't, I believe, fluent enough to carry on detailed discussion of linguistics. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:27:19Z ]

   @lagleki is only one of this who've written learning guides as well. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:27:21Z ]

   If he's interested, he's certainly qualified. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:27:42Z ]

   Other than that, we should try to find the people who are most interested in adding to the language but also have necessary qualifications. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:29:14Z ]

   I'm currently not interested in adding anything to the language. I'm interested in fixing errata that just yesterday prevented me from linking to a section of CLL ( linking to a broken text would have been silly).

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:29:44Z ]

   We'd still want you to represent the people writing docs, if nothing else.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:30:24Z ]

   Another concern is that it has been decided that LLG primarily supports lojban as based on the CLL, not the offshoot languages. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:30:35Z ]

   I have some knowledge of philosophy, although much of the relevant branches. I'm reasonable at Latin, and I'm very interested in Linguistics. I have a good theoretical understanding of Lojban but little practical experience. Normally, those qualifications wouldn't be great, but under the present conditions I think I kind of need to be there.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:31:57Z ]

   There's one other person I'd recommend for that reason. Look at this: https://www.relojban.org

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:32:37Z ]

   Someone went to the trouble of preparing a full fork of Lojban to get it active again. It has a full RFC process and everything. This was before and independent of me.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:33:00Z ]

   I didn't even know until the guy emailed me after I made my proposal here.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:33:36Z ]

   So the requirement to speak lojban to participate or be a decision maker would end, and there would have to be close supervision of some sort to prevent the language from moving too far, as this has been an issue that's cropped up even in some odd the educational materials. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:34:09Z ]

   There I somewhat disagree.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:34:54Z ]

   Have you read this proposal: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%253A%2BYou%2527re%2BDoing%2BIt%2BWrong

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:35:04Z ]

   Someone involved in a fork is fine if what comes out of the process isn't a fork, but easily recognizable as the official language. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:35:09Z ]

   Sorry how is that relevant? Are we discussing offshoot languages? Or you mean proposals of la selpahi lead to an offshoot language?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:35:34Z ]

   By the way, if we can get Robin Lee Powell active in the BPFK again, he'd be an amazing addition.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:35:59Z ]

   I think his proposal about the BPFK consisting of only native speakers clearly didn't work out.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:36:36Z ]

   It isn't a matter of whether you or I agree. If this is part of LLG it must follow the LLG focus, and this was reexamine by the board in the last couple of years. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:36:52Z ]

   However, I think the bit about Lojban being a prescriptivist language and backwards incompatibility being necessary is correct.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:37:17Z ]

   I mean offshoots from anyone's ideas. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:38:13Z ]

   I don't think any of this is too radical: https://github.com/relojban/rfcs/blob/master/text/0001-lojban-fork-charter.md#initial-scope

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:38:41Z ]

   Apart from the orthography change, which was mostly to make it visually distinct so people don't confuse the two.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:39:18Z ]

   Yes, I've read the lojban section again in the last couple of months after originally reading it earlier. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:39:24Z ]

   Obviously, if it's not a full fork, there can't be the same level of radical change.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:40:21Z ]

   I think we cannot have any change that makes some phrase that was previously syntactically valid syntactically invalid.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:40:42Z ]

   What I'm saying is that it can't be a fork period. It can be improvements. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:40:50Z ]

   I know.

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:41:03Z ]

   But the changes of la selpahi change their meaning! 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:41:29Z ]

   Those are semantic changes, not syntactic ones, at least for the most part.

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:41:45Z ]

   Yes. Isn't that more terrible?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:42:25Z ]

   It depends. Xorlo was fine, for instance, because really what came out of it was a superset of what worked before. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:43:08Z ]

   Look, as things stand, the LLG has to ratify anything the BPFK comes up with.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:43:16Z ]

   So they can't do anything too crazy.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:44:00Z ]

   This would need to be examined carefully, and I don't even know what I would think after studying and discussing them. There are also people who's ties to what lojban is are much tighter than mine and I believe they should be asked to participate, at least as advisors on their intent of things. We also must make sure not to add malglico. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:44:24Z ]

   Oh, very much agreed on the malglico.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:44:31Z ]

   By that I mean things we might think aren't culturally based, but are. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:45:03Z ]

   And yes, I think it's important we get some fluent speakers on board in addition to the new people, so that they can say when something is horrible.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:45:21Z ]

   And I think it will be important that they be listened to.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:45:32Z ]

   One question I've had recently is about lojban's gender differentiation and how much it reflects cultural bias. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:45:57Z ]

   That's one I would certainly raise. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:46:15Z ]

   Do you want a seat on the BPFK?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:46:36Z ]

   Or is it more that you'd submit it as a concern?

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:46:49Z ]

   I have wanted a part in it since I became aware it was created. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:47:12Z ]

   By the way, I think that the proposal to add non-binary terms should be adopted.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:47:43Z ]

   At minimum. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:47:49Z ]

   only after or with the dictionary being issued

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:48:09Z ]

   I am, however, not fluent in lojban. What I am basically is a broadly based sociologist with specialization in children. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:48:28Z ]

   The type of changes that I want to make are mostly in the form of stabilizing some experimental cmavo and a very few gismu.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:49:12Z ]

   The dictionary already exits (jbovlaste). It works quite nicely. It isn't official, but does it need to be?

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:51:51Z ]

   That would need to be considered, though I think some of it is and some isn't. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:52:24Z ]

   BPFK or LLG basically have either discussed or have even approved these items:
   1. change the meaning of {lo} thus breaking the meaning of older texts
   2. change the gramar from BNF to PEG thus disallowing disambiguation procedures or proofs, removing the notion of ambiguity from the language (not removing ambiguity but removing the very notion of it)
   3. ban glides after consonants making such fuhivla as {matriocka} invalid.
   4. change the meaning of {lo nu mi citka ba vajni} making older texts incompatible with new ones.
   
   The changes from la selpa'i propose changing the role of {cu}.
   
   So if this is called "Relojban" that's fine but what do we have to do with this?

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:53:27Z ]

   of course. jbovlaste has a bug when one can rewrite a definition thus deleting its older one forever An act of vandalism (intentional/unintentional)

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:53:52Z ]

   Well, let's fix the bug?

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:54:26Z ]

   We aren't deciding what's official right now, though. What this group is faced with is deciding what we as a group are going to do about BPFK at this time.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:55:42Z ]

   Language change is inevitably going to involve changing things. If there's going to be breakage, there should ideally be a deprecation cycle, and clear decelerations of language version, etc. But there is going to be change, and some of it is going to break things. It's just a matter of keeping the breakage manageable. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:56:47Z ]

   This goes back to some of the reasons behind the baseline freeze. 

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:57:27Z ]

   that's basically writing a new piece of software. database models could be something like https://github.com/lagleki/jvs-2-0-models

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:58:06Z ]

   Isn't a matter of adding one check into the current code to not allow overwriting?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:58:10Z ]

   The baseline freeze was a horrible idea.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:58:23Z ]

   Lojban is too well specified to change purely by usage.

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:58:29Z ]

   so i can only link you back to "you re doing it wrong article" and its explanation of what xorlo did.

karis [ 2019-03-01T05:58:34Z ]

   It's also 1:00 am and I need to get up. Others will almost certainly have things to say, so I suggest @bookofportals makes a proposal and one of the others is is officially submit it. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T05:59:10Z ]

   Oh, sorry.

gleki [ 2019-03-01T05:59:13Z ]

   I think it was a nice idea except that it lasted for too short.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:00:06Z ]

   I can write a proposal. I maintain that if la selpa'i is willing we really don't need one, but I have it half written already anyway, so...

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:00:20Z ]

   I'm not saying if it was or was not a good idea. What I said was the conversation was related to some of the reasons behind the freeze.  

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:02:55Z ]

   As we've talked I more and more believe we are discussing creating a new entity in the place of the BPFK with a distinct and different structure. To make sure people know up front that it's different and participation is much more possible it probably should even have a new name. I haven't any issue with putting selpa'i in to manage it, though. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:03:59Z ]

   <<edited>>^

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:04:03Z ]

   Okay.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:04:18Z ]

   We still need to get their opinion on all this.

gleki [ 2019-03-01T06:05:07Z ]

   I also have a proposal. "I propose the following: LLG demands that la gleki withing 24 hours present to LLG a list of errata in CLL for approval. After the LLG approves certain errata for applying LLG informs la gleki which errata have been approved and demands that la gleki within 7 days present (send as files) to LLG a new electronic candidate edition of CLL in html, ebook an pdf formats for further revision or for making it official."

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:05:40Z ]

   That can happen while we discuss the proposal since he said I'd someone else wanted it that was fine. We can then present it to him as a more coherent and developed idea. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:06:35Z ]

   -----
   As a side note probably my favorite valsi is ko'a. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:08:16Z ]

   If you need to go, you should go.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:08:42Z ]

   Not that I'm not enjoying the conversation. :)

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:09:01Z ]

   I will follow up my original email, to which I haven't yet received a reply, with the proposal you come up with. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:11:56Z ]

   What time zone are you in, @bookofportals? I'm on the east coast of the USA about 5 hours from @lojbab and @noras in Virginia. I know @lagleki is usually in here in the latter part of my day and night, though I don't remember where he is either. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:13:09Z ]

   I'm in California. PT. My availability on weekdays is unfortunately pretty sporadic, although I tend to have more time on evenings and weekends.

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:14:42Z ]

   My availability is usually earlier in the night after I help my son go to bed. Right now I'm on a bit of vacation of my own (alone) at my parents in Michigan. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:15:10Z ]

   I'm actually not doing things I probably should be doing now.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:15:14Z ]

   You said you needed to get up, not go to sleep. If you don't mind my asking, why?

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:15:29Z ]

   Ok. Goodnight! 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-01T06:16:04Z ]

   Goodnight! 

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:22:45Z ]

   I need to get up in the morning to do something with my mom. She's 81 and not in great health so that's when she's more likely awake. 

karis [ 2019-03-01T06:24:06Z ]

   Therefore I have to go to sleep to get up. At home I get up at 6 to wake my son on school days. Bleah. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-02T07:33:42Z ]

   I'm working on that motion. I expect to have a draft for discussion in the next day or two.

gleki [ 2019-03-02T12:03:05Z ]

   How is timezone relevant?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T06:38:19Z ]

   Alright, I have a draft of the resolution. It's not ready to be voted on yet, I'd just like comments.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T06:38:25Z ]

   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
     Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Develop and advance the Lojban language;
     6. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
     community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
     comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided upon by
     LFK or its delegates;
     7. Supervise volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     8. Encourage the maximum possible quantity of activity by volunteers in order to
     obtain the broadest possible input into decisions and participation in the
     language process, including through the development of instructional, technical,
     and cultural works.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall only be settled by a vote if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T06:38:54Z ]

   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure it decides. Until it decides either to select a chair or to abolish
   the position, the chair elected by the LLG shall hold that office. If the LFK
   decides not to select a chair, it must at the very least select a spokesperson
   to present its report to the annual meeting of the LLG and to represent it at
   the annual meeting and any special meeting.
   
   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals. The LFK is
   responsible for maintaining the CLL, but any decision on whether to publish an
   edition of the CLL and what content should be in any given edition shall be made
   by the LLG Board of Directors.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to overturn them by majority vote. If it does not
   overturn a standard presented to it by the end of the annual meeting in which
   that standard was presented, the standard may thereafter be described as an
   "official standard" of the LLG.
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T06:39:01Z ]

   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership will hold an
   election for the office of chair of the LFK and may appoint members to the
   committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the authority to
   appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the committee itself.
   The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to constitute the entire and
   exclusive membership of the committee until such a time as the LFK exercises the
   authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG or its Board of Directors, the
   policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T06:41:03Z ]

   CC: @karis @lagleki; also, feel free to ping the entire channel if it seems appropriate.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T07:16:16Z ]

   I'm having some trouble understanding what this means, although I think I get the general idea. Also, I'm not sure demand is the word you're looking for.

gleki [ 2019-03-03T07:17:25Z ]

   Superficially looks nice, maybe they're are internal bugs that I can't see but I'm not a lawyer

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T07:27:38Z ]

   Well, this is a pretty big motion. I may as well get as many comments as possible. @channel, I'd like comments on my proposal to replace the BPFK with a similar body with wider responsibilities and a new process.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T07:44:02Z ]

   I'm going to sleep. It will be a while before I'm back to respond to comments, but I will respond sometime tomorrow. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T07:45:06Z ]

   It helps get an idea of when people are available to talk and what time of day it Is for them (they might be tired late at night, for instance). It also serves as interesting personal context.

dersaidin [ 2019-03-03T07:51:39Z ]

   Second part talks a chair, about LLG appointing a chair, but doesn't define what the chair should do.
   Also it says LFK can choose some other structure, which seems inconsistent.

dersaidin [ 2019-03-03T07:52:56Z ]

   IMO either define responsibilities and authority of chair better, or go all in with letting LFK figure it out themselves.

phma [ 2019-03-03T10:26:07Z ]

   "a matter shall only be settled by a vote if no other option appears
   viable": Do you mean "a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears viable"? If not, what does it mean to only settle something?

gleki [ 2019-03-03T14:22:18Z ]

   I'd rather see shepherds in each field like it used to be. E.g. a shepherd in formal grammars, in FOPL, in "lojban as a functional proglang" etc.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T19:29:04Z ]

   I was thinking they'd just coordinate, which I presume is what the current jatna does. I don't object to removing it.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T19:32:38Z ]

   I think I'm inclined to disagree. That worked when the BPFK was essentially formulating dictionary definitions, which is a relatively mechanical task (note the "relatively"). With a more freeform layout and the RFC process, I think subcommittees might be better, assuming it was decided that they were needed to divide responsibilities. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-03T19:33:51Z ]

   I'm pretty sure that this is syntactically a valid position and has similar semantics to your version. Still, I'll change it.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T02:05:05Z ]

   When the chair returns, I have a few requests. First, I petition that the motion to reelect selpa'i be postponed temporarily (or laid on the table), by general consent if possible. If the BPFK is no longer going to exist, there's no point in electing a chair for it. Secondly, it would be great if I could become a member now. I know that usually happens earlier in the meeting, but it would be much simpler and cleaner if I could present my motion for the LFK directly, rather than through a proxy. It isn't a huge deal if I can't, but it would be better if I could.

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:10:17Z ]

   ^^

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:15:32Z ]

   1) You keep introducing proposals when we are discussing something already. All it does is interfere with the current discussion, in this case the byfy. 
   
   2) We're not going to demand this of you or the LLG, particularly since there's no need for you to propose we tell you to do something. Either do it on your own or don't. If you choose to present such errata we will take a look. 

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:25:03Z ]

   I have no problem with postponing further discussion on the reelection of selpa'i until the question of replacing, dissolving, or continuing the byfy is decided. 

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:26:59Z ]

   @channel, are there any objections to considering @bookofportals for membership at this time? 

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:33:32Z ]

   I am not sure if the LFK should completely determine its own membership, or if this should be monitored by the Board with the option for them to question an addition or removal and to propose or even add people on its own. 

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:36:06Z ]

   I think starting that three chair has a set of specific duties is better than a committee without anyone to serve as it's link to the Board and Membership meetings, and to assure documentation and such are maintained, as well as whatever else discussion here adds is a bad thing. 

karis [ 2019-03-04T04:42:41Z ]

   We should seriously consider if we want all decisions to become official if not voted upon, or if we should specify that the President or their designated representative shall be enabled to postpone such approval until it can be considered and voted upon at the following Members Meeting. That way, should there be too many things on the agenda or in the report to cover everything decisions of the new committee don't automatically became official. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T04:52:31Z ]

   I think it would be better if the LFK can completely determine its membership. The changes I've made to the BPFK charter are mostly to expand its discretion, and that would be a reduction in discretion. Additionally, other similar organizations can determine their own membership (e.g. the Node Technical Committee). In general I think the technical decision making should be separate from the business/financial side of things. Is there any particular reason that you're worried about the LFK doing this on its own? 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T05:07:40Z ]

   You're probably right about that. Documentation is the kind of thing that I would think the committee as a whole would be responsible for, but having someone to coordinate relations with the outside world is almost certainly a good thing. I was worried that such a person might gain a greater social role in the committee, which would prevent the committee from having a fully egalitarian structure if it wanted to, but having someone who can take on a leadership role if everything breaks down isn't really a bad thing.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T05:34:23Z ]

   That is definitely something that needs to be talked about. I was going by Robin Lee Powell's essay, which recommended that we "Clearly state to the community, on behalf of both the LLG and the BPFK, that the LLG exists only to deal with monetary matters, and the BPFK is for language definition issues." On the other hand, a lot of the other ideas in that essay have been shown by time to be inadvisable, and this one might as well. I figured that the LLG would probably be uncomfortable handing over full control of the language to an untested committee, and that's why I included the provision allowing for a resolution of disapproval. My hope was that the LFK would never do anything stupid, and thus there would never be a need to use that procedure. Is there a reason you're particularly worried that might not be the case?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T05:34:39Z ]

   Here's that essay, BTW: http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%253A%2BYou%2527re%2BDoing%2BIt%2BWrong

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T05:47:54Z ]

   The other point I should mention is that if they do something sufficiently bad to be overruled, it's unlikely that someone won't push for it to be discussed at the meeting.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T05:56:36Z ]

   Okay, new version: "The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure it decides. If the LFK decides not to select a chair, it must at the
   very least select a spokesperson, who will represent it as necessary
   before the Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting."

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T05:57:25Z ]

   That hopefully makes it clear that the spokesperson must be an ongoing position, not just elected specifically for one meeting.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T06:14:46Z ]

   @karis I'm done responding to your responses, so please look whenever it's convenient.

karis [ 2019-03-04T06:52:38Z ]

   That sounds better. 

karis [ 2019-03-04T06:55:45Z ]

   I've read the essay, though I do need to reread it for this discussion. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T06:59:48Z ]

   I disagree with a lot of it, including particularly the part where it says all technical discussions should be in Lojban, which I think is in large part responsible for the lack of new ideas. But it's still interesting. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T07:02:34Z ]

   I agree with the bit about not completely staying backwards compatible, but I think he favors change a bit more than I do.

gleki [ 2019-03-04T07:34:59Z ]

   you want for each subject to have a committee rather tan a single shepherd? Okay. I was hinting at the problem when people not knowledgeable in a certain sphere was deciding on topics in it.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-04T07:41:02Z ]

   The other solution of course being to let the experts lead the discussion. There are pros and cons to both approaches, and it depends on the size of the committee and level of activity, and the like. This is probably something where things would be tried until everyone agrees a good solution has been found.

greg_g [ 2019-03-04T21:39:16Z ]

   I read bookofportals' proposal. If I understand it correctly, it can be summarized by saying that the role of the LLG in the development of Lojban will be limited in the future to:
   - the initial nomination of members of the new committee (LFK)
   - publishing new editions of the CLL (I understand this to apply only to _printed_ editions)
   - the possibility to "veto" the standards approved by the LFK. If the veto is not applied, the standards become automatically official.
   - of course, the LLG could disband the LFK or modify its charter in the future.
   
   For the rest, the LFK is empowered to develop the Lojban language on its own as it sees fit, but it is also advised to adopt an RFC process and collaboration procedures in the style of open-source communities.
   
   Do I understand it correctly? If so, this seems to me a big step forward towards a more sustainable process for developing the language.
   Can you clarify if the power to publish the CLL only refers to the printed version, or also to the online documentation?
   
   Thanks!

gleki [ 2019-03-05T06:42:11Z ]

   Yeah, LFK looks to me exactly as BPFK used to be

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T07:18:11Z ]

   @greg_g Indeed. Of course, the LLG would still be responsible for funding, etc., but its role in language development would be limited as you describe. A few points: the LFK would be required to start an RFC process, not merely encouraged. Also, it was my intention that the board's authority over the CLL would apply only to the printed version, since publishing an edition of a book is a business decision, not really a technical one. I will make that clearer in the next version.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T07:18:46Z ]

   @lagleki How, specifically? And when did the BPFK resemble this?

gleki [ 2019-03-05T07:20:58Z ]

   During first years. BPFK was responsible for developing the language while LLG was not. Shepherds. RFC process was done in the tiki. Voting procedures

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:21:17Z ]

   I've been not paying attention.  The first problem with BPFK is that many people are quick to propose changes, but the greater need is to be sure that the language as it has been be as completely documented as possible.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:24:31Z ]

   In addition, to prosper, Lojban needs long term stability.  Long term meaning years and not months.  There might be better ways of doing some things than those that we chose, but every change in the language risks invalidating what everyone has learned (and potentially anything they had written in the language).  Natural languages evolve, but over *generations*.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:27:32Z ]

   As a result of this, I personally am opposed to any change proposal unless it is to fix something truly "broken".  (Of course I don't run things, and I haven't tried to get involved in BPFK discussions in part because I had too much else to do that no one was doing, but also because people need to figure out this need for stability for themselves.)

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:32:00Z ]

   It was when there were few speakers.  It is less so now.  More importantly, those who are unable to participate in a discussion in the language, probably don't know the language well enough to make judgements that would be binding on those who *have* spent the effort to learn the language.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:32:43Z ]

   Why do we need more ideas on changes to the language?  We need more people to use the language that we have.

karis [ 2019-03-05T21:37:06Z ]

   There's a difference between developing the language and promulgating it, which I believe is a main role of the LLG as a whole. It's very easy for people to believe the BPFK is a separate entity outside the LLG, but it's not and neither should this be. I would also, in addition to avoiding this as much as possible, make it clear that the LLG as a whole has the responsibility for promulgating the language developments made by the committee, whomever has developed or published the material. That, and to help forestall more belief that the LLG is defunct or dead, is why I believe these should not be the responsibility of the committee. 
   
   The fact Robin held the jatna post and worked on the CLL document (as opposed to the development of the material for it) were actually two separate things. It also makes no sense for LLG to handle the print on demand books (CLL and whatever is developed in the future) and the committee to handle the online materials. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:37:54Z ]

   What little I know about GitHub is that is is designed and optimized for software management.  Lojban is a language, and not merely a piece of software.  More importantly, the Lojban community is not all software people, and those who aren't have no idea what it is, how to use it, or why they should want to know.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:45:19Z ]

   It would be useful if you demonstrated that you understood the problem that you are labeling "lack of language development".  It isn't a  lack of change proposals, or a method of deciding them.  It is a lack of people with the time and energy to commit to doing the (sometimes boring and time-consuming) work of documenting the language as it is.  [software people should understand this, as it is always easier to find people who want to code than people who want to do good documentation].

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:49:23Z ]

   You could start, not with a translation, but a one line English description with a link to the (in Lojban) discussion and/or to the BPFK wiki page containing the result of the decision.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:50:52Z ]

   If you don't know the language,why do you think the people who do are your "peers

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:52:34Z ]

   " with regard to evaluating your ideas.  I note that academia generally doesn't even consider papers submitted by people without academic credentials in a field relevant to what they are writing about.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:56:03Z ]

   I think that it would be useful to outsiders new to the project if there was a discussion with links to the various places like this where decisions are documented.  What you seem to be saying, ilmen, is that what people want already exists, but they don't know where to find it.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T21:58:02Z ]

   The official grammar is the YACC grammar, not the BNF.  People have tried to ensure that the BNF matches the YACC, but I don't know if that is provably true (or even how it would be proven).

karis [ 2019-03-05T21:58:43Z ]

   I disagree, @lojbab. I may not be fluent enough for the BPFK, but I have had ideas to improve the language over the years since the byfy was formed. There is a huge difference between people who are knowledgeable about chunks of the language, such as basic grammar and can use it wiith a word list (with place structures) and someone who knows nothing. Besides the object was to have decisions made by speakers of lojban and those with related specialities like linguistics, logic, or whatever. It's just everyone can be part of the discussion. 
   
   This proposal would not necessarily result in more rapid change, and I hope it doesn't since I believe the place had been too fast over the past decade or so. It may be that now is the time for the LLG to reabsorb the BPFK responsibilities and assume some form of the structure @bookofportals has proposed for LLG itself. This would hopefully show people they really are welcome to offer ideas and be involved without formal membership, as I think the hope was this proposal would do for the language development part of LLG by any name. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:00:53Z ]

   The current BPFK process does work.  But there are have been no people actively working on it for quite a while.  It takes workers to do work, and there is no evidence that the process is the reason why there are no workers.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:06:20Z ]

   At one point the approach to the memory problem was John Cowan's "elephant" proposal.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:07:47Z ]

   Is it used for applications other than software code?

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:11:21Z ]

   The BPFK is lacking in people that have time and interest in discussing "process" or much of anything else.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:15:04Z ]

   As far as I know, jbovlaste isn't official, and anyone can make changes, so it couldn't/shouldn't be considered a standard.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:18:46Z ]

   There needs to be a page or pages that delineate specifically what among the horde of pages on the wiki are the places and pages that people should know about in order to participate intelligently.  That summary page should be linked from the home page and used prominently whenever someone asks the sorts of questions that it would answer.  In short, an FAQ for serious language learners (who don't know the history)

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:39:38Z ]

   This is all backwards.  The jatna is supposed to be reporting every year on what has been done in the previous year, and can seek guidance from the Board or the members (since the members list is available online) if needed on anything that arises during the year.  selpa'i has not done so, and neither the Board nor members has had any questions for him.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:40:42Z ]

   As for whether he should be reappointed, my main comment is that no one else has indicated the slightest interest in the job, and I don't think anyone is likely to step up now.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T22:44:58Z ]

   In unopposed elections, one can trivially elect someone without knowing what they will do.  There has never been opposition to any jatna willing to continue.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T22:50:59Z ]

   @lojbab Yes, very much so. It is good for anything where multiple people are contributing to something and contributions are in need of review. See https://readwrite.com/2013/11/08/seven-ways-to-use-github-that-arent-coding/

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T22:59:52Z ]

   Git keeps track of changes to text files. That's really it. Yes, there is a fairly steep learning curve, but there are many resources; I can direct anyone to them.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:02:02Z ]

   There is in fact such evidence. Karis, I, and greg_g have all expressed interest and that we don't feel able to participate in the current process. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:07:49Z ]

   Personally, everything feels stagnant. When I searched on the internet for Lojban discussion, I found a very quiet mailing list and some proposals (gadganzu, for instance; for the record, I strongly oppose repurposing any current gadri) that had apparently never received any official consideration. It made me feel that the language is dead. When I look at a programing language or project, I look for the latest activity in deciding how to use it. Lojban hasn't had a change  proposal adopted in years, and development on the CLL hasn't even caught up with xorlo and dotside.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:09:04Z ]

   It is the Lojban dictionary. Whether or not it has been adopted by the LLG has very little impact on how people use it.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:15:44Z ]

   I'd actually go so far as to say that that's almost a reason for adopted my proposal in and of itself. The infusion of activity would be a significant benefit on its own. See also the Relojban proposal, above, which I think would be very bad for the language but probably better than keeping things the way they are now.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:17:04Z ]

   I can stand for jatna, if it means the election will be discussed. I'm a tad under-qualified, but if that's your condition for discussion, it's a very simple problem to fix. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:17:30Z ]

   That came up above; git would act as our elephant.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:20:16Z ]

   Sure, I understand that the basic problem underlying all of this is a lack of manpower. I believe that my proposal will fix that problem and other less serious ones.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:25:28Z ]

   But it wouldn't be a fully separate entity. Whether it should be is another question, but my proposal doesn't call for it to be. It just calls for the LFK to have a bit more discretion, with the LLG still making final decisions.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:29:33Z ]

   By the way, please note that the CLL, which is currently not anyone's responsibility, would be the LFK's responsibility. By the way, I'd be more than happy to help work on bringing the documentation up to date, but currently I see that there are 46 open pull requests that no one is merging or closing. I suspect the LFK would act as a better custodian. https://github.com/lojban/cll/pulls

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:34:22Z ]

   See, the LLG is a tad slow, as one notices from this meeting. It's just too big to deal with the details of things like documentation (and, I believe, minor language change proposals; believe me, they exist) efficiently. That's why I believe that more should be delegated.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T23:48:53Z ]

   The language IS developed. Documentation of that development is what is still needed.  Sometimes that documentation effort identifies a problem, and then BYFY will be the ones to discuss solutions.  Sometimes, actual usage by fluent speakers will enable identifying a problem, and BYFY likewise will consider solutions.  Other questions of "development" are not part of Lojban.

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T23:51:11Z ]

   Recognizing what I just said indicates why it is fluent speakers that are the primary participants in BYFY.  People who don't know the language don't have the basis for deciding.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:53:31Z ]

   Then I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I agree with the core premise of Robin Lee Powell's essay: that Lojban should be prescriptively developed. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:53:57Z ]

   There simply isn't any other way for change to happen in a language this well specified. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:55:00Z ]

   Fluent speakers are not in fact the primary participants in the BPFK, because it has no participants, because it is inactive. I think including some non-fluent speakers might help fix that.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:57:06Z ]

   I am not a fluent speaker. However, I am interested in language change and I have ideas. Most of them aren't my ideas. For instance, I think the selma'o CAI should be in UI and I think that ko'oi should be a stable part of the language. I'd also like the NOIhA proposal to be adopted in some form. I would like to simply the connective system as much as possible while maintaining its logical nature. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-05T23:58:08Z ]

   There is no "momentum for change".  You are just one more person in a never ending series of individuals who want to see their pet ideas developed and incorporated into the language.  But Lojban is DONE, with respect to a priori input.  It is now in the realm of normal natural language  insofar as that is possible.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:58:28Z ]

   Again, that simply isn't true.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:58:47Z ]

   At least I don't believe that it's true.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-05T23:59:40Z ]

   And none of the ideas I want to propose are mine. They're simply ideas that have never had an audience. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:01:22Z ]

   So we fundamentally disagree about the correct direction forward for the language. That isn't necessarily a problem. There just needs to be some way of deciding between those alternatives. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:02:08Z ]

   I will make my case here. I believe you will find many more voices supporting my point of view than opposing it.

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:03:08Z ]

   He has stated that he feels that the language and community is moribund.  Not enough people who want to actively do something with the language.  I believe that he resigned his membership, which is why he isn't here.  But there is no one else qualified who *wants* the jatna job, so he is pretty much a shoo-in so long as he is willing to continue.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:05:23Z ]

   There isn't much point electing someone so they can do nothing. If la selpa'i doesn't really want to do it, and the LLG refuses to elect anyone else (because there are no contenders, or for another reason), then the job should be eliminated. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:05:25Z ]

   The jatna has the option to change "how" is up to him.  But the "how" is meaningless when there is no one actually doing anything at all, by any process.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:05:56Z ]

   I assert that if the process were changed there would be more people.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:07:05Z ]

   However, if I am rejected, someone will move on and fork the language, and there can simply be alternative implementations. I believe that this wouldn't be the best thing for the community, but it is certainly in line with the founding ideals of Lojban.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:08:52Z ]

   None of these will destroy Lojban. In fact, I don't even think any of them are necessarily backwards incompatible.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:15:50Z ]

   Lojbab: When you founded the LLG, you intended for the task of specifying it to someday be complete. I, greg_g, and some people who are definitely qualified, like Robin Lee Powell, believe that will never happen.  It is a core philosophical disagreement. At some point, the matter will need to be voted on. I will acknowledge that while I believe in my position, I may turn out in the end to have been wrong. I hope you will extend the same courtesy. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:16:09Z ]

   Nothing in this proposal is contrary to what now exists.  LLG as an organization has the possibility to veto a change by the BYFY, but in practice it likely won't happen.

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:18:51Z ]

   Robin left the job of jatna for more or less the same reason that selpa'i has given.  No one actually *does* anything, and he got burned out in part from the fruitlessness of trying to get others to work (and use the language).

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:21:44Z ]

   I think I can make it so people do something. I think my proposal would work, or I wouldn't be making it. The current system is accomplishing literally nothing (the BPFK hasn't done anything in a very long time). Would you please give the proposal a chance?

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:23:24Z ]

   A baseline freeze is inherent to the definition of a "baseline".

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:25:23Z ]

   If that is the case, then the baseline was a horrible idea. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:26:18Z ]

   By the way, I do not mean to imply that anyone could have known that at the time. just that I think it is clear in retrospect.

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:30:49Z ]

   I see no real difference between this and the existing byfy.  Certainly, I see nothing that is necessarily outside of the current byfy charter, if the jatna wishes it.  

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:31:47Z ]

   Karis said this: "As we've talked I more and more believe we are discussing creating a new entity in the place of the BPFK with a distinct and different structure. To make sure people know up front that it's different and participation is much more possible it probably should even have a new name. I haven't any issue with putting selpa'i in to manage it, though."

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:33:43Z ]

   TBH, I agree with you, but establishing a new charter doesn't seem likely to do much harm either.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:34:40Z ]

   If people would prefer, I could first stand for jatna and then see if the proposal worked, rather than having the LLG endorse the details before testing them.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:35:54Z ]

   I promise, I'm really not a radical as far as Lojban's structure is concerned. I don't like backwards incompatibility unless the original definition was just plain bad, and even then I tend to prefer replacing the construct in question.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:37:53Z ]

   Additive changes, on the other hand, can be good. The difficulty lies in making sure you won't regret adding it later. That's why I like public comment: it helps get all of the objections raised before you adopt the change. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:39:28Z ]

   This differs from the existing setup in that the byfy itself can propose a new jatna.  But this means little, especially if it relies on consensus.  I don't think the Board (or membership) would reject someone proposed by BPFK as a new jatna.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:42:43Z ]

   Most of my changes to the charter were small expansions of the committee's authority. For instance, the "interim standard" categorization only requires the committee's approval. The big change was adding the RFC process and the stuff on open governance. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:43:26Z ]

   You are missing the fact that LLG has had innumerable committees in its history, and every single one except BYFK devolved into total inactivity or one person (the jatna) being the only one doing any work.  BPFK has intermittently had better success, especially under Nick Nicholas, and his shepherds, which were essentially subcommittees of one.  But eventually even they stopped working.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:44:53Z ]

   No one has ever tried an RFC process before. That said, it might fail too. But a failure is just a return to the status quo; it's not like it could really make things worse.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:45:23Z ]

   Other than by adopting bad changes, which the LLG could still disapprove.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:46:20Z ]

   Overall, I don't think my proposal has a very high risk, and it has a high potential reward. I still think it will work, but I could very well be wrong.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T00:46:48Z ]

   I've got to go right now. I'll check back later.

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:49:15Z ]

   As far as I know there isn't actually a requirement that one be fluent to be a member of the BPFK.  Rather it is that all discussion under selpa'i have been in Lojban, so someone who cannot read the language reasonably well has no idea what is being discussed.  I don't know if anyone has tried posting to the byfy list in non-Lojban (i.e English, probably).

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T00:58:10Z ]

   Actually, CLL is charged to BPFK.  But it took Robin several years to get 1.1 published, and he was the only one working on it most of that time.  None of the changes thus far approved has been written up as change pages to CLL, which is in fact what I originally wanted to happen as a prerequisite to any final decision on a proposal.   (But I'm not jatna)

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:03:40Z ]

   LLG is not big, and it is slow because we can't get people to participate on a sustained basis any more than byfy can.  The only way we've succeeded in doing better is with live meetings, either face to face, or at a specified (and limited) time on IRC.  The fact that the membership spreads over nearly the full range of world timezones causes that approach to be flawed (but I think the current method has proven no better than email).

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:05:58Z ]

   If you want to participate in BPFK without being fluent, ask selpa'i.  But how will you understand what others are saying?  Or do you insist that everyone post in English for your sake?

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:09:29Z ]

   If you or someone else wants to do something, then do it.  You need no permission to act.  You do eventually need LLG to approve whatever you have done if you want it to supplant what is currently official.

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:12:21Z ]

   You misstate my past and present position.  So far as I know, Robin and I have been in essential agreement for a long time.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T01:14:15Z ]

   Okay, I'm back for the moment.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T01:16:52Z ]

   Then I sincerely apologize. I thought  that my statement of your position was accurate. Reading "But Lojban is DONE, with respect to a priori input" seemed (and still seems, but I want to figure out how I'm misinterpreting) to be saying that. Could you please clarify?

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:18:47Z ]

   The vast majority of the world has no interest in trying learning a language that is obsolete by the time they have learned it.  Many Lojbanists have dropped out  because they perceived that there would be some change in what they had already learned or were about to try to learn.  A baseline was necessary so people would understand that the development phase was done.  (this does not mean that everything is infinitely specified, but more that what has been decided is adequately documented)

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:22:55Z ]

   Since I don't know what you mean by an RFC process, I can't argue it.  I suspect that it is some variation on what actually existed before byfy, and isn't in the least incompatible with what byfy does now.  You just need to get people to do it.\

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T01:52:59Z ]

   Not really.  It is largely a statement of attitude.  Lojban will evolve because languages do so.  But that evolution should be as much as possible subliminal, and should arise within the language by people using the language.  Turning what people actually do into a prescriptive rule might make sense for those who favor prescriptivism. But that isn't apriori change as I understand it.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T02:06:05Z ]

   Reading his essay, I got the rather strong impression that Robin favors a priori change, rather than merely prescriptivism. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T02:14:55Z ]

   Per my last, the following is how grammar changes were proposed before CLL was written, which might be a rudimentary form of your RFC  http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/techfix.300

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T02:37:21Z ]

   Pretty much all of those changes were written up by John Cowan, and anything not purely technical was discussed publically on Lojban List.  Approval was by consensus, with John serving as arbiter of when such consensus had been achieved.  Change 20 was one of several that were controversial, and explicitly recognized that fact.  When originally posted, the actual grammar rules affected were specified, but this particular document is the summary of all prior changes.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T02:38:00Z ]

   It sounds like it was a form of RFC.

lojbab [ 2019-03-06T02:42:30Z ]

   I'm off to bed now.  If karis has called the vote, I'll support the motion to reappoint selpa'i as a temporary measure in part because it allows people who want to see byfy be more active and participate can communicate with selpa'i and see if he is willing to make the changes in the process that you feel are needed to enable more activity.  If selpa'i thinks something is beyond what he understands as the intended scope of byfy he can ask the membership or the Board to approve.  Otherwise, it seems that karis wants this topic to be closed for this meeting.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T02:44:00Z ]

   They did say that they were prepared to postpone that until there was discussion of a replacement.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-06T02:44:15Z ]

   Goodnight!

gleki [ 2019-03-06T05:47:06Z ]

   I disagree that there are no people who can document the language as it is. I wrote up a document with all the errata listed in the most easily readable way possible. Technically everything is ready to produce a CLL with all of them fixed. 
   But! Everyone else is either busy or has no time or energy or not a knowledgeable person or is just a stranger

karis [ 2019-03-06T19:15:09Z ]

   The idea that anyone can be part of the discussions, rather then everything being done by the same small group is what I like most about @bookofportals' proposal. Decisions could be made by the exact same people as now, though I think other specialities would be useful for that process. Right now no outside input is possible (unless you're fluent enough to follow the discussion in lojban and join the BPFK). Also while I agree the current process works I think it can be improved. 

karis [ 2019-03-06T19:18:54Z ]

   That's part of why I'm asking the decisions be added to the specific chat for just them. After they're collected, along with links to the original pages it will be easy to make a list of the links, or all the information summarized and links, for our main website. 

karis [ 2019-03-06T19:24:00Z ]

   That's one reason allowing more to be involved might help. 

karis [ 2019-03-06T19:47:29Z ]

   This is part of why there is a proposal to redo the main webpage(s) to more clearly specify what is official from what isn't. The issue I have with jbovlaste is how many items have been added after only one or two uses. In effect this means one formulation is considered by many to be "right" so people who look it up don't consider different formulations, which may be clearer or more elegant. 

karis [ 2019-03-06T19:49:26Z ]

   That depends on your lojban fluency, willingness to herd cats, and probably other qualifications I can't think of right now. 

karis [ 2019-03-06T19:53:12Z ]

   The main benefit is here it's easier to read back to older messages as they aren't lost in all the other email, even lojban related email if you get Google discussion posts even in clusters. Mattermost isn't perfect by any means, though. 

karis [ 2019-03-06T20:03:21Z ]

   The slowness of meetings is, I think, because people get bored by the business part of the meeting before the part with more discussion (new business in particular) happens. People who need to submit reports and are not reading this chat should also submit them by email when the meeting starts. Having to converse with selpa'i, who didn't choose to join us, and mukti, who's been extremely busy and hasn't been reading along, by email as we go has added at least two weeks. A quicker way to take roll would save another week or so, and using the same chat client will likely save a several weeks to a month, if we stay with it, if we all keep our accounts active and fewer people need to be walked through adding themselves. Even so these meetings do take a while. 

dersaidin [ 2019-03-07T02:47:16Z ]

   @bookofportals here is a thing that happened a while ago, but seemed to have lost energy: https://github.com/balningau/gimste

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T06:07:24Z ]

   Do you know why or how it lost energy?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T06:12:10Z ]

   @karis How long do you want to leave this open for people to object? I'm not in any particular hurry, I'd just like to know the timetable. 

gleki [ 2019-03-07T07:27:04Z ]

   Isn't the main page what your are describing?

dersaidin [ 2019-03-07T08:07:38Z ]

   I don't know why.

gleki [ 2019-03-07T08:14:00Z ]

   There are plenty of people who did work. The problem is that that work was ignored. Or it was opposed ( which is not always a problem)

gleki [ 2019-03-07T17:55:39Z ]

   > As for whether he should be reappointed, my main comment is that no one else has indicated the slightest interest in the job, and I don't think anyone is likely to step up now.
   
   
   There are zillions of people who are willing to do nothing.
   
   E.g. I can propose myself as a jatna of BPFK . I would promise I wouldn't do anything for the next year.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T17:59:00Z ]

   I am, as a matter a fact, willing to both take the job and do something. I can present some pretty compelling arguments for electing me (provided la selpa'i remains the only other candidate). However, I'd really prefer to do something more... organized. 

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T21:55:54Z ]

   Another more recent project related to the aforementioned Balningau was https://github.com/CvGC/dict

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T22:01:04Z ]

   It was an unofficial undertaking to make the gismu definition list more homogenous and regular, and fixing various issues with gismu definitions.

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T22:05:10Z ]

   (most activity was in the Issues section, i.e. https://github.com/CvGC/dict/issues )

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T22:06:26Z ]

   Random tasty sample: https://github.com/CvGC/dict/issues/29

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T22:18:45Z ]

   This simplification sounds good.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T22:19:00Z ]

   If one versioned everything carefully.

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T22:24:38Z ]

   Two particularly radical and yet popular gismu definition changes are removals of a non-terminal slot in both {xruti} and {traji}

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T22:30:53Z ]

   (popular not in the sense everybody approve of those, but rather that a these changes have seen a significant amount of actual usage)

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T22:41:32Z ]

   I think the appropriate course of action is to have a language version number and increment it.

ilmen [ 2019-03-07T23:02:16Z ]

   There is actually an experimental cmavo {jo'au} dedicated to language version marking

bookofportals [ 2019-03-07T23:14:48Z ]

   It should be made official in some form and a set of version numbers should be promulgated. 

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:27:50Z ]

   For such harsh changes I simply suggest that one makes a new language not called Lojban

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:33:32Z ]

   With respect, gleki, if the changes "have seen a significant amount of actual usage" then they're exactly the kind of changes that I believe even la lojbab would agree with.

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:35:34Z ]

   Not necessarily. Much usage was broken ungrammatical lojban. Do you want to change lojban to adapt to such changes? We no speak no lojbano

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:36:25Z ]

   Changing the definition of traji would lead to much confusion. Just like it happened to xorlo. Lessons most be learned from history

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:36:39Z ]

   A change to place structure is exactly the kind of change that's *supposed* to happen naturalistically. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:37:12Z ]

   Unless you want Lojban to permanently stay the same?

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:37:31Z ]

   Even if it makes the language less powerful?

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:37:48Z ]

   Lojban can evolve by adding new words

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:38:18Z ]

   There are two viewpoints that make sense. Either it changes naturalistically or someone changes it when they think it needs change.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:38:38Z ]

   I lean towards the later, while accepting the former.

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:38:42Z ]

   For the "new" traji I added the word "raiksi" to la jbovlaste. You may use it

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:39:25Z ]

   I myself need traji3 a lot. I don't want to lose it. 
   

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:39:52Z ]

   In that case, let's not have usage decide and instead put a committee in charge.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:40:10Z ]

   And then you can explain to them why traji3 is important.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:40:36Z ]

   And if they change it, everything will be versioned so that it's possible to figure out what standard someone is using.

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:43:45Z ]

   I then simply won't accept such changes. I will speak what I spoke

gleki [ 2019-03-08T06:46:35Z ]

   I speak a language and then suddenly I need to explain why I speak it or else they will ban it. Silliness

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:48:38Z ]

   No matter what anyone does, you can say whatever you want.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T06:50:10Z ]

   It's just a question of what "official LLG Lojban" is, which, while it does have meaning, is purely a social construct.

ilmen [ 2019-03-08T09:54:19Z ]

   I for one am not against adding a new gismu equivalent to traji without its x3, but we should then reassign the rafsi -rai- to that new gismu, because lujvo containing -rai- have always dropped traji's x3 from the lujvo's argument structure; that might be a good compromise

ilmen [ 2019-03-08T09:58:09Z ]

   (also, we're getting astray from the topic)

gleki [ 2019-03-08T10:04:05Z ]

   I think this comment shouldn't belong to LLG discussions. LLG hasn't dissolved BPFK yet.
   
   We can only discuss organizational problems or the nature of BPFK work itself.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-08T19:05:18Z ]

   Specific examples can be beneficial to a discussion of general policy.   

karis [ 2019-03-10T03:14:54Z ]

   I was going to give it another day as discussion is so active. 

karis [ 2019-03-10T03:22:28Z ]

   That isn't true, @lagleki as we clearly discuss much more. It is true, however, that this interesting discussion is only marginally on topic. 

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T03:52:02Z ]

   **la .eris.**: This isn’t exactly what I’d call active...
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T03:52:46Z ]

   **la .eris.**: I mean, your message is the first one all day \(i.e. rolling 24 hour period\).
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T03:53:32Z ]

   **la .eris.**: It is amusing to imagine what it would be like if an in person meeting moved at that pace.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-03-10T05:10:02Z ]

   But why do we discuss non LLG work?

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T05:11:34Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Because Lojban is LLG work.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-03-10T05:31:47Z ]

   Development of lojban is BPFK work

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T05:33:56Z ]

   **la .eris.**: The LLG has deigned to delegate the day to day affair of developing Lojban to the BPFK.
   
   

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T05:34:14Z ]

   **la .eris.**: It’s still LLG work, and will be until the LLG says it isn’t.
   
   

karis [ 2019-03-10T05:38:34Z ]

   The BPFK is included within LLG and all its assigned work was done so by LLG meetings. BPFK isn't a stand alone entity. 

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T05:41:07Z ]

   **la .eris.**: .ie \(agreement\)
   
   

gleki [ 2019-03-10T05:50:28Z ]

   ok then I disagree that the rafsi {-rai} should be reassigned to another loujbo. first, lujvo do not necessarily have to have all the places of the source brivla. Secondly, section 12.15 is devoted to such exception for traji3, which in fact adds regularity to lujvo with -rai (superlatives). Lastly, it'd be strange to have the modal {rai} to be relaed to {traji} and the rafsi {-rai} no longer have.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T05:53:08Z ]

   As for simplified connectives a proposal similr to the one introduced by la selpahi was proposed in 1996. The unification of JA and JOI was rejected because logical and non-logical connectives can't be unified by their nature. To learn more one can searching the archives of the mailing list: https://Groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban Finally, unlike the proposal from 1996 la selpahi's one introduces a change in the role of {cu} which may lead to {ko'a cu ei broda} no longer mean what it used to, a backwards incompatible change.

vecusku [ 2019-03-10T05:56:09Z ]

   **la .eris.**: JA and JOI can’t be semantically unified, but I don’t see why they couldn’t be syntactically unified.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-03-10T05:56:32Z ]

   You need to refer to the already finished discussions

gleki [ 2019-03-10T05:56:59Z ]

   As for PEG it's a false assumption that it removes ambiguity or solves the problem of ambiguity. PEG simply does not support ambiguity. It's a NewSpeak. Like "freedom" would no longer mean political freedom and would be used only for "the toilet is free". I'd say it'd be a total disaster for a logical language to no longer deal with the problem of ambiguity. I have no problems in having unofficial PEG parsers even if they have bugs like the current one has with infinite recursion.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:02:11Z ]

   then why not syntactically unify all the words in Lojban?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:05:45Z ]

   Because it would totally mess up the grammar. Everything would be permitted. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:06:16Z ]

   Having a parser that tells you every combination of words will work is equivalent to not having any parser at all.

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:06:52Z ]

   True. It's the lojban that lessons are supposed to teach so everyone at least has learned it even if they choose to speak differently like in a dialect. 

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:11:39Z ]

   So you ust answered the question why a proposal to unify JOI and JA was rejected.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:12:18Z ]

   Again though, if we *want* to make them syntactically the same, then they should be in the same selma'o

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:20:32Z ]

   .  We aren't discussing language questions. 

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:25:21Z ]

   @channel
   
   VOTE anyone against allowing eris/BookofPortals becoming a member despite it being late in the meeting speak up now (within the next 36 hours) or it will be declared to have passed. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:27:11Z ]

   Coi rodo. I'd appreciate a chance to give my proposal a hearing, a chance for amendments, and a vote, at least. Becoming a member will allow that to happen.

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:27:29Z ]

   It is by comparison to other parts of the meeting. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:28:42Z ]

   I'm just imagining a comparable in person meeting or even another IM chat.  This is moving at ~email speed.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:31:18Z ]

   I've been in groups that make decisions by email. too, so it's a fair comparison.

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:35:13Z ]

   As a side note the problem with people learning a language and having it change significantly (like removing a later place in a place structure) after they put in months or years is the reason I supported the language freeze. Languages usually change significantly slower than lojban has since its end. I've spoken to several people, most of those I've spoken with who expressed interest in learning, and this was their sole primary concern from them until last summer. 

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:37:08Z ]

   It's moving at email speed as that's how fast notification of procedural items, like presenting a proposal, are sent. It is at least all in one place. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:38:40Z ]

   It's definitely important not to make to many backwards incompatible changes all at once. However, there is a countervailing concern: we need to get the language right. If a mistake was made, it should be fixed. There are a few irregularities in the language, bloated gismu, and other problems. Fixing them makes the language easier to learn for anyone learning it in the future.

karis [ 2019-03-10T06:41:53Z ]

   I understand, but either they would need to be put into usage spaced out in time or we face a massive loss of most of the people then actively learning lojban, as has happened in the past. . 

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:42:37Z ]

   I'm confused. I shouldn't have explained connectives, PEG because it's not the right place?

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:43:29Z ]

   There is another solution: make new words, not mess with existing words.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:44:36Z ]

   I'm not terribly concerned about, say, dropping final gismu places. But for other things that might make sense.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:45:46Z ]

   Forgetting something is pretty easy. Remembering something new is reasonable. Changing what you already know is very hard.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:46:26Z ]

   It depends which gismu we are talking about. As I understand the gimste wasn't made official by LLG. If this is correct we can only rely on CLL's gismu even though CLL doesn't treat them as official.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:47:25Z ]

   If we remove all by standard places, we'd do it for all gismu, not just for a subset. Otherwise everyone gets confused.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:47:38Z ]

   For example.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:48:42Z ]

   "By standards" places have different roles for different places. It's not a "single bug".

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:49:18Z ]

   Fair, but whether something is in the CLL isn't the way to make the distinction.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:50:05Z ]

   > and this was their sole primary concern from them until last summer. 
   
   And the change in Lojban, especially this undocumented not included into CLL xorlo reform was one of the main reasons the Russian Lojban community died.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:51:57Z ]

   I think everyone agrees that speedily adjusting documentation should be the first priority of whoever we put in charge.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:52:59Z ]

   Depends on what type of documentation and which adjustments you are talking about. I'm only concerned with fixing errata.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T06:53:29Z ]

   So you don't think xorlo should be added to the CLL?

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:54:24Z ]

   lojbab e.g. doesn't use it as i understand.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:54:58Z ]

   So I don't see it as a necessary change. Is Lojban broken just because there is no xorlo? No.

gleki [ 2019-03-10T06:56:46Z ]

   I haven't heard any objections to including descriptions of new words in Lojban. So if someone wants plural logic to be included they can write a section on {su'oi}, {ro'oi} or other alternatives.

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:18:50Z ]

   It is the middle of a meeting you yourself have said at various points is moving to slowly and wouldn't (didn't) end on time. Discussions of language structure and other specifics isn't the topic under discussion. It needs to wait or be to a separate chat on Mattermost or elsewhere. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T07:19:24Z ]

   My fault for sidetracking things.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T07:19:47Z ]

   Not la gleki's

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:20:20Z ]

   The CLL is the GRAMMAR standard. . 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T07:21:32Z ]

   It was intended to contain a complete list of cmavo, I believe.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T07:22:42Z ]

   It's been a long day, and I really need seep, Goodnight y'all!

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:22:48Z ]

   The places are somewhat standardized, such as for related gismu, but quite different for others. Since ending places are never necessary it seems silly not to leave them. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-10T07:23:49Z ]

   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Bloated_Gismu_Syndrome

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:24:06Z ]

   Also documentation only helps people who haven't gotten to the area of change yet and experienced speakers willing to relearn, again. 

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:26:11Z ]

   The CLL, as originally written, was only grammar. We never had enough volunteers willing to put together an official dictionary or thesaurus. 

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:29:00Z ]

   On a scan of that document, since I don't have the time right now as I'm in multiple active conversations, I am very curious who wrote it. Do any of you know? 

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:29:48Z ]

   When it was written would also be helpful when trying to place it in the lojban time line. 

gleki [ 2019-03-10T07:31:51Z ]

   If someone doesn't need a place in a gismu they don't use it or fill it with zo'e

karis [ 2019-03-10T07:34:06Z ]

   Exactly. Now, can we please move this discussion to the side conversations chat. I'll make sure everyone had been added. I'd you haven't then ping me. 

karis [ 2019-03-10T08:04:55Z ]

   @channel the post immediately above asks that a specific discussion on a related to, but not the specific matter under discussion be moved to the "side conversations" chat. If you need help. Thank you. 

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T08:55:03Z ]

   Actually lojbab would not (necessarily) agree, for reasons that include what gleki has described.  Being used a lot would justify a change being *considered*.  But actually making a change in the language as documented requires more.  Robin's statement that the documentation necessarily be prescriptive (which you claim to support) would in fact mean that actual usage might not be a good justification.  Prescription means that "ain't" isn't good English, "irregardless" of how many people use it.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:02:09Z ]

   BTW, I have to say that I could not support you as an alternative to selpa'i.  You have stated that you don't have mastery of the language as it is, while selpa'i most certainly does have that mastery.  The byfy jatna currently has rather great power to push his ideas of the language on others.  Thus we've tended to give that office to someone who has demonstrated the greatest ability to use the language skillfully, and secondarily to work well with others.  I don't think you have demonstrated either of these, while spending considerable effort to promote doing a lot of things differently from the present.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:04:05Z ]

   It is important because it is part of the current language definition.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:08:50Z ]

   This is a language, not a piece of software.   There can be only one official version, with anything else to some extent derogated as non-standard.  (I say this recognizing that my own usage does not practice xorlo, or dot side, even though they are now official.  I rely on the essential backwards compatibility of the language to be understood.)

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:12:20Z ]

   If someone were to speak to me saying that they are using version 3.1.4 of the language, that does not meaningfully tell me anything, even if there is some sort of blather on github that defines 3.1.4.  It is plausibly useful for reading the language in non-real-time communications, but real people won't do that.   

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:18:10Z ]

   Rather, people will do what they do in English when someone uses a word they don't understand, or in a way that they don't understand.  They'll either attempt to grok the meaning from context, or they will ask "huh?", and seek clarification.  Lojban allows with the UI grammar of ki'a to be fairly specific about what clarification is needed. unlike English.  But if someone's usage is too insistently variant, they probably won't bother, and just consider the confusing speaker to be not worth the effort.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:20:50Z ]

   This has been seen in practice as a response to people who write h instead of apostrophe, or who omit spaces from text and capitalize to show stress (which is then theoretically parseable, but too much work),

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:24:03Z ]

   But more importantly, the lack of a single standard will deter people from even trying to learn the language.  Most people don't learn new languages easily, and most who are learning Lojban do so as a relatively low-priority avocation.  We have to keep the language easy to learn, and we have to at least pretend that there is a single ideal standard usage that people are (and should be) striving toward, or they simply won't bother.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:33:34Z ]

   The gismu list from 1994 with associated rafsi was baselined.  The place structures were baselined sometime around 1997, and indeed the exact text of the list was frozen.  I was chewed out by the membership for having made clarification changes and consistency changes to the list, and I accepted the rebuke and the need for a fixed baseline, with any changes subject to a vote by the community (or now by the byfy acting on behalf of the community subject to LLG membership veto).

gleki [ 2019-03-11T09:36:20Z ]

   how was the gimste officialzed?

gleki [ 2019-03-11T09:46:23Z ]

   To work well with others - how is this assessed? Given that bpfk is non active

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:51:17Z ]

   I unofficially baselined the gimste in 1994, in consultation with the Board.  The rafsi list was similarly baselined after people said that further changes after the 1994 revisions would be detrimental to encouraging learning and usage,  I'd have to look in Board minutes to see if there was a formal vote.  The grammar was baselined in January 1997 and this was documented in the annual meeting minutes for that year.  The status of the baselining was discussed in a couple of member meetings (look for the wordform  basel* in the minutes, and was significantly discussed in connection with the formation of byfy)

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T09:56:11Z ]

   Assessed now with difficulty.  It used to be assessed by observation of behavior patterns on Lojban List, and later, I believe, on the IRC channel.  The proof of such was the more or less broad support an individual already had when their name was brought up for discussion.  Any "campaigning" was essentially done before the topic came up at a meeting.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T10:02:43Z ]

   I think, the volume of published Lojban work is also a factor nowadays.  selpa'i has enormous credibility from this.  Nick Nicolas and Robin likewise at the time they were nominated.  Way back when, participation in ongoing documentation projects was important; past byfy participation is probably one (but not necessarily the only) factor in qualifying for future jatna, unless we clearly change what byfy and the jatna are supposed to be doing.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T10:05:10Z ]

   off to sleep now.  I think I've said what I can that is topical to the current motion of reappointing selpa'i, and will try to abide by karis' request to move side discussions elsewhere.  (I wish more of these took place on Lojban list so we could attract more people to be interested in the meeting.)

gleki [ 2019-03-11T10:06:11Z ]

   > I think, the volume of published Lojban work
   
   That's doubtful to me. A person can speak fluent Lojban and produce no published works but just show that she/he is fluent.
   
   Similarly, a person may produce a lot of literary works but may have not much knowledge in formal logic.

gleki [ 2019-03-11T10:23:25Z ]

   > BTW, I have to say that I could not support you as an alternative to selpa'i. 
   
   bookofportals may think of becoming a secretary/treasurer of bpfk like what la mukti used to be for llg

bookofportals [ 2019-03-11T15:14:44Z ]

   The BPFK doesn't *need* a secretary treasurer.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T15:15:22Z ]

   briefly: "volume of published work" - I was indicating how one mighty demonstrate the skill level and commitment to the language that is,  showing competency as well as a bent towards stability.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-11T15:18:32Z ]

   That's... fair. I think versioning would at least help, but you have a point about actual usage.

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T15:19:25Z ]

   I can envision a secretary, at least, who would distill the discussions down and record decisions and communicate them to the community and the Board/membership, if the jatna isn't of a communicative bent

lojbab [ 2019-03-11T15:19:40Z ]

   Butthat would be up to the jatna

bookofportals [ 2019-03-11T15:23:05Z ]

   With regard to electing me as jatna, I tend to agree that electing me as jatna isn't a great idea. I maintain that it's better than the jatna being inactive, but I'd still prefer another, better option. Passing the LFK charter would be my favored solution. You may not like that *either*, of course...

solpahi [ 2019-03-11T17:19:00Z ]

   solpahi a rejoint le canal.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-11T17:47:24Z ]

   Thank the light! Welcome!

karis [ 2019-03-11T23:42:22Z ]

   Welcome, @solpahi! I'm glad you joined us. You may want to read back to the beginning of the discussion on byfy, at least. There's also a chat for side discussions and I'm make sure you are in that as well. 

karis [ 2019-03-13T02:32:20Z ]

   @channel PROPOSAL PASSED
   
   ON Sunday, March 10th I requested that anyone against allowing @bookofportals becoming a member to please respond. Since there have been none I hereby state that @bookofportals is now a voting member of the LLG. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-14T06:18:34Z ]

   Hi all! Thanks for making me a member. I'm afraid some stuff came up. I'll have another draft of my motion in 48-72 hours, and if comments are favorable on that I'll formally submit it. Sorry about the delay.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-16T05:40:48Z ]

   Okay, @channel, here's a revised draft of my motion. If I missed any concerns, please bring them up again (particularly if they'd cause you to vote against the proposal, but even if they won't). If there aren't any objections in the next day or two, I'll submit it formally. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-16T05:40:51Z ]

   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Develop and advance the Lojban language;
     6. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     7. Supervise volunteer activity related to these purposes;
     8. Encourage the maximum possible quantity of activity by volunteers in order
        to obtain the broadest possible input into decisions and participation in
        the language process, including through the development of instructional,
        technical, and cultural works; and
     9. Promote the use of Lojban and grow the Lojban community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-16T05:41:30Z ]

   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure it decides. If the LFK decides not to select a chair, it must at the
   very least select a spokesperson, who will represent it as necessary
   before the Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting.
   
   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to overturn them by majority vote. If it does not
   overturn a standard presented to it by the end of the annual meeting in which
   that standard was presented, the standard may thereafter be described as an
   "official standard" of the LLG.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "interim
   standards".
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-16T05:41:40Z ]

   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   

dersaidin [ 2019-03-16T05:51:30Z ]

   I'd prefer more stuff be specified, rather than left to LFK to figure out. The chair/spokesperson in particular.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-16T05:54:41Z ]

   What do you think they should do? The only task that I've heard for which there needs to be a chair is communicating with the board and membership. Otherwise, I don't see any reason why the LFK should be required to grant any particular power to one individual. Can you expand on what exactly you think is necessary?  

bookofportals [ 2019-03-16T05:58:04Z ]

   Also, please keep in mind that the BPFK charter never specified any responsibilities for the jatna, only that the portion was required. 

karis [ 2019-03-17T12:05:09Z ]

   The chair also needs to coordinate activities to make sure that people focus on thuse things the group decides are important, run meetings (help keep conversation on topic, determine when enough discussion has taken place, record decisions unless someone else is doing this and make sure they really are, etc). 
   
   Your best bet while developing a list of responsibilities may be to start by asking @solpahi what he thinks is necessary and what are suggested responsibilities. Just because the BPFK wasn't told details of this doesn't mean the new group also shouldn't be. It could have been left open ended because no one was sure what would be needed. If you are trying to improve on their efforts then use their experiences.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-03-18T03:24:38Z ]

   The bit I'm not sure about is whether the committee actually needs to appoint a chair with all those responsibilities. When responsibilities are specified in the charter, the decision of how to lay them out is taken away from the committee. 
   
   If I end up being on the committee, I was planning to propose appointing a chair and giving them minimal powers. Specifically, I was thinking they could be assigned to generally keep things moving and coordinate, and report to the outside world, but given no further responsibilities or powers. It's quite possible that other members might propose splitting those responsibilities or granting more to the chair; I'm not even firmly in favor particular way of doing things myself.
   
   Do you think that deciding in advance is necessary? If you really think we should, I can write in what I think the chair's responsibilities should be (after consulting with selpa'i, if he is willing to share his opinions). I'm just reluctant to remove that decision from the people who actually serve on the committee. 

karis [ 2019-03-18T07:26:01Z ]

   Maybe it would work to say that the responsibilities for the first year are things disseminating information regarding the creation and structure of the new committee, emphasizing the community involvement aspects which are different from the byfy (personally and through delegation). During that first year the responsibilities for the coordinator (out whatever name is chosen) will be determined by the committee for following years subject to future decisions yet always to include.... 

karis [ 2019-03-18T07:29:05Z ]

   As a point, I am personally, throughout all this discussion, not indicating my approval nor disapproval of any motions to result from it. . 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-18T22:06:47Z ]

   Is it really that important that we specify in it in advance rather than letting the committee figure it out? If you really think it's necessary, I can try, but honestly, it feels messy. I can't figure out why it's so important. Can you elaborate on your reasoning?

dersaidin [ 2019-03-19T01:05:52Z ]

   It clarifies the responsibility of each person. If you say "person in role X must do A, B, and C. Chuck Norris is appointed X," then it is clear who owns the actions.

dersaidin [ 2019-03-19T01:09:59Z ]

   Deferring figuring out that responsibility allows opportunity for it to escape.

dersaidin [ 2019-03-19T01:10:50Z ]

   Why put more burden on the committee to figure out what they're doing?

dersaidin [ 2019-03-19T01:13:51Z ]

   Anyway, that was a suggestion I think would work better. I'm not saying it is necessary to continue.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-19T19:08:56Z ]

   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure it decides. If the LFK decides not to select a chair, it must at the
   very least select a spokesperson, who will represent it as necessary before the
   Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting. Until the LFK otherwise
   directs, its leadership shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff
   vote of the whole committee for a 6 month term, who shall have responsibility
   for reporting on its activities to the outside world, coordinating its members,
   overseeing the formulation of its agenda, supervising its meetings, and ensuring
   that accurate, complete, and organized records of its decisions are kept.
   Although the chair shall have primary responsibility for discharging these
   functions, all final responsibility and power shall be vested in the committee
   as a whole.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-19T19:09:11Z ]

   How's this? @karis @dersaidin 

karis [ 2019-03-20T16:34:38Z ]

   You say nothing about reporting results to the LLG for ratification (or whatever you want to call us finalizing the decisions this making them official) after the first 6 months, nor what happens is the group continues to not choose someone to do this and present reports. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-20T22:35:48Z ]

   Okay, I've written in something that I believe should probably address those concerns.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-20T22:38:24Z ]

   I move that the LLG adopt the following resolution:

bookofportals [ 2019-03-20T22:38:30Z ]

   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Develop and advance the Lojban language;
     6. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     7. Supervise volunteer activity related to these purposes;
     8. Encourage the maximum possible quantity of activity by volunteers in order
        to obtain the broadest possible input into decisions and participation in
        the language process, including through the development of instructional,
        technical, and cultural works; and
     9. Promote the use of Lojban and grow the Lojban community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.
   
   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure and with whatever responsibilities it decides. If it decides not to
   elect another leader, it must at the very least select a spokesperson, who will
   represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or
   Special Meeting of the LLG. Until the LFK otherwise directs, its leadership
   shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff vote of the whole
   committee for a term of 6 months and thereafter until a successor is elected,
   who shall have responsibility for reporting on its activities to the outside
   world, presenting its annual report to the LLG, representing it before the LLG
   and Board, coordinating its members, overseeing the formulation of its agenda,
   supervising its meetings, and ensuring that accurate, complete, and organized
   records of its decisions are kept. Although the chair shall have primary
   responsibility for discharging these functions, all final responsibility and
   power shall be vested in the committee as a whole.
   
   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-20T22:38:40Z ]

   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to overturn them by majority vote. If it does not
   overturn a standard presented to it by the end of the annual meeting in which
   that standard was presented, the standard may thereafter be described as an
   "official standard" of the LLG.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "interim
   standards".
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-20T22:40:36Z ]

   I have some arguments for why we need to do this, but I'll save them for the debate. Would someone care to second so we can get that started?

karis [ 2019-03-21T04:49:51Z ]

   Points I see on first reading:
   
   * All that the LFK is charged /directed to do should specifically be stated to be under the auspices of the LLG to clearly show it is a part of this organization. Otherwise it would be easy, as it is now with the BPFK, to believe the LLG were an arm of it rather then the other way around. Yes I know this is stated at the beginning, but those in our working with the committee aren't likely to read the whole document, but rather to be presented with just the charges. If the committee is seen to take over our mission rather than support it the declarations the the LLG are given more weight despite us having broader goals and charges. 
   
   * Is both an official and a tentative version of the CLL are to be maintained the line between official and not yet reviewed becomes nearly non-existant to learners and users of Lohan. I think the tentative material should be kept separately and clearly marked as possible upcoming changes and modifications.
   
   * The issue of changes going into effect automatically is not voted on during the forest meeting where they are presented prevents the LLG President, an other Officer who may be delegated to make such decisions by the President, and the Membership from deciding to postpone such decisions for further study or other reasons.
   
   *  Should the person chosen to to interface with the Board and Membership not be given the listed responsibilities how do we assure someone is taking ultimate responsibility for them as the proposal is written?
   
   * The last bit about this superceding LLG, Board, or BPFK  documentation (I cannot see the exact wording while responding) concerns me. This certainly cannot operate outside what is allowed in the LLG Bylaws, for instance. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-21T05:41:07Z ]

   1. I've changed it to "The LFK is charged, on behalf of the LLG, to:" (given that it makes no sense to put it in every charge). I highly doubt that the people who do not know the BPFK is a committee of the LLG have even read the charter, since it would be hard to know that one entity chartered another while stilling believing that the later entity was independent of the former.
   
   2. I've added "each conspicuously labeled as such." The point of this provision is actually to make it so that the LFK doesn't just maintain a version reflecting interim standards, as they might otherwise be inclined to do.
   
   3. The current motion already grants the LLG the power to suspend the standard. If the President wishes to postpone the matter to the next meeting, they can ask for general consent to do so. I see no reason to allow them to make the decision unilaterally (I trust current leadership, but I don't see the point in expanding it further, as all situations where a temporary suspension would be required are rather unlikely).
   
   4. If the committee isn't doing its job, the appropriate remedy is for its membership and/or charter to be replaced. The committee is, after all, granted the power and responsibility to effectively discharge its functions, and to do so it must clearly do everything on that list. Telling it exactly how to arrange its own affairs, even after it has decided another structure will be more effective in fulfilling its responsibilities, is micromanagement.
   
   5. I've added "The LLG charter and bylaws shall in all cases supersede this motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK." The previous provision was found in a similar form in the BPFK charter, and to the best of my knowledge has never caused any problems.
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-03-21T05:58:54Z ]

   If my responses do not address your concerns, I'm happy to further discuss them. Also, I would appreciate it if you could do a detailed reading soon so that I can address any remaining problems and then formally introduce it. 

vecusku [ 2019-03-21T06:31:54Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Actually, it just occurred to me that the LLG has articles of incorporation, not a charter, so I’ll fix that detail.
   

karis [ 2019-03-22T06:00:42Z ]

   @bookofportals the issue about whether things become automatically official if not settled or officially postponed by a vote doesn't deal with the issues I presented regarding your previous version. I still strongly believe nothing should become official without an actual decision by the membership. This potentially removes power from this body which we currently hold. 
   
   Further, whether the President can postpone a topic or not rests with our Bylaws, not a committee charter. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-22T06:09:33Z ]

   Then I misinterpreted your comments. I tend to think requiring an actual vote for everything is a bit overkill, but it is how it was done for the BPFK. I'm happy to change my proposal so that the "official" label requires an actual vote of the LLG, so long as the "interim" label requires LFK approval only. I will make the change for my next revision.  

bookofportals [ 2019-03-22T06:10:32Z ]

   Are there any other substantial problems?

karis [ 2019-03-22T17:11:42Z ]

   The interim label doesn't need LLG approval so long as it marks the committee's approves and, most important, it isn't distributed or publicized. The whole point of the official designation is that they are approved by the LLG. These  are what new people should be taught if they are told they are learning lojban and what is publicized as the materials of this group (like the CLL). Once new people have been around for a while and hopefully after they've learned at least the basics and overview of the official language they will likely start digging further. 
   
   Then they can decide what of the experimental/unofficial stuff they want to use, such as forked versions, granger ideas, and variations of the basic vocabulary. It's in this category that the decisions by the committee we haven't accepted.
   
   Also, this way the rare, likely never happened time we might reject a decision isn't our there mudding up what is and is not approved even more. With the CLL label, regardless of subtitles, it looks official which such things are not until the LLG approves them. 

karis [ 2019-03-22T17:12:43Z ]

   It's more than just the label, it's how it is presented. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-22T19:41:01Z ]

   @karis Are there any further changes that you believe need to be made?

lojbab [ 2019-03-22T23:05:10Z ]

   As written, I see almost nothing about this proposal that I can support.  The existing BPFK is about specifying what the "official" language is.  To the extent this new group is intended to do that, there is no reason to replace the existing one.  That which is in the motion as tasking  *other than* specifying that language, is an extraneous distraction from that fundamental task, which in fact the BPFK hasn't been able to accomplish, so why give such a group even greater responsibility.  For that matter, I see nothing about the proposal that renders this LFK any more likely to succeed than the existing BPFK.  It puts the decision power to the committee (members) rather than the jatna, but the jatna could do that in the existing group, if he thought it was likely to accomplish more.  No added authority is needed.  But the real problem is that there aren't all that many people willing to work at these sorts of tasks sufficiently to get any job done.

lojbab [ 2019-03-22T23:14:10Z ]

   Now at the same time, the proposal adds in task 9, which is most certainly NOT what the committee should be tasked with, unless this proposal is essentially aimed at replacing LLG itself, since that task is primarily what LLG does.  And task 8 is simply flawed, because it refers to "into decisions and participation in the language process".  In any linguistic sense, the "language process" is people communicating in the language, and doesn't involve any decision-making other than for individuals to decide to learn and use the language.   Specifying the language is NOT a "language process", but rather either an engineering effort (if the purpose is prescriptive) or a documentation effort (if the purpose is descriptive).   The proposal does not make clear whether it views the task as prescriptive or descriptive.

lojbab [ 2019-03-22T23:17:12Z ]

   So the proposal as I see it fixes nothing and merely makes the organization more nebulous in purpose and scope.  And frankly, since the person proposing it is new to the community, it seems doubtful that s/he really understands the dynamics of the community that would make/break the effectiveness of the group to accomplish anything.

lojbab [ 2019-03-22T23:32:31Z ]

   The one thing I see such a more nebulous group charter might accomplish is to promote more changes and revisions to the language, something pretty much guaranteed to destroy Lojban as a language and a community, because the greater majority of the community doesn't want the language to keep changing as they learn it or after they learn it, because such change potentially invalidates any and all work/learning they have done so far.  (This is an important way that a human language differs from a computer language, and why processes that work for evolving a computer language to adapt to changing hardware capabilities and system applications, are not applicable to a human language where the hardware  (our brains) isn't significantly changing.)  Put as I usually say it, the Lojban language is essentially done.  We aren't in the business of designing it or redesigning it, but rather in resolving undetermined issues in the already existing design.  We won't attract many new people by making changes to the language, but such changes will drive away the people who already have invested in the language.  And Lojban will die, just as hundreds of prior constructed languages have died, of a surfeit of people fiddling with it in order to suit their personal tastes, but not in actually learning and using it.  (If the proposer had demonstrated that s/he had acquired some significant skill in the language before proposing this, this argument might be somewhat neutralized, and s/he might know what the actual problems of the community are.  But that is not the case.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-23T00:56:59Z ]

   Task 9 was actually added in order to reduce the chance that the LFK would change the language by charging them to consider the loss of language users (as this would cause the language to shrink, rather than grow). Losing users has been mentioned as a concern by several commenters, including you. If it is felt to be unnecessary, I am happy to remove it.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-23T01:00:00Z ]

   Trying to get people to develop more documentation and cultural works is an important responsibility that is currently assigned to no one. I fail to understand why you see a problem with asking the LFK to take on this responsibility. In the worst case, no one will do it, which is how things stand now. If they fail, the logical method would be to try assigning it to someone else. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-23T01:01:07Z ]

   I have found at least 3 people (including myself) who have stated that they are prepared to help out if the motion its carried. What more do you want me to find? 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-23T01:02:25Z ]

   Firstly, I would remind you that comments should be on the proposal, not the proposer, and that comments made about the person proposing a proposal are in fact out of order.  

bookofportals [ 2019-03-23T01:03:59Z ]

   Secondly, many changes made to programming languages are syntax changes. These are not intended to match changing hardware, but to make the language easier for users to use. They inherently require the learning of something new, but in fact cause the community to grow by making the language more approachable (used appropriately and in moderation, of course).

bookofportals [ 2019-03-23T01:10:17Z ]

   Thirdly, there are many purely additive proposals that don't require relearning anything. For instance, look at the experimental cmavo ko'oi, ro'oi, and di'ai. None of these would invalidate anything already learned, all of them have actual usage by actual speakers, and in short I don't see any reason they couldn't be marked as non-experimental. I'm not saying they should be; I am saying that the possibility should be considered by someone official. 

fagri [ 2019-03-23T21:29:08Z ]

   fagri a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2019-03-24T02:16:13Z ]

   Welcome, @fagri .

karis [ 2019-03-24T02:23:26Z ]

   @bookofportals, you have said, "I move that the LLG..." about this same basic idea. It isn't clear if we are still making suggestions or you mean for me to ask for a second, etc. Please clarify. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:32:50Z ]

   I moved it because I thought people were done commenting, but you then raised more issues. I then responded to the those comments, which I meant to be taken by the chair as a withdrawal of that form of the motion. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:33:44Z ]

   If you have no further comments, I can make the changes I've already agreed to and then formally submit it again. If there are further issues, or you are dissatisfied with my responses, I'd like to hear them now so that I can either respond or make further changes. I would prefer to respond to as many issues as possible before making the motion so that I can minimize the time consumed by amendments. 

karis [ 2019-03-24T02:39:47Z ]

   If you are counting me, and possibly others who been trying to see how this idea could work within the framework of the LLG that isn't necessarily saying we wouldn't BE at least as interested in making modifications to the BPFK to allow non-speakers some part in their process. This means your comment implies we prefer your idea, and this may or may not be true. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:44:35Z ]

   While I would like to have the opportunity of serving on the committee, if the LLG would see fit to elect me once (da'i) this motion passes, I would not be the only one to sit upon it. I hope that chartering a new committee will signal to established members of the community that things are being unfrozen, reengaging them. I was hoping that, for instance, la Ilmen and la guskant might consider serving on the new committee. I hope that many different parts of the Lojban community, including both fluent and non-fluent speakers, might all have a voice in the process. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:46:08Z ]

   Of course, everyone would be able to share different experiences and viewpoints. The fluent speakers would be in the best position to comment on whether a proposal compromises the character of the language, whereas the less fluent speakers might be in a better position to comment on how the change would impact new learners. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:47:46Z ]

   For the record, I am happy to consider any changes to my proposal that might better integrate it with the LLG and the language community. If there are specific changes I can make to improve my proposals chances of passing and then successfully accomplishing its goals, I want to make them. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:54:01Z ]

   Okay, I've rewritten the relevant paragraph. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T02:54:06Z ]

   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to ratify them by majority vote, or to decline to do
   so, or to ratify them with changes, as it sees fit. If a standard presented to
   is so ratified, the standard may thereafter be described as an "official
   standard" of the LLG. Until the ratification takes place, a standard cannot be
   considered a standard part of the Lojban language and should not be presented as
   being official or standard Lojban, although it may be used for the purposes of
   testing and experimentation.

karis [ 2019-03-24T03:22:18Z ]

   I have mentioned my own problems with these sections, you (@lojbab ) have explained it better. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T03:39:06Z ]

   For 9, how is "9. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of current language users and the growth of the language community."?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T03:41:04Z ]

   I'm not sure what to do with 8. I could strike it, I suppose, but I was hoping that that coordinating volunteers, both to work on documentation and other tasks, might be part of the LFK's responsibilities. I can strike it if people would prefer it that way though; it isn't crucial. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T03:45:30Z ]

   I'll just remove it unless someone comes up with a better idea.

karis [ 2019-03-24T03:56:57Z ]

   @bookofportals, you are right that parts of sections 8 and 9 are, at least I believe are, the biggest problems. First, the LLG had its own description of purpose in the Bylaws. This proposal states,
   
    "8. Encourage the maximum possible quantity of activity by volunteers in order  to obtain the broadest possible input into decisions and participation in the language process, including through the development of instructional, technical, and cultural works; and
   
   "9. Promote the use of Lojban and grow the Lojban community."
   
    I included the part both @lojbab and I are commenting about. I think this comes from the most recent version.
   
   My points:
   
   * The LLG finished the lojban decades ago. The BPKF exists to fix those issues that are found in it, not the large numbers of issues you seem to believe it should. If anything maybe what we could really benefit from you pouring your interest, excitent, and attention into is the issue of how can we get people to volunteer to do and actually work on projects such as creating written literary, instructional, and technical works. None of section 8 or 9 belongs in this document. They are already a significant part  of LLG's mission. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T04:02:00Z ]

   Does my above proposal to change 9 to "Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of current language users and the growth of the language community." and strike 8 satisfactorily solve this problem?

karis [ 2019-03-24T04:02:56Z ]

   You say earlier that the LFK is responsible for something to do with volunteers, but I'm to tired to look up the section. How about scratching 8 and adding a bit about recruiting volunteers or such to the earlier mention?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T04:04:03Z ]

   Sure. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T04:04:22Z ]

   1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     6. Supervise and encourage volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     7. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of
        current language users and the growth of the language community.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T04:05:17Z ]

   I struck the old 5, while I was at it. I'm astonished no one complained about that, honestly. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T04:05:36Z ]

   So this is my new proposed list.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-24T04:08:14Z ]

   This is narrowed to what currently exists, an RFC process, and a charge to coordinate volunteers and develop documentation. It narrows the committee to essentially a technical forum for language discussions (and the associated documentation and instructional materials), which appears to be what those who have commented want it to be narrowed down to.

karis [ 2019-03-24T18:52:20Z ]

   I mentioned the issues with section 5 early on, but didn't end up following up on it. 
   
   

karis [ 2019-03-24T21:38:37Z ]

   Does anyone know who the members of BPFK are now? Please list them if you do. 

karis [ 2019-03-24T21:40:36Z ]

   @channel see post immediately above this one. 

karis [ 2019-03-24T22:38:32Z ]

   As a point, @lojbab was not out of order in his comments in my opinion. The background of a proposal includes the knowledge and experience of the person or persons who write it. If this knowledge or experience is brought up in discussion when relevant as it was it's fine. He repeated it, I expect, for emphasis. 

karis [ 2019-03-24T22:39:59Z ]

   @bookofportals, most of the suggestions you have received were made so it fit better. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-25T17:49:27Z ]

   je'ega'inai (respectful acknowledgment)

bookofportals [ 2019-03-25T17:51:54Z ]

   Here's another complete draft.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-25T17:52:23Z ]

   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged, on behalf of the LLG, to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     6. Supervise and encourage volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     7. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of
        current language users and the growth of the language community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-25T17:52:31Z ]

   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure and with whatever responsibilities it decides. If it decides not to
   elect another leader, it must at the very least select a spokesperson, who will
   represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or
   Special Meeting of the LLG. Until the LFK otherwise directs, its leadership
   shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff vote of the whole
   committee for a term of 6 months and thereafter until a successor is elected,
   who shall have responsibility for reporting on its activities to the outside
   world, presenting its annual report to the LLG, representing it before the LLG
   and Board, coordinating its members, overseeing the formulation of its agenda,
   supervising its meetings, and ensuring that accurate, complete, and organized
   records of its decisions are kept. Although the chair shall have primary
   responsibility for discharging these functions, all final responsibility and
   power shall be vested in the committee as a whole.
   
   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to ratify them by majority vote, or to decline to do
   so, or to ratify them with changes, as it sees fit. If a standard presented to
   is so ratified, the standard may thereafter be described as an "official
   standard" of the LLG. Until the ratification takes place, a standard cannot be
   considered a standard part of the Lojban language and should not be presented as
   being official or standard Lojban, although it may be used for the purposes of
   testing and experimentation.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "interim
   standards", each conspicuously labeled as such.
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   The LLG Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws shall in all cases supersede this
   motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T20:38:05Z ]

   "Trying to get people to develop more documentation and cultural works is an important responsibility that is currently assigned to no one."  That is because a) it is a responsibility of LLG as an organization, and not something we would want to devolve into a committee, b) we have a LONG history of committees. and indeed individuals, failing to fulfill responsibilities even when assigned - indeed most committees have essentially died immediately after the end of the meeting because either the jatna appointed fails to seek participation or no one at all responds to a call for participation.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T20:41:36Z ]

   In short, this is an entirely volunteer organization, and NO organizational stuff can be done if people won't volunteer and then step up and act.  And for something like the quoted responsibility, assigning it to one person merely means that no one else will do anything.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T20:46:05Z ]

   The language fiddlers (like bookofportals) are the ones who volunteer the most, but the rest of the community is largely uninterested in or even antagonistic towards what they are proposing (because most Lojbanists aren't interested in learning an ever-changing language), and even most of them only seem interested in the particular proposals that they themselves are pushing, so they do no real work.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:23:18Z ]

   "I have found at least 3 people (including myself) who have stated that they are prepared to help out if the motion its carried."  How about you and at least 3 others actually do some work of the sort you are proposing without us formally granting authority.  Talk to selpa'i and participate in the existing if not currently effective BPFK.  If you can't do so in Lojban, post in English - there is no language filter that would stop you.  The bottom line is that if we can't get people to do the necessary work on the more limited purview of BPFK, giving a group even more responsibility wouldn't get anything more done.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:26:38Z ]

   And as for the whole RFC thing.  It seems that could be implemented simply by people who know what they want to start writing a few RFCs of the sort they want considered.  If such work is done and people find them useful, then they likely will be used by the existing BPFK - no votes needed. (But if all they end up being is wish lists for language fiddlers, they won't be very useful.)

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:36:27Z ]

   " programming languages"  Lojban is NOT a programming language, and wrt human languages, true syntax changes are very rare, and are never imposed by fiat.  And there is no evidence that *any* change that could be imposed would in fact make the language significantly "easier".  The bottom line is that people have to learn vocabulary to use the language, and long before they have enough vocabulary to comfortably converse, they have mastered the essential syntax of the language (there are limited exceptions, in that people have to learn some formal logic in order to properly use logical expressions correctly.  Quantification and scope and such often don't come easily to people.)

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:42:13Z ]

   "experimental cmavo"  These don't necessarily invalidate anything, but if made non-experimental then 1) anyone running across such in a text has no clue what is being said (that is true even while they are still experimental) and that is offputting. 2) to properly make them non-experimental they would have to be reassigned into non-experimental cmavo space, or no one will know that they aren't non-experimental (or the whole experimental/non-experimental distinction is lost) and that in turn requires relearning.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:45:27Z ]

   karis, I think that you did ask for a second once, and no one has actually seconded it, which may be why the proposal is being modified on the fly.  If it had been seconded then it couldn't be modified without the seconder and the mover *both* agreeing to a friendly amendment (or by a formal amendment vote).

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:48:19Z ]

   "committee membership"  The problem isn't necessarily finding committee members, but in getting the committee members to do needed work (and to sustain that activity over the long haul).

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:53:29Z ]

   LLG could require that the BPFK jatna allow people to comment in English (and/or any other language provided that someone is willing to help in translation/explanation for others who don't know the language).  I suspect that selpa'i and others would probably accept English contributions, provided that work actually got done as a result.  But it isn't clear that anyone has asked him.  (he might dislike it because he wants to see the language being used but the tradeoff may be necessary)

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T21:59:56Z ]

   I'll summarize by saying that I still cannot support the proposal, and cannot see any reason why it is necessary until it is shown by actual failed attempt that what the proposer wants can't be done within the existing BPFK (and jatna), provided that any people actually are willing to do the work.  I would need elaboration by selpa'i as to what causes he attributes the current failure of the BPFK.  I doubt that anything in this proposal would address  the real impediments.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T22:06:21Z ]

   If I can't get approval for the motion, I was indeed planning to go off and do things without approval. I thought the LLG might be happier and involvement easier to gain if the LLG were to approve. Note that the comments on this proposal have been useful on, for instance, determining what should and shouldn't be a responsibility. If the committee doesn't gain LLG approval, that will lead to a bunch of people coordinating on the formation of a non-standard dialect without the LLG having a say in the process, which I judged might be frustrating for established community members.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T22:12:11Z ]

   Your description of me as a language fiddler is accurate. ta'o I do have interest in the proposals of others. ta'onai I recognize that I am probably in favor of changes to a greater extent than the majority of the Lojban community, although I also believe that you are probably more resistant to changes than most of the Lojban community. My hope was that if we could get a range of opinions in the process the extremes would balance each other out. Please keep in mind that the LLG would still need to affirmatively ratify anything the LFK did before it would take effect.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T22:15:28Z ]

   You cannot support it, as you do not believe that it would be an improvement. I understand that. However, I really don't see how anything in motion could make things worse than the status quo, which is what is likely to persist if the motion fails. I've fixed all of the specific problems with the motion that you've pointed out. Would you consider at least abstaining and seeing how it works out?

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T22:18:40Z ]

   The chair has never asked for a second of any version of my proposal. I think I asked if anyone would consider seconding so that we could get into the formal debate and amendments, but then karis pointed out further problems.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T22:25:43Z ]

   By the way, Lojban isn't by any means a programing language. However, it was designed, unlike any natural language. It is also thoroughly defined and parsable by a computer. So I'd argue that it isn't always entirely clear which set of rules are applicable. The correct set is pe'i somewhere in the middle, and finding exactly where in the middle is not a trivial task.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T23:17:06Z ]

   I looked back, and you (bookofportals) asked for a second yourself in the last comment made on the 20th.  No one actually responded to your request, and karis herself was the first to respond with discussion after that request.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T23:19:00Z ]

   Yeah.

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T23:25:20Z ]

   "non-standard dialect"  Those seem to be inevitable, though often disparaged when one talks about natural languages and people learning them.  LLG cannot approve of a non-standard dialect, of course, but I contend that  LLG cannot approve of a (new) standard dialect either, if it means disparaging usage that is not consistent with that dialect.  And ultimately, the determining factor on whether people will learn a dialect seems to be how well it is documented, and documentation seems to be the chief task that lacks volunteers.  

lojbab [ 2019-03-26T23:27:47Z ]

   That is why I suspect you need to actually write up a couple of RFCs of the sort you want people to submit, and see if they can be submitted.  If these RFC examples include normalizing certain experimental cmavo that are already in use, that might be particularly useful.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T23:28:28Z ]

   That's fair. pe'i LLG can approve of a new standard dialect under certain circumstances, since there needs to be some mechanism for fixing problems, but you position isn't unreasonable. 

bookofportals [ 2019-03-26T23:32:09Z ]

   Sure. I can write up ones for ko'oi and di'ai, which are relatively simple and common-sensical. It might be a few days before I have a chance, but I'm happy to do so.

karis [ 2019-03-27T00:31:02Z ]

   Thank you. 
   
   I haven't called for a second because of all the changes that have been happening. I felt continuing discussion in a less formal setting would be better since each change would need to officially added as amendments and changes otherwise. This way the bill is closer to what we see as what might work and we can really consider it. 

phma [ 2019-03-27T02:15:13Z ]

   As to experimental cmavo, there are (at least) two problems with reassigning them into non-experimental cmavo space:

phma [ 2019-03-27T02:15:34Z ]

   1) There isn't much non-experimental cmavo space left.

phma [ 2019-03-27T02:18:55Z ]

   2) A lot of these cmavo (just looking at numbers) have been assigned with some mnemonic etymology, such as "xi'i'ei" from "Khinchin" and "na'a'u" from "nalna'u", which will be lost if they are renamed.

bookofportals [ 2019-03-27T02:37:33Z ]

   I'l add another:

bookofportals [ 2019-03-27T02:40:07Z ]

   3) People have been using some of these cmavo for a long time. Changing it up means that they will have to relearn them, and that anyone who reads old stuff that uses the old form will not know what's going on. Obviously, the usage is experimental, so we don't have to support it, but it's less confusing for everyone if we do.

fagri [ 2019-03-30T17:29:35Z ]

   coi do .i ma ni do nelci lo si'o mi'o pilno lo jbobau tu'a ti pau

fagri [ 2019-03-30T17:30:00Z ]

   xm, ro do*

ilmen [ 2019-03-30T22:49:48Z ]

   coi

gleki [ 2019-03-31T07:27:09Z ]

   li su'e ci'i

karis [ 2019-03-31T13:59:57Z ]

   Excuse me, @fagri. English translations are necessary for any lojban as we aren't all equally fluent. 

gleki [ 2019-03-31T14:27:51Z ]

   Luckily no translations to Russian or Japanese needed. Yet.

karis [ 2019-03-31T15:07:53Z ]

   I'm not going into that argument again. If translation into any other language is needed we will deal with it at that time. 

gleki [ 2019-03-31T15:13:46Z ]

   doi la fagri do'u sei simlu be fi mi va'o sarcu fa le nu jai gau cnino ke ba'e lojbo je selkemjbobau sa'e girzu

fagri [ 2019-03-31T19:14:46Z ]

   English: "Hello [all]. How much would you like the idea of us using Lojban for this [meeting]?"

gleki [ 2019-03-31T19:42:02Z ]

   I replied. Infinity (at maximum) 
   
   And then "It seems to me, fagri, that a new lojban lojban-speaker (!) group is needed

lojbab [ 2019-04-01T09:28:45Z ]

   There was in fact a previous movement to hold the LLG members' meeting in Lojban, with volunteer Lojbanists assisting non-speaker members with translation.  A motion to that effect was passed for the following year, but when the time came, the meeting was held in English, and none of the former advocates still seemed to care, much less support enforcing their wishes.

lojbab [ 2019-04-01T09:30:39Z ]

   There are, of course lojban-speaker groups in the form of channels on IRC, and on this server.

gleki [ 2019-04-01T10:09:15Z ]

   Fagri, you can put a motion to hold meetings in lojban

karis [ 2019-04-02T10:08:58Z ]

   @lagleki thank you for the translations. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-03T06:07:26Z ]

   Okay, I did one for ko'oi, and I'm stopping there. This is intended as an example of what this kind of proposal might generally look like.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-03T06:07:28Z ]

   https://github.com/bookofportals/lojban-rfcs/blob/master/0100-generalized-imperatives.md

bookofportals [ 2019-04-03T06:07:54Z ]

   It hasn't really been reviewed yet, and of course it would be before actually being submitted.

gleki [ 2019-04-03T06:57:44Z ]

   You forgot in your scheme another alternative: do not invent a new word, rethink what second person is."doi mi ko gunka" is one solution. Again. I'm talking about the scheme, not about about particular proposals

karis [ 2019-04-03T22:32:24Z ]

   As an explanation this seems clear, though @lagleki does offer an alternative. One suggestion I have would be to include a section, in cases like this when the suggestion is already in usage by some, giving examples from actual written material and /or online conversations to show the range of how it is currently being used. 
   
   Would this, then, be put out for discussion in your proposal? 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-03T22:36:51Z ]

   I'll add lagleki's alternative and explain why I think it's a bad idea.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-03T22:37:27Z ]

   I'm not sure how I'd search for usage. Including such a section does seem like a good idea; I just don't know how to approach the problem.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-03T22:38:10Z ]

   Can you clarify what you mean when you say "Would this, then, be put out for discussion in your proposal?"

karis [ 2019-04-03T22:58:48Z ]

   If your proposal for the new committee were approved, would material such as this be how you expect ideas be presented to the group at large, is this more the final that would go to the voting committee, or is it what the committee would provide to the LLG? I want to understand how this fits in with that clearly. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-04T00:11:56Z ]

   It would go to the LFK. Then there would be a period of public comment and the committee would reach a decision, which it would note on the proposal (along with the arguments from the public comment period and its reasoning). Then, if the proposal was adopted, it would be sent on to the LLG annual meeting so it could be ratified.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-04T00:12:52Z ]

   Of course, I can't promise the form would be exactly the same or that the process might not be changed, but that's the fundamental idea. 

gleki [ 2019-04-04T03:52:30Z ]

   Simply add arguments and counterarguments as it used to be in past

bookofportals [ 2019-04-04T06:05:51Z ]

   What change exactly are you suggesting to what I've said?

gleki [ 2019-04-04T06:21:12Z ]

   Have you seen techfix records from beforeCLL era?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-04T19:32:30Z ]

   Like this? http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/techfix.300

bookofportals [ 2019-04-04T19:32:40Z ]

   Yes, but that's not an answer. 

gleki [ 2019-04-05T04:52:13Z ]

   Add sections Arguments, Counterarguments.
   
   I don't know what "hole in a language"means. It probably needs a link to the explanation. And how it is connected to second person and why this "hole" should be "fixed" in other parts of the language

karis [ 2019-04-05T11:17:58Z ]

   I would definitely include the date as well, probably in the proposal and definitely in the final writeup. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T17:26:16Z ]

   Arguments and counterarguments are both included already, and more would be after the public comment. The difference between that and what is there now is a matter of formatting.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T17:27:20Z ]

   A hole is something that one would expect to find, but does not. It's a fairly standard phrase -- What needs explaining?

gleki [ 2019-04-05T18:02:53Z ]

   That's the hole is your opinion. That you expect something to be. Others may not expect it. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T18:04:10Z ]

   Okay. So you want me to explain why it's a hole? I thought I already did, because propositional attitudes are in UI. Can you clarify what more you want me to explain? 

gleki [ 2019-04-05T18:10:13Z ]

   The whole threaded discussion should have  authors for each proposal, argument, counterargument. Otherwise, it looks likes a flow of axioms or postulates. For example I totally disagree that "ko" should have a counterpart for "mi" because this is not how I understand "mi" and "do". Therefore this argument for me is either worthless or misleading. Another argument, "just to use ko'oi because I want" is acceptable to me but had nothing to do with the first argument

gleki [ 2019-04-05T18:18:04Z ]

   By the way I don't think that ordinary  threaded discussions is a must. If you want to have several parents for a comment you may just construct a relevant context out of arbitrary previous posts/comments and comment on such set of posts. A hypergraph discussion, yes. I only wonder how GUI should look like. It'd be very tiresome to construct the set of parent posts for each new comment

gleki [ 2019-04-05T18:20:27Z ]

   By the way your document still says "ko" is short for "do ko'oi". This cant be true. Scope of "ko" is different

gleki [ 2019-04-05T18:21:53Z ]

   You may think ko'oi is a very special UI cmavo, okay, maybe a new selmaho. But the wording "in fact" is misleading

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T19:09:48Z ]

   It is, I suppose, possible that I'm misunderstanding the scope of "ko" and "do ko'oi". Doesn't the free modifier ko'oi just adhere to the sumti do?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T19:10:31Z ]

   I can change the "short for" to "means the same thing as".

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T19:11:22Z ]

   In any case, this discussion is kind of tangential to the actual matter under discussion, which is the LFK charter. I'm just trying to give an idea of what a proposal might generally look like.

karis [ 2019-04-05T19:43:58Z ]

   True. Now we have a better idea of your idea I have a related topic I would like to raise before we move on to formally considering the proposal, @bookofportals.

gleki [ 2019-04-05T19:44:46Z ]

   I don't know what you want of ko'oi but ko and "do e'i" have different scopes. So neither short of nor mean the same as. The discussion is not tangential since this is a good example of how many misunderstandings a simple addition to the language can introduce. Opinions presented as facts, false statements regarding scope, no placement for counterarguments

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T21:53:47Z ]

   They may be syntactically different (though I'd still appreciate an explanation of how) but the underlying meaning is the same, isn't it? Also, can we move this to Side Conversations?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T21:56:00Z ]

   Weeding out false statements is why there would be a public comment period before it is adopted. It's a proposal; finding this kind of error is its purpose. The fact that we found an error is a good thing (if it is in fact an error) because people have been claiming that "ko" could expand to "do ko'oi" for some time now.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T21:57:58Z ]

   There is a section for counter-arguments. It's the Drawbacks section. It may not be titled Counterarguments, but it's for people who raise opposition to the motivation. More detailed arguments and counter-arguments would be put in the discussion summary.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T21:58:42Z ]

   So, to be clear, I don't think you've raised any fundamental problem with the RFC process -- if anything, you've shown the benefit of a process for reviewing language changes.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-05T22:01:45Z ]

   @karis I have no objection to you raising another matter first.

gleki [ 2019-04-06T05:09:41Z ]

   Yes, explaining how ko is different is not suitable. However, if you replace ko with X then it's suitable.
   
   Counterarguments section is okay but then it will simply say "you are wrong in your "facts" ". So this is not opposition to the proposal, it's the disagreement with premises in "motivation" section.

greg_g [ 2019-04-06T21:09:40Z ]

   Some days ago the discussion around @bookofportals proposal touched a very crucial point in my view, and that is the fact that even if the proposal passes, there is no guarantee that it will convince people to do any real work. @lojbab said: "this is an entirely volunteer organization, and NO organizational stuff can be done if people won't volunteer and then step up and act". Looking at the latest comments by @lagleki, I think it should be clear now what is one of the main reason why nobody does anything: behind the specific arguments, the tone just screams "Go away! You are just a tinkerer and we don like you here! You are not even allowed to discuss since you don't know that {ko} and {do e'o} have completely different scopes! (while of course no official material goes into such detail on the semantics of the two)!". I mean, it is totally fine if the LLG keeps the language confined to a small circle of worthy individuals and builds a wall towards any external influence, it is its prerogative. But then it seems a bit hypocritical to complain that nothing gets done because nobody volunteers to do the work...

bookofportals [ 2019-04-07T06:49:30Z ]

   The point that the community could be made more welcoming to newcomers (and, for all that matter, others) is probably accurate. I don't mind constructive criticism, but some of the comments people have made have been said in a unfriendly seeming way. I can see why this might lead to a lack of active community members. Perhaps this would be something for the LLG could discuss and adopt a policy for? 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-07T06:52:03Z ]

   Something like the Contributor Covenant, for instance. https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct

gleki [ 2019-04-07T06:53:51Z ]

   Where did I say "go away"? I simply noticed that false statements were inserted into the motivation section as if they were facts. Simply move them into opinions

gleki [ 2019-04-07T06:54:45Z ]

   The wiki has plenty of threaded discussions from past. I don't know why this format can be seen as bad

gleki [ 2019-04-07T06:57:25Z ]

   Do you suggest that statements called "facts" be retained in the motivation section?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-07T06:59:08Z ]

   The motivation section is opinionated, because motivation is formed on the basis of value judgements. If the opinions are factually incorrect, however, they should be corrected.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-07T07:00:16Z ]

   Now, if you could explain why it's incorrect in Side Conversations, that might be very helpful.

gleki [ 2019-04-07T07:40:48Z ]

   > The motivation section is opinionated
   
   Yes, so why not move them into "post" format where others can comment on? Usernames is a must for each post. And datetime too (as karis noted, although in the wiki/git format it's not impossible to find who when posted what)

gleki [ 2019-04-07T07:42:03Z ]

   > Now, if you could explain why it's incorrect in Side Conversations, that might be very helpful.
   
   
   Helpful for what? For voting on {ko}? Yes. But here in LLG we have metadiscussions, we shouldn't discuss particular proposals unless they exemplify the meta.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-07T18:35:22Z ]

   If one keeps the discussion separate from the proposal, the discussion is still viewable, but the proposal can contain a summarized version.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-07T18:35:38Z ]

   I don't see why that's bad?

karis [ 2019-04-08T12:07:08Z ]

   This discussion seems to be happening on two separate levels in parallel. First is the discussion of the structure for this sort of proposal and the second is a discussion of the specifics of the example given. Since at this time it is only an example please move any further conversation on ko'oi itself and on what @bookofportals put in the write up to "Side Conversations". That way we can focus on how this example fits in with @bookofportals' all and other organizational issues here. 

karis [ 2019-04-08T13:04:51Z ]

   @greg_g thank you for speaking out. It is most certainly not LLG's goal to push those interested in being involved away. @bookofportals is suggesting we move away from the BPFK, which made the decision itself to require the ability to discuss lojban in lojban in participants, towards a more welcoming structure where anyone can participate in the language discussion. There is a divide, though, as you point out between our goal of increasing participation and how a few community members make their points sometimes.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-08T19:53:48Z ]

   @karis Where would you like to move the discussion next? I'm happy to introduce my motion, if that is preferred, although you mentioned that you had something you might want to bring up first.

karis [ 2019-04-11T06:04:13Z ]

    It seems we have a larger set of issues than. First there's the question of if we are officially addressing your proposal or dealing with who will lead the byfy, @bookofportals. The other is, does lojban require enough changes or corrections at this point for either to be necessary, and even if one is can we get enough volunteers willing to participate for either to be viable? 

gleki [ 2019-04-11T07:46:12Z ]

   I hope lojban language doesn't require any changes under this proposal but the organization does

bookofportals [ 2019-04-11T17:42:56Z ]

   Unless there is another main motion to consider, I'm inclined to bring my motion forward. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-11T17:43:48Z ]

   The matter of finding volunteers is best determined experimentally pe'i (IMO), although we should of course make an effort to make that experiment a success. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-11T17:44:23Z ]

   The changes or corrections thing is harder, and I'm not really sure how to deal with that.

karis [ 2019-04-12T14:37:47Z ]

   Go ahead, then, if you like. Offer the motion, with the full text included, and we will see where it goes. 

karis [ 2019-04-13T17:13:01Z ]

   @channel LLG has received an email for Nich Nicholas and I'm hoping one of you have an up to date email address for him I can use for forwarding. Thank you. 

solpahi [ 2019-04-13T17:28:27Z ]

   @karis I have sent you a private message.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-14T05:08:33Z ]

   @karis I move that the LLG resolve as follows:

bookofportals [ 2019-04-14T05:08:42Z ]

   ```
   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged, on behalf of the LLG, to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     6. Supervise and encourage volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     7. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of
        current language users and the growth of the language community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.
   
   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure and with whatever responsibilities it decides. If it decides not to
   elect another leader, it must at the very least select a spokesperson, who will
   represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or
   Special Meeting of the LLG. Until the LFK otherwise directs, its leadership
   shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff vote of the whole
   committee for a term of 6 months and thereafter until a successor is elected,
   who shall have responsibility for reporting on its activities to the outside
   world, presenting its annual report to the LLG, representing it before the LLG
   and Board, coordinating its members, overseeing the formulation of its agenda,
   supervising its meetings, and ensuring that accurate, complete, and organized
   records of its decisions are kept. Although the chair shall have primary
   responsibility for discharging these functions, all final responsibility and
   power shall be vested in the committee as a whole.
   ```

bookofportals [ 2019-04-14T05:08:51Z ]

   ```
   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to ratify them by majority vote, or to decline to do
   so, or to ratify them with changes, as it sees fit. If a standard presented to
   is so ratified, the standard may thereafter be described as an "official
   standard" of the LLG. Until the ratification takes place, a standard cannot be
   considered a standard part of the Lojban language and should not be presented as
   being official or standard Lojban, although it may be used for the purposes of
   testing and experimentation.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "interim
   standards", each conspicuously labeled as such.
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   The LLG Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws shall in all cases supersede this
   motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK.
   ```

karis [ 2019-04-14T14:01:06Z ]

   @bookofportals i think your proposal, as posted, may be missing a section as it starts with a line that says nothing more than, "dissolved." 

karis [ 2019-04-14T14:03:55Z ]

   @channel,
   
   PROPOSAL
   
   @bookofportals has proposed that the LLG commission a new committee, the lojbo fuzykamni. The complete text is just above. Is there a second?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-14T15:47:10Z ]

   Is it displaying weirdly for people? Because it definitely starts "The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved." There wasn't a copy paste error there. If it's formatted incorrectly, I think I know how to fix it, but I'd need to repost it.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-14T17:22:20Z ]

   If anyone sees this, I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me what's going on so that I can fix it. 

karis [ 2019-04-14T21:45:34Z ]

    I don't see the first line up until the last word either before I open the full post or after. 

karis [ 2019-04-14T21:46:40Z ]

   This is how it looks on my phone. It isn't correct on my computer either. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-14T21:49:56Z ]

   Okay, figured it out. I think I've just fixed it. Does it look right now (I just added some newlines)?

karis [ 2019-04-15T00:23:31Z ]

   Looks good. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-18T19:29:26Z ]

   It appears possible that my proposal won't be seconded.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-18T19:29:57Z ]

   Which wouldn't be all that surprising. I think it has support, but there aren't many people active who are actually LLG members, so...

karis [ 2019-04-18T20:42:37Z ]

   I agree, and I think the next step would be for us to decide if we need any committee at this point. If not than I see no reason your idea can't be used within the LLG anyway for some things. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-18T22:10:27Z ]

   I think maybe it would be best to postpone the matter to the next meeting, where hopefully more members would be active.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-18T22:12:13Z ]

   Currently there are only about five of us discussing this, which just isn't very many people.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-18T22:12:34Z ]

   Maybe with more we'd have a better chance of reaching consensus?

lojbab [ 2019-04-20T07:47:03Z ]

   Responding to greg_g and not the comments since:  It is not clear to me who you think has a tone screaming "go away".  My guess is that you are referring to comments by gleki.  But there are a lot of things embedded in your comment I think worthy of a response.  1) The reason nobody does anything is because most people aren't much interested in the problem of documenting the status quo.  Most of the energy in discussions comes from those who want to change the status quo.  2) There is not much documentation on semantics of various usages because at the time CLL was written, the focus was on documenting the grammar and NOT the semantics above and beyond what was needed for formal logical expression.  The byfy work was in part an attempt to nail down semantics issues that had never been recorded.   Once that was done, and we have documented semantics decisions, then we can produce official material presenting them (or the byfy pages themselves might become the official material) 3)  It makes sense to put down such semantics discussion in a format that can be saved or officialized.  But some has to be willing to write that stuff.  No one seems to be so motivated (portals sample RFC is the sort of thing we haven't been able to get people to write up for the status quo language, but he writes it because he wants a change in the status quo.  I am personally opposed to changing anything in the status quo language unless the status quo is a) documented and b) broken.  Fixing that which isn't broken is what I labeled as "tinkering" and I have no problem with "a wall" against such tinkering.  And "outsiders" are NOT qualified to decide such questions for the community.  If you don't understand about scope and semantics issues, the thing to do is to ask, not propose a change.  4) the language is NOT confined to "a small circle of worthy individuals" and that isn't desired.  But making changes to the language *by prescriptive fiat* MUST be confined to a small circle.

lojbab [ 2019-04-20T07:57:25Z ]

   I am not particularly friendly towards people who want to reform the language, and thus if my comments seem unfriendly, my message is getting across.  If the activity of community members is primarily tinkering with an already completed language (as opposed to the not completed documentation), then I don't desire such a community.  I want people to USE the language, and if something is unclear that prevents them from using the language, I would like them to seek help from the community to teach them how to use *the language that already exists* as the community understands it.  If there is severe disagreement about this understanding, then maybe some group must have the power to make a decision that becomes part of official material, and that is more or less what byfy is supposed to do.  But the language is done, and is being used, so making changes because you wish things had been done differently - I'm not interested.

lojbab [ 2019-04-20T08:02:12Z ]

   We've been experimenting with ways to find volunteers for over 30 years now.  And ultimately every experiment has failed, because the volunteers w get don't want to do the work that is needed.  Most frequently they want to talk about the changes they want to see in the language.  That doesn't solve anything for the volunteer problem.

lojbab [ 2019-04-20T08:06:15Z ]

   There are very few topics that get more than about five people discussing them even during a meeting because most of the membership isn't interested in the topic, or has no opinion beyond trusting the decisions of the current leadership.  

lojbab [ 2019-04-20T08:12:20Z ]

   The proposals that do gain more attention tend to be a lot simpler than your motion, because most of them aren't even interested in reading the motion.  (I haven't yet made it through more than a paragraph of any of your versions of motion myself. In part because it is long-winded, but also because I usually find I am completely opposed by then.)  For example, I haven't seen any reason mentioned why a new committee needs to be formed after dissolving the old one.  Why not just give a new direction to the existing committee?

gleki [ 2019-04-20T10:57:54Z ]

   I did the work on fixing mistypes in cll. Is that what is needed? If not then what is needed?

greg_g [ 2019-04-20T15:21:41Z ]

   Thanks for taking the time to reply! I believe that having a very conservative approach towards Lojban development is perfectly legitimate, this policy by itself should not be an obstacle to finding more contributors.
   But I do believe that in combination with other factors, it leads to the current predicament... Elaborating a bit on the previous post, let me state two factors in particular:
   - From my experience, a typical newcomer/potential contributor expects the veterans to "lead by example", already doing some work themselves and thus showing what they want to do and how to do it, in this way it is easy for others to jump in.
   - In successful projects, veterans have a way to channel and redirect energy towards their preferred goals. This requires having a clear roadmap with the stated goals, and then it is mostly a matter of welcoming contributors with something like "thanks for your ideas, right now we are really focusing on X, Y and Z, which are our current priorities. After that we have in mind some other developments that you can find in the roadmap, would you like to help with X?"
   
   I think Lojban is lacking in these areas and this plays a role in the lack of activity.
   
   There is also the argument that Lojban is basically finished and there is not much need for help. This I find hard to believe, because if it were, the following questions would have clear answers:
   - Is xorlo/dotside official?
   - Is the CLL github repository official?
   - Is jbovlaste official?
   - What is the official grammar? Is camxes official?
   
   To summarize: I think it would help to clearly state the goals of the project and show the work that is expected to achieve them.

gleki [ 2019-04-20T15:31:12Z ]

   How does camxes have any relation to finishness of lojban?
   
   It's like saying "If Lojban were finished we would know who would be the next king of France"

vecusku [ 2019-04-20T15:33:42Z ]

   **la .eris.**: Camxes has substantially bearing on Lojban, being a Lojban parser, than the king of France does.
   

dersaidin [ 2019-04-20T16:08:58Z ]

   I agree stating the goals officially would be beneficial

gleki [ 2019-04-20T16:56:39Z ]

   Ok, is gleki related to lojban? Let's make him official part of lojban

karis [ 2019-04-22T07:34:30Z ]

   @lagleki i wasn't saying that I saw a need for changes. I was saying that in order to decide if we need a new committee or to continue with byfy we, the members, must decide if there are too many changes or corrections needed for us to handle. 

karis [ 2019-04-22T08:00:42Z ]

   @greg_g, I think you are correct that we need to publicize two or three projects of high priority, possibly with a contract person from the Membership. Then each and every one of us should direct people who show interest in being interested to this list as you suggest. I believe this would address both of the factors you describe.
   
   The issue of whether or not lojban is finished reflects, I believe, a misunderstanding held by many that finishing the language means we don't need people to be involved as you say. First, "finishing lojban" meaning completing development of the language, not completion of documentation, improvment of our web presence, creation of works in lojban, continued and improved outreach, and many other projects. Some of these will always be important and others more of a one-shot thing. Obviously we haven't been as good as is needed about making this known. While the issue of whether we still need either BPFK or something similar should probably take second place to forming a committee to put into place your suggestions for involving more people effectively and related issues. The main reason why we have to decide, at least temporarily, what to do about byfy is that we have to either reappoint @solpahi, appoint someone new, or distilled the committee. 

karis [ 2019-04-22T08:02:29Z ]

   Camxes is important and related. No need for more discussion or comments on this. 

karis [ 2019-04-22T08:08:27Z ]

   I agree. Lojban isn't perfect and never can be since different people have different ideas about what it would look line if perfect. That's why offshoot languages have been developed, after all. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-22T19:09:10Z ]

   As it appears that my motion is unlikely to be seconded, I withdraw it for the time being. If someone informs me that they want to second, I'll introduce it. Otherwise, I'll introduce it at the next meeting.

ilmen [ 2019-04-24T20:58:21Z ]

   ``Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed "interim standards" of the LLG.``
   Under the BPFK charter, "interim standards" referred to standards already approved by the LLG Board, so they were already partly official; maybe in your version another terminology should be used, possibly "standards candidate" or some such, as they wouldn't have been reviewed by the LLG yet.

ilmen [ 2019-04-24T20:59:28Z ]

   Maybe provisions should be added on how the LFK would be dissolved when the LLG deems it necessary

ilmen [ 2019-04-24T21:02:25Z ]

   Apart from those details, I think the motion is worth being voted upon. It doesn't seem to be wildly different from the BPFK charter.

ilmen [ 2019-04-24T21:04:05Z ]

   As for documenting the status quo, isn't the status quo already documented in the CLL with the exception of Xorlo and Dotside?

ilmen [ 2019-04-24T21:05:26Z ]

   The undocumented parts, ambiguities, overlooks or other holes in the documentation of the CLL are technically not part of the baselined status quo, I assume?

ilmen [ 2019-04-24T21:10:37Z ]

   Filling the documentation holes from current Lojban usages has the issue that people don't have the same language usages, they don't talk CLL-Lojban-with-holes-filled, there have been a lot of usage of experimental or unofficial vocabulary, grammar or semantic alterations, and different people have had mutually incompatible usages as well

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T00:06:44Z ]

   It isn't easy, but that's why someone needs to be there to sort through the mess. Otherwise one has a "standard" dialect that barely anyone uses and a bunch of incompatible experimental dialects. It's an impossible problem to solve, really, but that doesn't mean putting someone in charge of establishing some order wouldn't help. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T00:08:52Z ]

   At the very least, they could stabilize the most common experimental usages, which on its own would help separate "technically experimental but a ton of people use it" from "an experiment that someone wants to try".

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T00:23:57Z ]

   Yeah, that would probably be better.

solpahi [ 2019-04-25T01:47:07Z ]

   I am doubtful as the usefulness of another committee, which to me looks like the same thing as the BPFK except with a different name. It appears to me as if this is a hidden case of Parkinson's law of triviality. Figuratively speaking, the BPFK resides in a blue house, and now it is being proposed that it should instead reside in a red house, and hours or weeks are being spent arguing over the details of the house, exactly what shade of red it should have, and on what side the windows should be. But the actual situation is that it does not matter, because the new red house would go just as unused as the blue house currently is. 
   You can make a new committee, but no matter how well-designed its charter and its procedures are, it is not going to change the fact that there aren't any people.
   I can assure you that the rules of the BPFK are NOT why progress has halted. The BPFK is completely free to come up with procedures that it deems useful. Anything you proposed for the LFK could just as easily be made part of BPFK procedure and you would not need any LLG votes for that. The BPFK has had complete freedom since its reauthorization. Its members and chair consciously opted for a low-bureaucracy approach (for historical reasons), and it worked so long as there was participation (but any other approach would also be possible if its members decided to go that way).
   However, as we all know, the BPFK membership completely lost interest, some of them in doing BPFK work, but most of them lost interest in Lojban on the whole. The same trend can be observed on every mailing list. The mailing lists used to be a very busy place, as some of the older community members will surely remember. At times, there were hundreds of messages. Now there are practically zero. The chat room statistics speak a similar truth. There used to be regular, long in-Lojban conversations all the time, now there is very little. It also happens to be the case that most of the experts from the previous era have left. 

solpahi [ 2019-04-25T01:47:10Z ]

   I don't know why all the used-to-be-active members no longer are -- maybe some of them would be willing to share their story, as some of them are still LLG members and have joined the meeting on this site (though I don't know if any of them actually follow the meeting). There could be lots of reasons, all valid, all understandable. I myself simply got frustrated and disillusioned with the language and also to a lesser extent with the community.
   What I'm saying is it's a general downward trend. And I do not believe that creating new committees is going to have any measurable effect on this, let alone a positive one. On the other hand, I do not have a proposal myself -- I am not an LLG member. I left because I felt the LLG was not serving any purpose I found worth serving. And with all due respect, the LLG does not have a good understanding of the wider community, the language, the speakers and their usage of the language. 
   It is not my intention to make anyone feel bad, nor to disrespect the LLG or its membership, nor to discredit the efforts of anyone who is putting in any kind of effort. 
   However, reading these discussions over the past few weeks, it seems I finally had to get this off my chest, because it all seems to futile and bizarre to sit here and argue about a committee while the (Lojbanic) world outside of the meeting is crumbling and burning, and I'm not sure everyone is able to see it from here, or if the LLG is in denial. I used to be in denial for way too long until I was finally able to take a step back. I don't even know what I'm trying to say. I guess I feel sorry for the people here, and I feel sad about how things went. I have a lot of fond memories of Lojban, I met many great people and I learned so much, but it seems like all of that is in the past. Hardly any of the people are there anymore, and what used to be genuine love for the language has become mere nostalgia.
   So to wrap this up (I didn't plan to write most of this when I decided to write a message), I'm not suggesting that everyone strike the tents and leave Lojban behind. Obviously everyone is free to continue on whatever path they chose. And I hope for everyone that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. But there must be a reason why Lojban has stagnated and dwindled, structural design-related reasons perhaps, and/or community-related reasons. This will be one thing to figure out by whoever is still around. I may be watching from afar, I don't know. 
   Oh, and I should probably give up my position as chair of BPFK. It does not make sense for me to keep it, even though there don't seem to be any other candidates. I just don't consider it realistic that the BPFK (or a re-named version of it) will ever resume working on Lojban, nor that I will in that capacity. 
   Best of luck to everyone. I apologize for the huge wall of text and the rather depressing tone. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T02:21:11Z ]

   There are reasons why shifting to a red house may be helpful. In particular, you can stir up interest by saying "look at the new red house!".

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T02:21:43Z ]

   In any case, it certainly wouldn't solve the problem. It would probably help, but other measures are also necessary. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T02:26:54Z ]

   @channel I beg you, please read BPFK jatna selpa'i's comments above. They are important and grave, and it would be quite helpful if everyone could see them, particularly all of the people who are here but inactive. 

vecusku [ 2019-04-25T05:58:03Z ]

   **gleki**: I agree with the explanation, la solpahi gave.
   As for my opinion why I'm less active those are two reasons:
   1. i dont have much free time these days to devote it to lojban
   2. i need lojban only as a mental exercise and i need to code a lot to make lojban useful for me. And I dont code because ... see 1.
   

dersaidin [ 2019-04-25T15:15:30Z ]

   Well said solpahi. This is the most important thing to talk about, to have a chance of changing this trend.
   
   I was never a major participant or expert, but for me, I think my lojban activity declined as I saw more irregularities in the language I was learning, and the dwindling activity of experts. I stopped trying to learn it. The last few years I have observed LLG meetings, but not looked at irc or other stuff. I think I realized the language development is more interesting to me than learning the language itself, and also that I need to learn more about formal logic. At this point I'm mostly hoping And's proposal (that the LLG adopts a goal of exploring logical languages outside of lojban) is adopted, because I would like to see the expertise of this community in action, unconstrained by the baseline. I wonder if all the former members were active back then because they got to participate in building lojban, so it meant more to them by being the fruit of their own work.

and.rosta [ 2019-04-25T16:43:37Z ]

   Maybe the meeting should return to that deferred business about adopting the goal of exploring logical languages? Rather than agonize over the wording of motions, the LLG could just commit to facilitating discussion. (Fate does not look set to grant me the time to be much involved for some years, but in the long run I'd like to be.)
   Separately but relatedly, there is the question about what to do about Lojban. I don't have a stake in the discussion, but I would nevertheless suggest that there should be no further official documentation of Lojban but there should be an invitation to all to document it according to their own lights, with a commitment that LLG will not denounce any description merely for being unofficial but might make public comment on how consistent the description is with the official baseline. I intend here to essentially be supporting Lojbab's position on the status of Lojban (and I regret the years and innumerable hours I spent opposing it), but am suggesting giving up the perpetually unachieved goal of creating additional official documentation.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T18:46:45Z ]

   I, for one, am more interested in developing Lojban than other logical languages. There's no reason we couldn't do both.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T18:48:49Z ]

   If the LLG formally renounces control over Lojban, that might admittedly solve everyone's problems. I still think that would be losing a lot of the potential for order that the LLG provides though, and order is often a good thing.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-25T18:49:15Z ]

   Would getting more experts active help?

gleki [ 2019-04-25T18:51:24Z ]

   ta'o ru'e I'm not interested in other spoken logical languages. I'm pretty fine with Lojban. Exploring other loglangs seems fine to me, why not.

dersaidin [ 2019-04-25T20:45:00Z ]

   Does "developing lojban" mean making breaking changes, or just improving documentation? Because if there are any breaking changes there is a reason - something like half the community will fight you.

dersaidin [ 2019-04-25T20:46:53Z ]

   Doing lojban plus other logical language work seems fine to me too.

dersaidin [ 2019-04-26T04:28:15Z ]

   Renounce control over lojban? I don't see any reason to do that. Possibly announce no further development will be done, to make it clear to anyone who was nervous about this in the past.

karis [ 2019-04-26T04:48:02Z ]

   I'm confused, @and. You say you've basically supporting @lojbab's position while suggesting we welcome documentation of any and all offshoot dialects with only, possibly, a comment of how they differ from the official version. How does this not promote further splintering of the community and language, which lojbab specifically speaks against?

karis [ 2019-04-26T05:35:37Z ]

   As for returning to discussing whether LLG should explore other logical languages, this is one area of interest to the organization and if anyone wants to bring up another language to discuss they are welcome to do so. I'm certain there are people here who would find such discussion interesting. This doesn't mean other languages will be more important to the LLG than lojban, however. 

karis [ 2019-04-26T05:37:37Z ]

   @dersaidin I'm not sure to whom your question about "developing lojban" is directed? Do you mean in @bookofportals' all? 

karis [ 2019-04-26T05:40:06Z ]

   @channel, @bookofportals has withdrawn his proposal. If anyone was considering offering to second it, please speak up as he is willing to repropose it. 

dersaidin [ 2019-04-26T06:45:48Z ]

   To bookofportals.

dersaidin [ 2019-04-26T06:52:14Z ]

   I think the LLG selecting particular languages would be a mistake. I think LLG's goals should go meta and explore the design space of logical languages. Many languages are likely to appear as examples, including existing ones like lojban, and new ones. Don't tie the focus to any particular language.

and.rosta [ 2019-04-26T15:37:54Z ]

   That's what I meant too. In my imaginary life where I had time to reengage with loglangs, I would also like to see the loglang project coordinate the creation of (a 'library' of) modules of a loglang; i.e. in addition to the exploration of the design space would be a repository of actual designs for loglang modules.

and.rosta [ 2019-04-26T16:07:24Z ]

   Lojbab has always preached that, as with natlangs, the true language is the language that is used, not the language that is prescribed. So let Lojban be the language that is used; and let futile attempts to further prescribe it be abandoned to merciful death. I dwell but little in Lojbanistan, but see there less a splintering of community and language and more their atrophy and death. More prescription is not going to revitalize them. Perhaps a formal declaration of the end to any further prescription would encourage some users to return to it. But I would predict them to die, for the utility of Lojban is historical, in what we learnt from it about loglang design space, and the only reasons for continuing to use it are quixotic. But who knows, maybe Lojban might maintain a community of users like Toki Pona's, bringing to fruition the project Lojbab set himself 35 years ago.

and.rosta [ 2019-04-26T16:09:53Z ]

   I am not able to use this app successfully. My previous message was in reply to Karis and the one before that was in reply to Dersaidin.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-26T16:47:22Z ]

   It means changes. To what extent those changes should be breaking is debatable. Personally, I don't mind if something tweaks UI scope, but anything more serious would seriously concern me at the very least. So mostly additive changes?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-26T16:48:25Z ]

   Fine, but what about all of the people who are interested in Lojban specifically, and not logical languages in general?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-26T16:53:13Z ]

   Lojban must change, for the simple reason that anything that doesn't change will inevitably die. Thus, if Lojban is to stay alive, then either the LLG needs to maintain it or the LLG needs to renounce the power of maintain and let the community supervise its further growth. The first one will need to a single dominant dialect, continuously updated to match modern speech patterns and deal with unanticipated problems; the latter will lead to each individual Lojban speaker choosing whatever they like for themselves (fragmentation, but also greater freedom).

bookofportals [ 2019-04-26T16:59:56Z ]

   By the way, the claim that Lojban doesn't need to change because natural languages don't change very quickly is, in my opinion, a false analogy. Natural languages evolve, usually over thousands of years, which is why their changing is quite slow these days. Lojban was created very recently, and new languages can be expected to change substantially faster than old ones, since there hasn't been as long for the speakers to find all of the potential problems and solve them. 

dersaidin [ 2019-04-27T01:56:29Z ]

   Lojban is different things to different people. From one perspective it needs change, from another perspective it needs stability.

karis [ 2019-04-27T17:31:01Z ]

   The issue of choosing a language for LLG to focus upon is moot. This decision has been made several times starting with its founding. Lojban is and has always been the primary focus. 

karis [ 2019-04-27T18:27:55Z ]

   @bookofportals the difference between natural languages changing rapidly in their infancy and created by languages doing so is that a natural language is spoken by small group of people all  conversing daily or nearly daily with each other. The language evolves as that entire group changes it together. If someone has a new idea, everyone hears is it almost immediately. With lojban, for example, people are creating new terms for things daily and using them before anyone else knows. Even then, should the idea be presented in one chat, for instance, there are still hundreds of other people who won't hear of it for a long time while those in that  particular chat may incorporate it and it rapidly seem as standard as anything else. This type of change is fragmented and thus the language fragments further rather than change happening throughout the speakers.
   
   My point is that the core language all should learn until they become fairly fluent should be the same standardized one. That way people aren't inventing words for things that already have them, or before they have a solid understanding which matches the understanding of speakers from around the world. Once this common literacy exists for all speakers they will at least be able to explain the new term in lojban to someone unfamiliar with it allowing people with no other common language to communicate. Besides how much of the newly created language is based on only on one language and on ideom rather than underlying concept? Avoiding this has been a goal from the beginning. If you don't speak multiple languages fluently and only speak lojban some this is even more likely to happen. Further, comparing parts of speech in lojban to nouns, verbs, etc and saying one thing means something else increases comprehension problems instead of taking a moment longer to explain what the firms mean or saying that words from one language relate to those in lojban or another by the underlying concepts not as if a is b. The better materials and teachers do this, but all should. 
   
   Now what I see is new terms being introduced almost daily, frequently by people who recently started learning lojban rather than by people who can be considered fluent. As a result they don't know if  the concept already exists, and don't know how  the language is structured well enough to form something that fits. This isn't at all the way natural languages evolve when young and all it leads to is fracturing where people on one chat or in one area don't speak the same version as this in different online or local communities. For lojban to continue as a single language this has to be a limited as possible. If there is one place to go for lessons and writings in and about lojban where all the material follows one official language, and this is where new people are directed we can slow disorganized change.
   
   Trying to maintain a standard isn't saying change can't ever happen nor that we are waiting for some impossible time when everything is fully documented to allow change. It is asking for considered, thoughtful change based on knowledge . 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-27T20:35:14Z ]

   I can see your point, but it actually agrees with what I've been suggesting. There is no way (or none that I know of; if someone has one, they're welcome to point it out) to stop people from wanting to make changes to the language. If there is no active centralized authority, then they will do so without consulting anyone. The best way I can think of to keep a central standard is to give someone the authority to make changes, and then let all proposals be directed to them. That way, there will be forum for people to point out all the problems with the proposed change before it sees widespread usage. If the authority thinks the change might work, it could then be approved on an experimental basis, and then tested more widely. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-27T20:35:46Z ]

   Of course, I can't promise that's exactly how a committee would do things, but I imagine the structure would be in that direction.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-27T20:38:47Z ]

   I move that the LLG resolve as follows:

bookofportals [ 2019-04-27T20:38:58Z ]

   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged, on behalf of the LLG, to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     6. Supervise and encourage volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     7. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of
        current language users and the growth of the language community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.
   
   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure and with whatever responsibilities it decides. If it decides not to
   elect another leader, it must at the very least select a spokesperson, who will
   represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or
   Special Meeting of the LLG. Until the LFK otherwise directs, its leadership
   shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff vote of the whole
   committee for a term of 6 months and thereafter until a successor is elected,
   who shall have responsibility for reporting on its activities to the outside
   world, presenting its annual report to the LLG, representing it before the LLG
   and Board, coordinating its members, overseeing the formulation of its agenda,
   supervising its meetings, and ensuring that accurate, complete, and organized
   records of its decisions are kept. Although the chair shall have primary
   responsibility for discharging these functions, all final responsibility and
   power shall be vested in the committee as a whole.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-27T20:39:05Z ]

   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed a "candidate standard" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to ratify them by majority vote, or to decline to do
   so, or to ratify them with changes, as it sees fit. If a standard presented to
   it is so ratified, the standard may thereafter be described as an "official
   standard" of the LLG. Until the ratification takes place, a standard cannot be
   considered a standard part of the Lojban language and should not be presented as
   being official or standard Lojban, although it may be used for the purposes of
   testing and experimentation.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "candidate
   standards", each conspicuously labeled as such.
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   The LLG Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws shall in all cases supersede this
   motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK.

bookofportals [ 2019-04-27T20:41:44Z ]

   @ilmen has graciously agreed to second. While I cannot say that this would solve the community's problems, I think that it would be a step in the right direction, acting as a focus for activity. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-28T07:17:08Z ]

   That's true, but no one I can think of is for forbidding all change (some are for having barely any, but that's still *some*). Other than not having any change at all, the options are still the two I've described. 

ilmen [ 2019-04-28T12:11:16Z ]

   I hereby second Bookofportals' motion about establishing the LFK.

gleki [ 2019-04-28T15:41:14Z ]

   Can we please finally do something and update cll to 1.2? Is there anybody here alive and ready to reply?

solpahi [ 2019-04-28T19:10:50Z ]

   .u'i

gleki [ 2019-04-28T19:24:57Z ]

   If no one wants to merge these changes into cll then you may assign me to do this task and I promise that in at most 2 weeks you get cll in PDF, html, epub formats and in at most 6 months you get printed CLL being sold at Amazon. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit#

bookofportals [ 2019-04-28T20:16:20Z ]

   @karis Please note that my motion has been seconded. 

bookofportals [ 2019-04-28T20:21:09Z ]

   The current motion is about establishing the LFK, and would give it responsibility over the CLL. I imagine one of its first actions would be to approve most of these changes (certainly all the ones which JC has already approved).

gleki [ 2019-04-29T05:17:03Z ]

   Can we please not wait and make a decision on my proposal directly and without much bureaucracy?

bookofportals [ 2019-04-29T15:34:42Z ]

   Uhh... Probably not. The problem is that it isn't clear who's responsibility that should be at the moment. This meeting is currently preoccupied with other matters, and the BPFK is inactive. I suppose you could ask the board if they would do it, but waiting would probably be simpler. This is all just my opinion, mind.

gleki [ 2019-04-29T15:38:22Z ]

   I ask LLG to look at my proposal on updating CLL 1.2 directly without delegating it to other entities. @karis @lojbab I'm tired of this endless and fruitless meeting. What is the shortest way to approve or reject the list of errata I compiled and if approved assign me to produce the new CLL? I am willing to perform all the necessary actions to complete this project.

karis [ 2019-05-01T22:16:03Z ]

   Please provide the changes in exactly the wording you want to use to the Board. You are not authorized to change the actual documents until the changes have been reviewed and approved. 

karis [ 2019-05-01T22:32:29Z ]

   @channel @bookofportals as made the following proposal. It has been seconded by @ilmen.
   
   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The LFK is charged, on behalf of the LLG, to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided upon by LFK or its delegates;
     6. Supervise and encourage volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     7. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of current language users and the growth of the language community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus, rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs, ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before any significant decision is made.
   
   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure and with whatever responsibilities it decides. If it decides not to elect another leader, it must at the very least select a spokesperson, who will
   represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting of the LLG. Until the LFK otherwise directs, its leadership shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff vote of the whole
   committee for a term of 6 months and thereafter until a successor is elected, who shall have responsibility for reporting on its activities to the outside
   world, presenting its annual report to the LLG, representing it before the LLG and Board, coordinating its members, overseeing the formulation of its agenda,
   supervising its meetings, and ensuring that accurate, complete, and organized records of its decisions are kept. Although the chair shall have primary responsibility for discharging these functions, all final responsibility and power shall be vested in the committee as a whole.
   
   -----
   
   As much  discussion on this proposal, or something virtually the same as it, I would appreciate if any discussion be brief. Also I am requesting anyone who has not read that discussion here and in the side channel chat to please read through it  particularly to get an understanding for the position of everyone who has commented. I'm trying to speed out way through this as much as possible to avoid endless debate. 
   

karis [ 2019-05-01T22:33:30Z ]

   @bookofportals please read through the proposal as I posted it to make sure nothing was lost in the cut-and-paste. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-02T18:29:08Z ]

   I present the following comments by solpa'i. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-02T18:30:09Z ]

   When things are so bad that the chair of the BPFK says that the only way to get anything done is to do it yourself, that is a problem. Someone needs to be there to support Lojban users. This is the core part of the LLG's work.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-02T18:31:20Z ]

   Putting someone in charge of documentation and standards is a critical part of that work. It is only one part among many; still, the standards are at the core of the language itself, and thus have a large impact on language users. Leaving them unmaintained is harmful for the language community.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-02T18:32:39Z ]

   There are other parts of the LLG's work, such as community organization and outreach. Those parts can be dealt with separately. I ask that people support my proposal to take this first step towards bringing coordination to the Lojban community.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-02T18:44:23Z ]

   @karis You dropped the second half of the resolution. The part beginning "The LFK is authorized to adopt standards..." and ending "...Bylaws shall in all cases supersede this
   motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK." The resolution too big to fit in one message (it goes over the maximum character limit) so I split it into two.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-02T18:44:34Z ]

   The second message is right under the first one. 

karis [ 2019-05-02T20:29:42Z ]

   @channel the second part of the proposal is as follows: 
   
   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed a "candidate standard" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to ratify them by majority vote, or to decline to do
   so, or to ratify them with changes, as it sees fit. If a standard presented to
   it is so ratified, the standard may thereafter be described as an "official
   standard" of the LLG. Until the ratification takes place, a standard cannot be
   considered a standard part of the Lojban language and should not be presented as
   being official or standard Lojban, although it may be used for the purposes of
   testing and experimentation.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "candidate
   standards", each conspicuously labeled as such.
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   The LLG Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws shall in all cases supersede this
   motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK.

karis [ 2019-05-05T00:58:31Z ]

   @channel, no discussion at all? I'm surprised. . 

gleki [ 2019-05-05T06:05:37Z ]

   So here is my proposal.
   Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes have been recorded ~15 years ago. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL
   Proposed solution: 
   the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes.
   1. Any member of LLG can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually.
   2. Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes)
   3. LLG waits for 2 weeks since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.
   4. In 2 weeks in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.
   5. Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.
   6. LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.
   
   Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)

phma [ 2019-05-05T08:12:36Z ]

   Will LFK discussions be required to be in Lojban?

bookofportals [ 2019-05-05T22:20:09Z ]

   I think that would violate the rule about being transparent, since many in the Lojban community can't read Lojban fluently, whereas that isn't as true for English. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-05T22:23:33Z ]

   Additionally, allowing some who aren't fluent in Lojban to participate might increase activity level. There's currently a shortage of active participants, and opening things up for non-fluent speakers would help fix that.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-05T22:24:44Z ]

   Of course, there's also some risk of quality loss. One has to take measures to mitigate that, such as making sure fluent speakers have a large input on the the process.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-05T22:33:13Z ]

   @channel  Just so everyone remembers, if you passionately disagree with something in my motion you can always propose to amend it.

gleki [ 2019-05-06T04:40:00Z ]

   I think if a person can't speak fluent Lojban they can make serious mistakes so some supervision by fluent speakers is necessary.
   
   Similarly in case of PEG it's imho inappropriate that people who are not experts in formal grammars vote for or against relevant topics.
   
   And I'd extend my opinion to any topic.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:11:54Z ]

   I'd agree, essentially, but I'd take it in a different direction.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:14:10Z ]

   I agree that it is an absolute requirement that we do not set things up so that decisions are made by those who do not have experience. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:14:46Z ]

   At the same time, I sincerely think that actually disenfranchising those who are inexperienced is also a bad idea.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:17:22Z ]

   There are three reasons. 1) It makes people feel like they cannot have a voice in the community without being an expert in everything, which is discouraging to new learners. 2) It excludes people who may be interested and can help out. 3) It means that you miss all of the other experiences than those of those who are already expert. For instance, someone who isn't fluent may be able to say that a construction is unnecessarily confusing. The solution may be to choose a simpler construction, or to provide better documentation, or to not make a change, but it is important that input from everyone be heard in the process. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:20:10Z ]

   For these reasons, my proposed solution is to elect people from a variety of backgrounds to the LFK. This won't be decided until we elect people, obviously, but I want to put my views forward now. This would ideally include several people who are members of the BPFK or otherwise fluent, some long established in the community who aren't fluent, and some who are newer.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:25:35Z ]

   There are three important safeguards that prevent a contingency in which decisions can be made in ignorance. First, there is the provision that decisions ought to come from consensus. This means that there will be ample time for debate within the community, and that any dissenting voices from those who are expert in the topic won't simply be swallowed by a numerical vote, but will actually be heard out. Second, there is the provision about transparency and responding to concerns, which means there will be ample opportunity for those not on the committee to point out problems. Third, there is the provision that all decisions of the LFK are only recommendations and need to be ratified by the LLG, which provides yet another opportunity for comment and review.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:28:10Z ]

   Those conditions allow for diverse voices to be included in the decision-making process with a very low chance of an error slipping through.

gleki [ 2019-05-06T05:30:11Z ]

   If LFK recommends to use a simpler construct that sounds not as lojban development in the sense of changing grammar but rather like a committee that helps newcomers learn lojban. Which what #lojban and #ckule chats have been used for for years. Not sure who will officially work from LFK in this way and who will ask such questions not in the two chats above. People prefer to ask a question and get an answer within minutes

gleki [ 2019-05-06T05:31:06Z ]

   I have seen zero people who both speak lojban and are experts in formal grammars

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:31:15Z ]

   The point is that if a new construction is added it should be added in the most understandable way possible.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:31:46Z ]

   That may just mean tweaking the documentation.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:31:53Z ]

   In fact it probably would.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:32:41Z ]

   But it's possible that it could mean that people would say "hey, this thing we're adding is too confusing, and we've just realized there's a simpler and cleaner way of doing it".

phma [ 2019-05-06T05:33:52Z ]

   I can talk fluently in Spanish about various topics in the Bible, since I've been attending church in Spanish for many years. But I'd be hard put to explain how a computer works in Spanish, and when I recently surveyed a Mexican pastor's lot, I had to look up "setback" and use the closest translation I could find.

phma [ 2019-05-06T05:34:58Z ]

   Similarly, someone could be fluent in Lojban when it comes to talking about daily living, but have a hard time explaining why one grammatical construction is better than another.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:35:57Z ]

   That makes sense.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:37:15Z ]

   It could also be the case that someone who can't converse quickly could have a detailed conversation about the grammar and the advantages of different constructions.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:38:23Z ]

   Which is another reason why including multiple perspectives is valuable.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T05:52:43Z ]

   Does the Lojban community have any formal grammar experts?

gleki [ 2019-05-06T06:02:12Z ]

   Imo no

gleki [ 2019-05-06T06:03:03Z ]

   Well technically founders were pretty fine with YACC but that's all

gleki [ 2019-05-06T06:04:07Z ]

   Opencog tried to make a semantic parser of lojban but the work wasn't completed and they still used existing parsers as the basis

karis [ 2019-05-06T08:06:43Z ]

   KEY QUESTION... This has come up several times in the discussion we had earlier. The goals are virtually the same, so why not just have BPFK change the language requirement and open up discussion? It's the same thing, really.
   
   [This is gathered from multiple different messages from different people, one of whom was @lojbab.]

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T16:22:45Z ]

   There are two different answers depending on what the question means.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T16:28:18Z ]

   If the question "why a new charter?" it's because there are significant changes to the process and the obligations of a the committee (e.g. running an RFC process, being transparent, making sure its decisions don't hurt the community). There are also noticeable changes to other parts of the process, although those aren't as big a deal. So the reason a new charter is needed is that the charter states the committee's responsibilities, and to change the responsibilities, we change the charter.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-06T16:31:41Z ]

   If the question is "why are we calling this a new committee?" then there isn't a great answer. My main reason was that you suggested it, honestly. I also thought that establishing a "new committee" might be helpful from a PR perspective, since it would show the community that the days of BPFK inactivity are over. It doesn't make a big difference, honestly, which means there's no particular reason to change it.

karis [ 2019-05-06T18:41:26Z ]

   There are people not speaking out who did earlier. I hope I am representing them accurately and that they are reading this at least. 

gleki [ 2019-05-07T09:03:06Z ]

   I volunteer as a head of bpfk but only to implement the proposal above (after which I want to step down)

karis [ 2019-05-07T11:51:03Z ]

   That isn't on the table at the moment, so unless you tie it to the topic that is you are out of order, @lagleki. At a later time you may submit this proposal, but NOT now. 

karis [ 2019-05-07T11:52:32Z ]

   soon added to the channel by karis.

karis [ 2019-05-07T11:53:01Z ]

   Welcome to the Members Meeting, @soon.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-08T04:34:01Z ]

   @lagleki I'm honestly confused on why you don't want to just take the board up on their offer.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-08T04:35:30Z ]

   I don't see why becoming chair of the BPFK or LFK is the best route to getting what you want.

gleki [ 2019-05-08T06:10:51Z ]

   I don't care what the way is the best. I just offer help with the actual work. I don't need administrative discussions, bureaucracy. I can do actual work and I offered my help. 

karis [ 2019-05-08T15:23:50Z ]

   @lagleki i already gave you a way you could help, then. If you don't like it please discuss the details with me or the board so we can finish the business before this meeting. Thank you. 

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:05:10Z ]

   There is no stopping people from wanting to make changes to the language.  BUT, there is an easy way to not have such result in actual changes to the language.  You simply don't consider such "wanting" to be meaningful or desireable.  Lojban has existed quite nicely for more thann 20 years since CLL was written, and the language has NOT changed greatly in response to all this supposed wanting.  As far as I am concerned, we don't need or want any way for such change-wanting to be especially relevant.

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:08:54Z ]

   I suspect that the issue is that we don't agree as to what the community problems are, so this would not solve anything.

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:11:27Z ]

   I am for there being no change of the sort that you have talked about in this forum, or at least no official recognition of random users random wish lists for change.

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:13:30Z ]

   I still have seen no explanation why were these supposedly approved errata not incorporated by Robin in version 1.1, which was authorized specifically to correct errata.

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:22:50Z ]

   You are presuming an activity and organization level for LLG that far exceeds reality.   We don't have any paid employees, so what gets done is nothing more than what people want to get done.  Which is not far removed from what selpa'i said.  There will be no meaningful coordination of the LLG community, because the LLG community is not subject to coordination.  Even the subset of most active workers is not easily coordinated.  Nick Nicholas, the first BPFK jatna correctly equated his job to herding cats.  Your proposed replacement for BPFK (which in fact is merely a new name for the existing group) will have no greater success at coordinating, because no Lojban group has any inherent ability to coordinate.

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:23:59Z ]

   I vote no.  The long-winded proposal offers nothing really new at great length.

lojbab [ 2019-05-09T21:35:27Z ]

   Whatever "significant" changes you have in mind are buried in a multitude of paragraphs of proposal that are entirely unmotivating to me to even read them.  There is no need for a new charter, and if the byfy jatna had or has any desire to change anything about what byfy does or how it will do it, he could do so without any new charter being issued.  I don't think that your proposal addresses anything that selpa'i described as being a problem for byfy accomplishing things. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:24:26Z ]

   @lojbab I'm somewhat confused as to what work you believe to be left to do. What should, in your opinion, the LLG be doing?

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:25:54Z ]

   It seems highly improbable to me that the original designers created a perfect language, since that is more or less impossible. No one is infallible. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:26:39Z ]

   If the language is imperfect, then some improvement is advisable. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:28:19Z ]

   Also, judging by the amount of conversation about experimental additions (mostly new cmavo), there is considerable use of the language in ways other than those specified by the CLL.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:29:13Z ]

   I don't know where I proposed that the language be changed "greatly". I just proposed that some change is necessary. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:31:13Z ]

   Point of order: No one has called for a vote. We're still in the discussion phase, and the proposal could be amended if someone offered an amendment. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:37:30Z ]

   I'd like to remind everyone of the LLG's purpose, according to its bylaws: "The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to promote the scientific study of the relationships between language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and experiment with such a language; to support the community of people learning and using this language; to devise and promote applications for this language in fields including but not limited to linguistics, psychology, philosophy, logic, mathematics, computer science, anthropology, sociology, education, and human biology; to conduct and support experimental and scholarly research in these fields as they may bear upon the problems of artificial language development; to communicate with and to educate interested persons and organizations about these activities; to devise and develop means and instruments needed for these activities; and to accumulate and publish the results of such studies and developments. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:41:22Z ]

   In particular, I think updating the language in response to the results of those experiments, and being able to change the language to better fulfill the responsibilities, is an important part of the LLG's job. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:44:54Z ]

   I don't see how shutting down anyone who wants a change is productive in fulfilling those responsibilities. Not every change should be adopted; many shouldn't. But they need to be considered, their advantages and disadvantages weighed.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-09T22:46:27Z ]

   In short, I find the approach of just assuming that the fact that someone wants an official change is in and of itself bad, or unworthy, or not to be listened to, extremely problematic. 

gleki [ 2019-05-10T05:42:00Z ]

   Because Robin is not everything? BTW I included a few proposals there that have NOT been on any errata lists. The "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary" one in the document was invented by me after a talk with Cowan.

karis [ 2019-05-10T08:21:32Z ]

   Point of order taken.

karis [ 2019-05-10T08:35:12Z ]

   @lagleki, please stop going into detail on the changes. They aren't pertinent at the moment.
   
   @bookofportals,
   
   Here's my comments to all that, in no particular order.
   
   * I'm sure everyone involved knew lojban wasn't and isn't, perfect. Improvement of an imperfect thing beyond a certain point isn't always advisable, however. It's where that point is located which is the question. There is a point of diminishing returns, for one thing. Lojban also leaves open a way for anyone to say anything without... 

karis [ 2019-05-10T08:48:46Z ]

   * [point contributed] ... changing the core language. Also, just because experimental cmavo, it whatever, are being discussed doesn't mean they are a good idea or that change is necessarily a good idea. It may be, but that isn't necessarily true. Many very vocal people are currently discussing ways to make the USA more Caucasian, but it's certainly not a good idea for the country or the world. I'm also not assuming that there are no possible changes which would be a good idea either. I simply think that there are very few out there. 

karis [ 2019-05-10T08:52:07Z ]

   * It may not be necessary for LLG to have a special committee to deal with language change at this point in time. I think that's a necessary discussion before we establish a new one. 

karis [ 2019-05-10T09:28:29Z ]

   * Personally I love how much enthusiasm you've shown towards lojban, @bookofportals .i also think the discussion and decision system you've introduced is fascinating. That's why I've encouraged discussion about it.
   
   * A large part of the disconnect between the lofty purpose of the bylaws and reality is that there are very few who want to do any real work. As an example look at the number who've actually been uncooked in discussions of this proposal vs the number on this chat all of whom should be aware of it since they received the announcement of it. That's among a very small percentage of the number of people in the broader lojbanistan. It would be great if the announcement of a new committee meant volunteers would flood in to participate. LLG could easily form this new and improved byfy (which is basically what the proposal creates), but the my reason I see that increasing involvement in evaluating passivity changes is because of whatever energy you, @bookofportals, put in to advertising it. If they only come to see their own idea examined and approved, as I'm concerned would happen. How many would actually do the rest of the work? 

karis [ 2019-05-10T09:36:09Z ]

   @lojbab, it might help if you would tell us what you and @noras think LLG should be doing at this point, as @bookofportals asked. This seems to have gotten lost in the discussion and is definitely pertinent. 

greg_g [ 2019-05-10T09:36:20Z ]

   Just one comment about the impossibility to have meaningful coordination of the LLG community, mentioned by lojbab: this is really not in line with the reality of the innumerable communities of volunteers that routinely coordinate themselves very well despite no financial resources (to build things at scales bigger than lojban, even).
   Sometimes a set of clear objectives, a bit of leadership and a bunch of enthusiasts can go a long way!

gleki [ 2019-05-10T09:36:28Z ]

   I was just replying to lojbab

karis [ 2019-05-10T09:38:20Z ]

   Do you (@greg_g) think, then, that we need more concrete objectives, or more specific and achievable ones? 

karis [ 2019-05-10T09:40:06Z ]

   We can certainly publicize objectives more limited in scope than those the organization has legally. (in the Bylaws). 

greg_g [ 2019-05-10T09:43:07Z ]

   Definitely! I have difficulties imagining a volunteers community where the volunteers are not told (or have a say in) what to do. If the answer is "nothing except usxing the language as it is now", then the work of the LLG is done and it can be closed.

karis [ 2019-05-10T09:52:03Z ]

   Also, when you consider the development of lojban that's exactly what there was. Up until I left LLG to raise my kids a group of very involved, enthusiastic people had completed the basic development of lojban and gotten to the "we need to document this" stage, where in many ways the language still sits. There's the CLL, and  I was around to help edit the original. There are learning materials of varying adherence to the official language, but there still isn't a complete (original gismu, cmavo, and rafsi) dictionary. We knew we needed that in the 1990's, and many of the clarifications lojban has needed, like parallel structures of similar concepts, would have been resolved if a meaningful effort had been made to create one. 

karis [ 2019-05-10T09:54:13Z ]

   None of us were up to taking on that task and no one has done so yet. As I understand it, the BPFK was created in large part to do exactly this. 

karis [ 2019-05-10T10:15:13Z ]

   @greg_g the community at large hasn't been told to only use the language as given, though I can see how they may have gotten that impression. For instance, I expect it's been a long time since the BPFK asked for volunteers. 

karis [ 2019-05-10T10:45:47Z ]

   @greg_g, are you willing to help come up with these and publicize them? I'm getting together a group of people who will do community outreach and this fits right in.  It isn't an official committee at this point, but may be later. 

greg_g [ 2019-05-10T12:33:46Z ]

   @karis I might have some ideas, but I would argue that setting the goals and priorities of the project is one task that cannot be outsourced to volunteers. It should come from the leaders/veterans. Do you think it would be possible to have a sort of structured roadmap of future lojban products (CLL editions, dictionary, guides, webpages, etc.), how you envisage them?

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:31:03Z ]

   It doesn't mean they're necessarily a good idea. I just think that it's very unlikely that *all* of them are a bad idea, and I think someone should be put in charge of checking.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:36:43Z ]

   The LLG seems to have a lot of trouble getting decisions through. The discussion over my proposal has taken literally months now, in large part because things are just happening very slowly. Don't get me wrong, deliberation and discussion are good things. I'd just like for more of time to be spent discussing and less waiting for comments. Smaller groups are generally better for that kind of discussion, which is why I think a committee would be helpful. Inactivity could be a problem, as it is here, but I'd think that a committee could realistically suspend inactive members and add new ones (presuming that one can find someone interested) in order to retain a relatively high participation rate. I think the LLG is just too big to have detailed technical debates. Ratifying proposals or requesting changes, yes, but not trying to debate tiny details itself.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:40:14Z ]

   I strongly suspect that having a committee and placing it solely in charge of documentation is always going to fail (given the nature of the Lojban community, and in particular its small size and composition of largely intellectuals). The basic problem is that a lot of people think of documentation as the boring part and defining things as the fun part. So frankly I think some people would feel like the original language designers had done all of the fun stuff and then left all of the boring documentation for them.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:42:13Z ]

   The solution is to give a body the power to suggest changes and also put it in charge of documentation, with the provisio, whether implicit or explicit, that if it wants to make any changes it better document them first, including for instance updating the CLL. This is something the BPFK never did, perhaps because the CLL wasn't clearly specified to be in its scope. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:43:23Z ]

   To be clear, I'm not suggesting that people should make whatever changes they want. But the power to suggest changes, if they are believed to be appropriate, should go to the same people in charge of documentation.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:45:56Z ]

   I generally concur with @greg_g's proposal for clearer prioritization. I'd also say that someone has to (officially or unofficially) be put in charge of setting those priorities and supervising their completion, and I think that something like @karis's working group might be appropriate.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:48:13Z ]

   I'm happy to help out with that. Actually, I'm happy to help out in general, as long as helping out doesn't mean doing grunt work with no authority over the relevant area of development.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:53:14Z ]

   By the way, I disagree about the improvement thing. Improvement is always to be encouraged. The further you get along in the process the more careful you need to be to make sure you aren't breaking things, but the goal should always be to continue working towards perfection. I don't think there's any point where a project such as this one can ever truly considered complete.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T22:53:52Z ]

    I think the attempt to declare Lojban substantively complete was, to put it mildly, unwise. Saying that there are going to be higher standards for changes going forward is fine. Saying that no changes are going to be allowed, or setting conditions that make it essentially impossible for a good idea to ever be adopted, is essentially a death sentence for the project to my way of looking at things.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T23:01:06Z ]

   Frankly, I also think that it was the responsibility of those who were originally in charge of designing the language to document there work as they go along, rather than leaving it for others. I find the expectation that other people are just going finish documenting their work highly unrealistic and unwise. If they thought that they had finished the language, they ought also to have finished fully documenting it themselves, with a dictionary and whatever else was appropriate.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T23:01:30Z ]

   From my personal experience, I can say that it is much harder to document something that someone else has written than to document your own work yourself as you're writing it.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-10T23:03:34Z ]

   @karis If there is a way I can help, please let me know.

gleki [ 2019-05-11T05:29:03Z ]

   Changes without documentation can't exist. As the example with xorlo shows. LLG voted for it but the documentation is lost or wasn't presented to llg. The two wikis have documentation on some "xorlo" but some pages were created or changed AFTER the llg vote

gleki [ 2019-05-11T05:52:10Z ]

   What founders did was in no way "interesting" or "easy" as the modern proposals. Look at how lojbab feared ambiguity when using "bo". Who cares about similar things now? Almost nobody. The era of carelessness

bookofportals [ 2019-05-11T06:38:21Z ]

   I agree that documentation is necessary for changes to work in practice. I tend to agree with your position that now changes should be formally adopted (i.e. at the LLG level) until documentation exists.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-11T06:39:45Z ]

   I don't believe I ever said that what the founders did was at all easy. To be clear, I think it was substantially more difficult than writing documentation is, and writing documentation isn't the cakewalk most people seem to think it is.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-11T06:40:16Z ]

   However, I do believe that making changes is probably substantially *more* interesting than documenting them.

gleki [ 2019-05-11T08:24:28Z ]

   You cant make a change without documentation. How is that even possible? You need to know what is precisely changed. Therefore, there must be documentation either in your head or in a document. 
   
   Or maybe you mean someone can say "let's change the meaning of this construct" without understanding which contradictions in CLL this change can produce

karis [ 2019-05-11T12:04:06Z ]

   There is this:
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/ongoing_projects
   
   and this:
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/What%27s_next%3F
   
   as well. 

karis [ 2019-05-11T12:15:35Z ]

   As a point, the work done creating lojban is documented. Every language decision from that period is documented, mostly in meeting notes. What needs to be done with that material, such as the dictionary, is take it from rough form to a finalized printed form as @john.cowan did when he wrote the CLL. The work by the BPFK has holes in its documentation, but that is after the language was created and after many years with documentation. 

karis [ 2019-05-11T12:44:31Z ]

   I will. 

dersaidin [ 2019-05-12T03:28:21Z ]

   I also think goals are very important, and lacking. Also see: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!searchin/lojban/Goals/lojban/vJ9KOgN17Do

karis [ 2019-05-13T01:51:44Z ]

   Oh I'm not saying they're shared well or written well, necessarily. I was just saying they exist. 

dersaidin [ 2019-05-13T15:41:10Z ]

   @karis, the ongoing projects and what's next links you just posted yesterday are tasks, not goals

karis [ 2019-05-13T16:48:43Z ]

   The post to which I was responding said we needed both goals and priorities. These lists, particularly the first, are basically statements of priorities. There have been discussions of goals as well, though I haven't been able to track them down. I wasn't by any means trying to say either, or both together, were sufficient. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. 

dersaidin [ 2019-05-14T15:47:32Z ]

   Ah, ok.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-14T18:14:59Z ]

   I mean someone could try to make a change without specifying it clearly or thinking through the consequences. To be clear, I think the result would be confusion and chaos, but that doesn't make it impossible, just a terrible idea.

karis [ 2019-05-15T13:31:39Z ]

   I get dumped into a list of topics, with no idea which you meant to be pointing the link at. 

dersaidin [ 2019-05-15T14:22:50Z ]

   Oops.
   https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/vJ9KOgN17Do/_oCnfZYq6XoJ

bookofportals [ 2019-05-16T17:00:57Z ]

   @karis What next steps are there for getting my proposal voted on? Is there something more you think should be discussed?

karis [ 2019-05-17T22:10:29Z ]

   @channel, TIME TO VOTE 
   
   It seems no one wants to say more at this time on @bookofportals' proposal to replace the BPFK, seconded by @ilmen, and restated in the next two posts. The vote on this proposal will end at midnight / 0;00 UTC on May 20, 2019. 

karis [ 2019-05-17T22:12:54Z ]

   The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   dissolved.
   
   The LLG hereby commissions the LFK (a.k.a. "lojbo fuzykamni",  "lyfy") as a
   standing committee. This committee shall succeed the BPFK and assume its rights
   and responsibilities, insofar as they are not superseded by this charter. The
   LFK is charged, on behalf of the LLG, to:
   
     1. Improve and maintain formal descriptions of, and technical standards for,
        Lojban;
     2. Elaborate upon undocumented and under-documented language features;
     3. Respond to issues that arise in usage;
     4. Maintain language documentation and instructional materials;
     5. Coordinate a Request for Comment process whereby any member of the Lojban
        community can make proposals relating to the these purposes, solicit public
        comment on the proposals, and have their proposals evaluated and decided
        upon by LFK or its delegates;
     6. Supervise and encourage volunteer activity related to these purposes; and
     7. Always consider the implications of its actions for the retention of
        current language users and the growth of the language community.
   
   The LFK is expressly empowered to determine its own decision-making process and
   pursue its own agenda within the scope of its charge as specified in this
   charter. The LFK is encouraged to review the governance models of other open
   organizations, including open source projects, and to consider them in the
   formulation of its rules. It is also encouraged to annually review its policies
   in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
   
   It is expected that almost all decisions of the LFK will be made by consensus,
   rather than a pure vote. While the LFK may formulate standards for determining
   consensus, a matter shall be settled by a vote only if no other option appears
   viable. The LFK is expected to be transparent in the conduct of its affairs,
   ensuring that all of its processes are openly advertised and easy to find, and
   responding to all concerns raised by members of the public about its decisions
   or processes. The LFK shall provide ample opportunity for public comment before
   any significant decision is made.
   
   The LFK may select a chair, coordinator, or other leader, according to whatever
   procedure and with whatever responsibilities it decides. If it decides not to
   elect another leader, it must at the very least select a spokesperson, who will
   represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or
   Special Meeting of the LLG. Until the LFK otherwise directs, its leadership
   shall be vested in a chair, selected by instant runoff vote of the whole
   committee for a term of 6 months and thereafter until a successor is elected,
   who shall have responsibility for reporting on its activities to the outside
   world, presenting its annual report to the LLG, representing it before the LLG
   and Board, coordinating its members, overseeing the formulation of its agenda,
   supervising its meetings, and ensuring that accurate, complete, and organized
   records of its decisions are kept. Although the chair shall have primary
   responsibility for discharging these functions, all final responsibility and
   power shall be vested in the committee as a whole.

karis [ 2019-05-17T22:13:30Z ]

   The LFK is authorized to adopt standards for the Lojban language which may
   include, but are not limited to, lists of words, definitions in various
   languages, human or mechanical specifications of the grammar, and instructional
   or reference texts. The LFK may develop standards documents or recognize
   documents which have been developed by other bodies or individuals.
   
   Standard documents approved by the LFK shall be deemed a "candidate standard" of
   the LLG. The LFK shall report all standards adopted by it and not yet presented
   for review to each annual meeting of the LLG. The LLG reserves the power to
   review such standards and to ratify them by majority vote, or to decline to do
   so, or to ratify them with changes, as it sees fit. If a standard presented to
   it is so ratified, the standard may thereafter be described as an "official
   standard" of the LLG. Until the ratification takes place, a standard cannot be
   considered a standard part of the Lojban language and should not be presented as
   being official or standard Lojban, although it may be used for the purposes of
   testing and experimentation.
   
   The LFK is responsible for maintaining documentation, including the CLL and such
   other documentation as it may deem beneficial to its purposes, in two editions,
   one updated to match "official standards" and one updated to match "candidate
   standards", each conspicuously labeled as such.
   
   The LFK shall, in addition to any other information in its annual report,
   include a summary of everything it has done in the proceeding year and specific
   areas of focus for the following year. It may also recommend for consideration
   by the membership any amendment to this charter or other action that it believes
   will be beneficial.
   
   Upon adoption of this policy, the Annual Meeting of LLG membership may appoint
   members to the committee by a simple majority vote. After this election, the
   authority to appoint or elect members to the LFK will be delegated to the
   committee itself. The members appointed by the LLG will be considered to
   constitute the entire and exclusive membership of the committee until such a
   time as the LFK exercises the authority to manage its own membership.
   
   In the case that policies specified in this document are found to contradict
   policies previously established by the LLG, its Board of Directors, or the BPFK,
   the policies in this document should be held to supplant the previous policies.
   The LLG Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws shall in all cases supersede this
   motion and any policies adopted under it by the LFK.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-18T22:32:43Z ]

   I vote for the proposal.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-18T22:39:43Z ]

   The proposal seems to me to have very few costs and high potential benefits. The LFK would at the very least be able to rule on errata for the CLL and would be tasked with the responsibility of bringing the CLL up to date with xorlo and dotside. It could potentially approve helpful additions to the language in light of usage and experience. It would provide an outlet for people to submit changes that are currently used without ever being formally considered, but would also be responsible for evaluating and debating publicly whether those changes are advisable. It wouldn't be able to break the language, since all language proposals would have to be ratified by this very body. At worst, it would be ineffective; at best, it would be one part of the revitalization of the community, completing projects long neglected such as documentation updates.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-18T22:41:57Z ]

   That is why I think my proposal is a good idea and why I believe everyone should vote for it.

karis [ 2019-05-19T13:38:51Z ]

   You're trying to sell your proposal still. That should be done before the voting, not during it. 

karis [ 2019-05-19T13:39:58Z ]

   I now restate @lojbab's vote against this proposal for him. 

phma [ 2019-05-19T15:37:03Z ]

   I vote yes.

phma [ 2019-05-19T15:38:16Z ]

   You have less than nine hours to vote.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-19T18:09:11Z ]

   My sincere apologies. I intended it as a short explanation of my reasoning for my vote, and I was under the mistaken impression that such things were acceptable. In future I will refrain or post in side-conversations.

ilmen [ 2019-05-19T19:38:26Z ]

   I hereby vote yes.
   I'm not convinced the proposed committee is very different from the BPFK —although clarifying that submitting CLL modifications (including errata/corrections) to the LLG is in the scope of the committee is a good thing—, but maybe pressing the reset button will do some good. It'll be an occasion to refresh the membership with currently active people, in any case.

phma [ 2019-05-20T02:00:51Z ]

   I just got back. It's 2:00 UTC.

karis [ 2019-05-20T02:19:19Z ]

   @channel,  It is still May 19th on the east coast of the USA, so the voting period goes for just under another 20 hours as I meant the middle of tomorrow night, not tonight. I apologize for any confusion.  

phma [ 2019-05-20T02:20:49Z ]

   Thanks for the clarification. You mean 22 hours, right?

bookofportals [ 2019-05-20T02:23:08Z ]

   *Sigh*. It is rather distinctly past 0:00 UTC on the 20th, and the pedant in me wants to raise a point of order, but I don't suppose an extra day of voting will do anyone any harm, so I won't.

karis [ 2019-05-20T02:25:17Z ]

   It isn't that posting explanations for votes is necessarily not something I encourage. You, however, wrote the proposal, are presenting what you've already said about it on at least one or two other occasions, and state that this is why it should be voted for. That's what makes your statement more than a simple explanation.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-20T02:26:41Z ]

   Got it, I'll take that into account in the future. I apologize for my error.

karis [ 2019-05-20T02:29:10Z ]

   Yes. I'm in the middle of almost two weeks of traveling and my brain is fried. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-20T02:49:29Z ]

   My apologies for my impatience. One day really doesn't make any difference at all; I'm just a tad frustrated at how long this entire discussion has taken (I think most people here are at this point), something that is not anyone in particular's fault and certainly not yours, @karis .

karis [ 2019-05-22T02:53:56Z ]

   As the voting is concluding, I hereby state that I obstain from voting on this proposal. 

karis [ 2019-05-22T02:56:08Z ]

   @channel
   
   VOTE TOTALS for @bookofportals' recent proposal:
   
   FOR - 3
   AGAINST - 1
   ABSTAIN - 1
   
   The motion passes.
   
   The BPFK (byfy) is hereby dissolved, as of the start of the next Members Meeting (on or about September 1, 2019).The delay is in order to give members of this committee and /or the committee as a whole time to provide the Members of the LLG with written documentation in English (and lojban or other language if the individual or committee desires) for all decisions, positive or negative, made excluding those few for which such has already been provided. These several months will also allow for the dissemination of information about the new committee, hereby called the lojbo fuzykamni ( abbreviated LFK or Lyfy), in order to notify as much of the lojban community as possible  and to encourage anyone interested in becoming involved with it to notify a Board Member in the interim or to announce such at the next Members Meeting. 

gleki [ 2019-05-22T06:12:34Z ]

   Can we now discuss other proposals?

karis [ 2019-05-22T18:59:15Z ]

   We still have one piece of this last discussion to take care of, then yes.
   
   @channel, since I decided, based on earlier discussion, that byfy would exist yet for a few months in order to finish providing the documentation for the decisions the committee made, for and against we still need to officially ask @solpahi or someone else to manage it unroll the next meeting.  I believe you, @lagleki, were one of those pushing for this and you're one of those who's been part of byfy so I hope you'll help provide us with this information. Once the decision of who will be in charge for the next few months then we can either entertain more motions or end the meeting. 

solpahi [ 2019-05-22T19:19:43Z ]

   As I understand the phrasing of the proposal itself (which has now passed), the BPFK ceased to exist the moment the motion passed. The LLG may now appoint members to the new committee (LFK) by a simple majority vote. Until then, it's a committee without members.

gleki [ 2019-05-22T19:39:12Z ]

    Pardon, what exactly do I need to do?

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T12:40:22Z ]

   1. No one had the goal to create a perfect language. The goal was to create a speakable language differing from natural languages in specific ways. 2.  Since it is impossible to create a perfect language, and that wasn't the goal, there is no particular reason why "some improvement is advisable", especially since there is no agreement on what "improvement" of a language is.  For example some might consider the irregularities of English spelling to be worthy of improvement, and yet the claim that "some improvement is desirable" is a laughing matter for most people.  It is arguable that a change might be considered if  something is seriously BROKEN; it is not the case that changes should be considered merely because some people think that the design isn't perfect. 3.  Lojban is past the "design" phase, and merely talking about the possibility of changes is probably a far greater cause of people not learning and using the language than the design being other than optimal.  4.  Experimental cmavo are part of the language design, which means that usages of such cmavo are to be expected and planned for, and no change is necessary. and finally 5, your opinion that some change is "necessary" is utterly irrelevant to me and most others because the language design is not intended to be subject to the random opinions of whoever may be expressing them at any given time.

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T12:47:12Z ]

   " I think updating the language in response to the results of those experiments,".  I daresay that you haven't a clue about how scholarly research in linguistics is conducted (I'm not an expert myself, but I know that fiddling with the language design is not a scholarly endeavor.  As yet, there have been no experiments of the sort envisioned in that purpose (and please remember that I am the one who wrote that bylaw purpose), and continuing to change the language will ensure that there will never be enough language users to conduct any experiments. 

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T12:49:46Z ]

   "I don't see how shutting down anyone who wants a change is productive in fulfilling those responsibilities. Not every change should be adopted; many shouldn't. But they need to be considered, their advantages and disadvantages weighed." There are NO advantages to the research goals to be achieved by changing the language, and considering changes that are not absolutely necessary is counterproductive at this point..

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T12:54:52Z ]

   We will have to think on this a bit more (we are highly distracted right now because my son just got married and is trying to make a move to a new city), and any answer I might have should not be discussed in the context of the current motion,

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T13:08:56Z ]

   "The basic problem is that a lot of people think of documentation as the boring part and defining things as the fun part. So frankly I think some people would feel like the original language designers had done all of the fun stuff and then left all of the boring documentation for them."  My answer to this is simply "too bad".  If you want to have the "fun" of inventing a new artificial language, go do so.  Elsewhere.  There have been hundreds of artificial languages invented. Loglan/Lojban has spun off several others attempting to reinvent the wheel.   While LLG *could* support such efforts, the community has never shown much interest in doing so.    And the only relevant resource LLG could possibly provide such an effort is the interest of the community, so with no interest, we have nothing to offer those who would fiddle with the design.

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T13:11:48Z ]

   "Improvement is always to be encouraged. "  Let me know when you get English spelling to be reformed.  IN the realm of Lojban, I have no sense that you (or any other individual) have any particular expertise as to what would be an "improvement".

lojbab [ 2019-05-23T13:27:50Z ]

   "I don't believe I ever said that what the founders did was at all easy. To be clear, I think it was substantially more difficult than writing documentation is, and writing documentation isn't the cakewalk most people seem to think it is."  The bulk of what the founders did was in fact nothing other than writing documentation.  Remember that Lojban started as a relexification of TLI Loglan to evade an intellectual property dispute, correcting a few agreed-upon problems (and the reasons for those corrections was largely to justify the claim that our work was not merely derivative (in the intellectual property legal sense).    Writing the documentation that became CLL led to discovering a few areas where the design was in fact broken. but the fixes were each documented as we went along.  What we did NOT do was create a dictionary, and the main problem we had in creating a dictionary was in coming up with dictionary definitions and entries for the  cmavo.  BPFK was essentially established to come up with those dictionary definitions, so that we could publish the dictionary.  20 odd years later, we still do not have dictionary definitions for all of the cmavo.  And the reason for this is that the people who volunteer for BPFK are like you interested in changing the language, and not finishing the job that BPFK was intended to do.  (We did have other tasks for BPFK to do after that initial task was done, but they have never yet been a priority from LLGs  perspective.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-23T20:20:47Z ]

   That was my understanding as well. There's nothing requiring us to vote on members for the LFK right away, but AFAICT the BPFK no longer exists.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-23T20:31:08Z ]

   I do in fact have a clue how scholarly research in linguistics is conducted. I'm not an expert, but I've listened to presentations from those who are that included sections on their methodology and watched a documentary on the subject. Indeed, scholarly research generally doesn't involve changing the language being used, but, generally, the language wasn't designed for the purpose of the experiment. I'd say we're already well outside the ordinary conventions of linguistic research. 

karis [ 2019-05-24T01:50:46Z ]

   Whether or not the proposal ended the official life of the BPFK I was allowing its members the exact time which they were specifically given earlier in this meeting to provide the documentation some members of this meeting insisted was needed.

karis [ 2019-05-24T03:09:39Z ]

   You've got it backwards, @bookofportals. Lojban WASN'T designed solely for the purpose of research. Research was a hope, not a necessity and you seem to be confusing the LLG and lojban. The purpose you quote is for this organization. The organization supports the language, but isn't it. Whatever research someone chooses to do using lojban we will do our best to support.
   
   Besides, wouldn't it make sense if there was so much improvement to be made to lojban then byfy should have proposed more than two major changes to the LLG in all the years it operated? 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-24T03:12:45Z ]

   Erm... I did quote the entire purpose statement, not just the research portion. If it sounded like that was the only bit I cared about, I apologize. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-24T03:17:03Z ]

   Lojban and the LLG are not the same, but the purpose statement says what goals should be taken into account by the LLG. Since the LLG maintains Lojban, it seemed to make sense to take those goals into consideration when maintaining Lojban. Do you disagree with that assessment? I made it on the assumption that it was uncontroversial premise agreed upon in advance; it's possible I was wrong, in which case talking about the purpose statement won't be particularly productive. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-24T03:29:54Z ]

   To be clear, I don't think that "so much improvement" is necessary. I think that it's distinctly possible, and maybe even likely, that some aspect of the language needs improvement. I'd like to keep an open mind, looking at various proposals and seeing if they'd really make things better, rather than rejecting everything by default as some people seem to advocate. That doesn't mean that I'm assuming that something needs to be changed or that I think changes should be accepted by default. I'm just advocating for the position that we should put someone in charge of looking at the changes very closely and considering all of their advantages and disadvantages and then telling us if a good change comes up. I've seen some changes that look to my eyes like they might be advisable; I'd prefer to have a process for rigorously testing them to see whether that's actually the case, with as widespread community involvement as possible to test them. I don't have a specific change that I'm trying to get adopted; I don't think the language needs widespread rewriting or comprehensive reform; I just think that some people might have ideas that deserve to have their flaws pointed out, and if everyone agrees that the pros sufficiently outweighs the cons, adopted. Change is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Change for the sake of change is usually bad, if for no other reason than that it confuses people. However, purposeful and careful change, correctly handled, can cause an absolute improvement.

gleki [ 2019-05-24T15:44:35Z ]

   > We still have one piece of this last discussion to take care of, then yes.
   
   Which piece?

karis [ 2019-05-25T17:14:28Z ]

   No one, even @lojbab, from things he's recently posted (see below) and from other conversations, are saying there can't be changes that we'll realize are necessary. Many on the board are actively involved in various chats and keep an eye on the that come up.
   
   He just recently said, "It is arguable that a change might be considered if  something is seriously BROKEN; it is not the case that changes should be considered merely because some people think that the design isn't perfect...  Lojban is past the "design" phase, and merely talking   about the possibility of changes is probably a far greater cause of people not learning and using the language than the design being other than optimal."

karis [ 2019-05-25T17:18:34Z ]

   That was appointing someone to supervise finishing up the byfy documentation. It's generally much more difficult to get committee members to finish their mandated jobs after the committee is dissolved, but if the rest of you all feel we should drop the idea of getting any more documentation from that group I'm willing to change what I said earlier, but please don't complain later that we don't have the information. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-26T01:26:08Z ]

   Well, yes, but broken is a rather strong word. Xorlo, for instance, fixed a major flaw in the previous design. Whether that was an actual breakage is hard to define, but it was certainly a good idea to fix it.

gleki [ 2019-05-26T08:20:09Z ]

   I think veion, solpahi, ilmen, myself did what they could. Some of them were given a duty to present documentation. I don't think anything else is possible now to do with fetching it. So I propose that we drop the idea to try to fetch anything else from BPFK

gleki [ 2019-05-26T08:20:33Z ]

   I disagree xorlo fixed any flaws

ilmen [ 2019-05-26T20:59:43Z ]

   ``That was appointing someone to supervise finishing up the byfy documentation.``
   Karis, why do you exactly mean by "finishing up the byfy documentation"?

bookofportals [ 2019-05-26T21:09:19Z ]

   Would you at least agree that dotside fixed a flaw?

bookofportals [ 2019-05-26T21:13:31Z ]

   I believe Karis thinks that it would be helpful if we had full documentation of every decision the BPFK made, including decisions *not* to adopt a change to the language. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-26T21:14:28Z ]

   I'm not convinced that anything the LLG can do will produce that documentation, so it may not even be worth trying. Of course, if we could persuade someone to do it, that would be lovely.

solpahi [ 2019-05-26T22:03:45Z ]

   You can read all the past BPFK discussions by going to the BPFK mailing list archives.

gleki [ 2019-05-27T06:18:20Z ]

   What is "flaw" to you? Language is already spoken, unambiguous in the part where dotside is applied. If you mention existential import then I may agree that there is a self-contradiction in CLL.
   Same for "BAI gi X gi Y". Two tables in CLL contradict each other.

karis [ 2019-05-27T06:50:24Z ]

   If you read lojban. Not all are in English. 

karis [ 2019-05-27T06:50:53Z ]

   It wasn't I that suggested we needed more documentation, though I agreed, nor I who proposed, in mid-January, a requirement for byfy to provide it. The proposal, by @lagleki was seconded, voted upon, and passed.
   
   The following are the most relevant posts:
   
   @lojbab started this discussion, as far as I can tell, by saying, "There have been a variety of experimental cmavo proposed and added to jbovlaste (which as far as I know is still unofficial, but ,..) .  I do not know which if any of these cmavo have even been considered by byfy, much less approved.  We need a list." (January 13, 2019)
   
   I replied, "A list of these cmavo, as well as a list of what has actually been approved, is certainly necessary. This is true regardless of the BPFK's "fate". A gulf exists now that making those meetings solely in lojban widened." (January 16)
   
   There was a short conversation of how to get this information to which @lagleki replied, "No. Why? Why should I even believe people? There must be documents, not people." (January 17)
   
   The next day he stated, "I propose that BPFK present all internal materials with its official decisions to us including but not limited [to] xorlo. It should be an exhaustive list." (January 18, 2019),
   
   
   

gleki [ 2019-05-27T07:04:51Z ]

   Not all are in Russian, French, Japanese. The solution is quite simple. Learn Lojban and read them.

karis [ 2019-05-27T17:39:44Z ]

   @lagleki it isn't acceptable to tell people they must learn a language in order to understand documentation about it. Imagine if Python documentation for important changes to its structure from the first edition to the second were only written in Python and required a thorough, fluid understanding on the language to read. It wouldn't work. Thud. The vast majority of people wouldn't keep learning and using it.

gleki [ 2019-05-27T18:06:16Z ]

   But BPFK's decisions weren't about learning lojban. They changed lojban itself. 

karis [ 2019-05-27T18:28:05Z ]

   If the new committee members will be approved during our next meeting, we have until sometime next autumn to create the new committee, so I propose the following:
   
   @channel
   PROPOSAL
   
   I move that an open committee (called the "LFK Initial Documents Committee") consisting of those members and others interested in creating text and graphic materials to advertise the creation of and promote interest in the LFK be created at this time. It would be responsible for creation of announcements, a job description for voting members, and an explanation of the process by which proposed language modifications will be analyzed, along with whatever else they decide is needed. This committee will be dissolved automatically at the conclusion of the 2019 LLG Members Meeting, to allow for design and production of additional materials determined important by its members or by the 2019 LLG Members Meeting participants. 
   
   ARE THERE ANY SECONDS? 

karis [ 2019-05-27T18:30:31Z ]

   I made this proposal before considering anything unrelated to the LFK so that ongoing committee could get underway. As soon as we are finished with this matter, that I expect will only take several days, other proposals may be made. 

bookofportals [ 2019-05-27T19:11:24Z ]

   @karis I second the motion.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-27T19:13:24Z ]

   I've come up with some ideas for sample policies that I'd be happy to discuss with whoever else is interested in working on it. 

karis [ 2019-05-28T05:50:32Z ]

   @channel SECONDED
   
   My proposal to form a committee to do the preparatory work for the new committee, the LFK, has been seconded.
   
   DISCUSSION is now started. 

gleki [ 2019-05-28T06:37:36Z ]

   Is there any priority in proposals? I made my proposal earlier. Why do you move your proposal ahead of mine, @karis ?

gleki [ 2019-05-28T06:40:38Z ]

   I vote against such proposal. My main objective is that this proposal was published and moved before I published my proposal. I had no chance in moving my proposal despite explicitly asking when I'm allowed to discuss other proposals. I think this dictatorship is totally unappropriate.

gleki [ 2019-05-28T08:29:06Z ]

   When are the next President elections?

karis [ 2019-05-28T10:23:32Z ]

   I explained that I put mine forward first because it is tightly related to the proposal we just approved. Yours will follow, then the meeting will end unless someone purposes the end of the meeting between now and then. 

karis [ 2019-05-28T10:41:45Z ]

   If these decisions are only provided in lojban then they require prior knowledge of it to understand the writeup. Further, changing lojban changes whether people will be willing to learn it, and means the learning materials need to be updated. . 

karis [ 2019-05-28T12:00:05Z ]

   The last elections for officers, which are carried out by the Board, took place last August. They typically follow the end of the Membership Meeting to allow all the Board Members to focus on one meeting at a time. 

lojbab [ 2019-05-28T16:23:26Z ]

   The purpose statement shows what goals MAY be taken into account by the LLG.  LLG is not required to act on all of its permitted goals at once, nor even to consider all of its goals in making decisions.

lojbab [ 2019-05-28T16:29:06Z ]

   In point of fact, when Lojban was designed, LLG was at least as interested in resolving the dispute between LLG and TLI, in which case we would have probably been supporting some modified version of TLI Loglan, and Lojban would never have been "finished".  But later it was (explicitly) decided that our best course of action was to consider that Lojban IS Loglan.  There has never been any organizational interest in supporting research with more than one language or version.

lojbab [ 2019-05-28T16:34:08Z ]

   The President has the power and authority to create ad hoc committees and/or to ask individuals to undertake tasks supportive of organizational goals. Her asking people to finish tasks that were assigned to byfy is entirely legitimate, until/unless someone or someones are officially assigned such authority by vote of the membership or the Board.   

lojbab [ 2019-05-28T16:41:02Z ]

   I could be wrong, but as a point of order, I think that the chair is not allowed to make motions under parliamentary procedure.   But per my earlier statement, the President can create this committee ad hoc.  (If people want to formally create this committee, The President can ask for a motion, the seconder can propose it as a motion, and I will second it purely in order to make the discussion legitimate.)

gleki [ 2019-05-28T17:18:46Z ]

   I am more and more inclined to think that by some either deliberate or unconscious force actions here in llg are made in order to prevent anyone from doing anything. Last time it happened when Ali offered to lend a hand. Obstruction or sabotage is reigning here.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-29T05:06:31Z ]

   I believe the point about the chair not being allowed to make motions is true if we count this as an assembly and not true if we count it as a committee or a small board.

bookofportals [ 2019-05-29T05:10:01Z ]

   I certainly doubt there's any malice involved. On the other hand, it can be quite hard to get things moving, and the combination of having many things to do while lacking broad activity is overloading the process. I'd suggest waiting and seeing if the meeting is able to work things out eventually, and if your proposal doesn't come up for a vote by the end of the meeting, making whatever changes you think are necessary and then worrying about getting them approved later. Right now though, I'd suggest that the best course is probably patience. 

gleki [ 2019-05-29T07:00:38Z ]

   I've been waiting for more than 4 years. Others for many more years. So no, no more time to wait

karis [ 2019-05-29T10:48:02Z ]

   It depends on whether you are waiting for only your idea and no other to be passed and supported, or if you are working towards broader goals. 

karis [ 2019-05-29T10:55:00Z ]

   You've had proposals examined over the time I've been president, @lagleki. In this very meeting, in fact, you moved for BPFK to be required to provide all it's decisions and the vote was passed. When I tried to make sure this happened after the most recent proposal passed I was told by various members, including you if I'm not mistaken, that this couldn't happen because the newer vote dissolved that committee immediately. 

gleki [ 2019-05-29T15:26:24Z ]

   I didn't tell you that about the new committee. I told that we had gotten answers on decisions from my earlier passed proposal. It passed before the new committee was dissolved

karis [ 2019-05-29T15:32:56Z ]

   @lagleki you misunderstood. We voted to require we receive more detailed information from BPFK. We hadn't gotten all that the vote specified we needed so I was giving the members of byfy more time to provide those details. 

karis [ 2019-05-29T15:42:08Z ]

   @lojbab's POINT OF ORDER has been added to the record.
   
   Upon checking with an online Robert's Rules of Order it appears presidents may make motions, though this is very rare. I also found the note that this is more common in smaller meetings. 

karis [ 2019-05-29T15:43:35Z ]

   Would anyone else like to make a motion on this point instead? 

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T13:26:35Z ]

   Re "I am more and more inclined to think that by some either deliberate or unconscious force actions here in llg are made in order to prevent anyone from doing anything. Last time it happened when Ali offered to lend a hand. Obstruction or sabotage is reigning here." -- My recollection is that Ali's offer entailed certain & significant cost and uncertain benefit. There certainly is an excruciating sclerosis afflicting the LLG, but I don't think declining Ali's offer was an example of that.

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T13:34:54Z ]

   Is there some reasonable way to see and search a record of the whole meeting? In my cluelessness I find I have to manually click "load earlier messages", at which point it loads about a day's worth; and the meeting has been going on since at least October.

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T13:38:56Z ]

   At any rate, I noticed that Karis had said that the meeting should end shortly, and I had wanted to see if we had already elected the Board back in the eocene of this meeting.

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T13:42:04Z ]


   Whoa! Major bugs here! What I see ("Is there some reasonable way to see and search a record of the whole meeting? In my cluelessness I find the answer to the question "load earlier messages", to which point it is about a day's worth; and the meeting has been going on. At any rate, I have noted that the meeting should end soon, and I would have liked to see it in the future.") is not at all what I wrote!

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T13:46:47Z ]

   Okay, so Mattermost seems to be buggered in Chrome but not in the Mattermost Android app.

solpahi [ 2019-05-30T13:52:53Z ]

   I'm not aware of a way other than clicking "load earlier messages".

gleki [ 2019-05-30T17:52:04Z ]

   No he explicitly offered free of charge. But sorry it wasn't in this chat, it was at Board's meeting so not a good example, I agree.

gleki [ 2019-05-30T17:54:16Z ]

   Yeah. And on Android there is "search" button which somewhat helps. We can also export the whole history in case we decide to move out of here

karis [ 2019-05-30T19:23:41Z ]

   I have searched in every way I could, and apparently who was on the Board came up in November and apparently no one noticed we had not actually had the election. My apologies. 

karis [ 2019-05-30T19:25:43Z ]

   @channel there has been an error and the new Board has not been elected during this meeting as fast as I can tell. If no one objects I would like to carry this out immediately. 

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T20:17:19Z ]

   Would it be convenient for you to remind us what the officers are and who currently holds them?

and.rosta [ 2019-05-30T20:21:18Z ]

   The instance I had recalled was Ali proposing that a friend of theirs be paid US minimum wage to do something like galvanize Lojban-related social media activity (I forget the details of what was proposed or the forum where it was proposed).

solpahi [ 2019-05-30T20:24:02Z ]

   It was for a "project manager" position

solpahi [ 2019-05-30T20:24:03Z ]

   http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2015-April/000615.html

karis [ 2019-05-30T22:48:49Z ]

   According to my records the Board members, with officers noted, are as follows. If there are any errors please bring them to my attention. 
   
   karis - president
   lojbab - vice-president
   mukti - secretary/treasurer 
   noras
   and 
   ilman
   lagleki
   xorxes
   phma
   banseljaj
   krtisfranks
   
   

gleki [ 2019-05-31T06:26:28Z ]

   Karis, note that some of these members are not in "board" group

karis [ 2019-05-31T14:05:28Z ]

   I realized that when I found the list. I'm also not positive it is up to date as I can't access emails that old, and even have trouble with ones from last Fall due to my email client. 

karis [ 2019-06-02T02:52:50Z ]

   I just found out that the Board, according to @mukti, is a follows:
   
   * Robert LeChevalier - vice-president 
   * Ali Sajid Imami
   * Riley Martinez-Lynch - secretary/treasurer 
   * Karen Stein - president 
   * Arkadii Balandin
   * Curtis Franks
   
   This should be the most up to date list. 

gleki [ 2019-06-02T12:44:00Z ]

   When can I make my proposal?

karis [ 2019-06-02T19:05:01Z ]

   Go ahead. 

karis [ 2019-06-02T19:08:40Z ]

   @channel, as soon as @lagleki's proposal is finished I will be calling for all of you who have suggestions for changes to the makeup of the Board to state then. 

solpahi [ 2019-06-02T19:10:25Z ]

   But there is already a motion on the table (karis' motion, which has been seconded by bookorportals).

karis [ 2019-06-02T19:21:14Z ]

   Due to the question of whether presidents can make motions I asked, on the 29th, if anyone wanted to make the motion instead. Since no one replied, I'm considering it not on the table. Instead I'll make the committee in one of the ways @lojbab mentioned. 

solpahi [ 2019-06-02T19:22:36Z ]

   Since presidents can make motions and it has been seconded, I would expect it to be on the table unless explicitly withdrawn.

solpahi [ 2019-06-02T19:22:50Z ]

   But there was no discussion of the proposal anyway.

karis [ 2019-06-03T00:30:45Z ]

   I understand your point, @solpahi.  @channel, I am removing my proposal from consideration at this time. 

gleki [ 2019-06-03T12:15:14Z ]

   I propose that we discuss the following draft:
   Veto mode of updating CLL:
   Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes have been recorded ~15 years ago. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL
   Proposed solution in short: a one-time job with most hard work delegated to Gleki, with minimum possible effort from anyone else. Gleki asks LLG members + fluent speakers if a collection of mistypes is okay or not and after getting the feedback compiles a new version of CLL and presents it to LLG for verification and approval.
   Proposed solution in detail:
   the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.
   
   Any full member of LLG and any fluent speaker of Lojban can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually. In case a fluent speaker vetoes a change this vetoing must be done in Lojban and optionally in English by providing reasons why this change should not be applied. In case a full LLG member vetoes a change the full member must provide in English their reasons why this change should not be applied. The replier must be informed beforehand that their replies with their publicly visible IDs, names, nicknames will be publicly logged by LLG for future reference.
   Who is "fluent speaker of Lojban"? Any person who can speak grammatically correct Lojban and who can be understood by any LLG member who is a fluent speaker too. Veto mode minimizes possible scenarios when such a fluent speaker disagrees with a change to CLL but some malicious person (like Gleki, zo'oru'e) pretends that he/she/ze/they don't understand that a veto was made. In such cases any other LLG member or fluent speaker can translate the veto or even veto a change themselves instead of that person.
   
   Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes but for this one-time job the document is final)
   LLG waits for 2 weeks since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.
   In 2 weeks in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.
   Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.
   LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.
   Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)
   
   le ve cusku (means of transferring veto replies): in case of LLG member this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. Among those are:
   * #lojban, #ckule,#jbosnu Freenode IRC channels.
   * https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/
   * this Framateam Mattermost channel
   * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban
   * any page of mw.lojban.org
   
   Non-formal procedures: anyone is encouraged to publish this proposal wherever allowed once this proposal passes.

karis [ 2019-06-03T21:23:24Z ]

   PROPOSAL
   
   @channel, @lagleki has made a proposal as follows. Is there a Second?
   
   I propose that we discuss the following draft:
   Veto mode of updating CLL:
   Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes have been recorded ~15 years ago. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL
   Proposed solution in short: a one-time job with most hard work delegated to Gleki, with minimum possible effort from anyone else. Gleki asks LLG members + fluent speakers if a collection of mistypes is okay or not and after getting the feedback compiles a new version of CLL and presents it to LLG for verification and approval.
   Proposed solution in detail:
   the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.
   
   Any full member of LLG and any fluent speaker of Lojban can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually. In case a fluent speaker vetoes a change this vetoing must be done in Lojban and optionally in English by providing reasons why this change should not be applied. In case a full LLG member vetoes a change the full member must provide in English their reasons why this change should not be applied. The replier must be informed beforehand that their replies with their publicly visible IDs, names, nicknames will be publicly logged by LLG for future reference.
   Who is "fluent speaker of Lojban"? Any person who can speak grammatically correct Lojban and who can be understood by any LLG member who is a fluent speaker too. Veto mode minimizes possible scenarios when such a fluent speaker disagrees with a change to CLL but some malicious person (like Gleki, zo'oru'e) pretends that he/she/ze/they don't understand that a veto was made. In such cases any other LLG member or fluent speaker can translate the veto or even veto a change themselves instead of that person.
   
   Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes but for this one-time job the document is final)
   LLG waits for 2 weeks since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.
   In 2 weeks in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.
   Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.
   LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.
   Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)
   
   le ve cusku (means of transferring veto replies): in case of LLG member this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. Among those are:
   * #lojban, #ckule,#jbosnu Freenode IRC channels.
   * https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/
   * this Framateam Mattermost channel
   * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban
   * any page of mw.lojban.org
   
   Non-formal procedures: anyone is encouraged to publish this proposal wherever allowed once this proposal passes.

john.cowan [ 2019-06-03T22:07:00Z ]

   Although I am not a member or a fluent speaker, and therefore don't qualify for a veto, I would like to ask for the opportunity to review as the author-of-record.

karis [ 2019-06-04T01:13:28Z ]

   Please do, @john.cowan. This involves corrections and changes to a book you wrote as you said, for one thing, and I for one will look for any comments you want to make. 

gleki [ 2019-06-04T04:13:52Z ]

   Ok I suggest that in the proposal we explicitly add John Cowan to the first group which would be called "llg members plus John Cowan"

karis [ 2019-06-04T11:07:59Z ]

   Let's wait and see if anyone agrees to second this, @lagleki, before we make amendments. In any case thank you for making more people aware of this list. 
   
   Also, even without this proposal being approved, @john.cowan, you can certainly go over these suggested changes and ask one of us to propose those you agree with at next meeting. They don't need to be addressed all at once for the changes to be made. I'm not even sure it's any easier to address them as a group. 

bookofportals [ 2019-06-04T16:59:21Z ]

   Point of order: A motion can be amended by its proposer at will until it is seconded and stated by the chair.

gleki [ 2019-06-04T18:02:47Z ]

   No, no. I'm not amending the proposal

gleki [ 2019-06-05T13:17:48Z ]

   Looking at the text of my proposal I know see grammatical mistakes. Too late to amend them, luckily it's not the text of a reference grammar, .u'i

karis [ 2019-06-05T15:29:14Z ]

   Your POINT OF ORDER has been recorded, @bookofportals. I was asking him to wait not because it was incorrect, but so that my request for a second would stand out. It's extremely rare for an author's amendments, particularly to clarify or correct errors, to be rejected. 

john.cowan [ 2019-06-05T17:42:33Z ]

   (as parliamentarian) A stated and seconded proposal may be amended by the author or anyone else.  In the case of an author's amendment, it is usual for the chair to say "Are there any objections?", and if there are none, the amendment passes and the main motion is up for consideration again.  If there *are* objections, the amendment is voted on in the usual way.

john.cowan [ 2019-06-05T17:43:13Z ]

   (But apparently this is hypothetical, as the author doesn't want to amend.  I don't think I need to be included by an amendment anyway.)

john.cowan [ 2019-06-05T17:45:00Z ]

   A good way to say "Are there any objections" might be "xu pante".

karis [ 2019-06-05T19:47:58Z ]

   Thank you for the input, @john.cowan. I think the question as whether it was me for me to ask the author to wait until the proposal had been seconded. 

ilmen [ 2019-06-05T20:11:02Z ]

   I hereby second the motion of Gleki.

karis [ 2019-06-05T20:41:23Z ]

   @channel, 
   the proposal by @bookofportals has been SECONDED by Ilmen.
   
   DISCUSSION may begin. 

gleki [ 2019-06-06T05:35:22Z ]

    So now within llg rules we may discuss the proposal. I suggest that we change "llg member" to "llg member or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL". We can also change the Google document since we only discuss the proposal. @john.cowan is everything okay? Maybe after all you can complete your revisions there?:)

gleki [ 2019-06-06T05:36:15Z ]

   "have been recorded ~ 15 years ago" needs to be changed to "were recorded"

karis [ 2019-06-06T09:48:33Z ]

    @lagleki. Please tell me if the following is correct. 
   
   You would like to make the following amendment to your proposal:
   * Change "LLG Member" to "LLG Member or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of the CLL"
   
   What confuses me in your post is the line, "We can also change the Google document since we only discuss the proposal." Do you mean that we should _not_ change what is in the Google document during this discussion? At the end it seems you mean we can make any changes to that afterwards 

gleki [ 2019-06-06T09:55:19Z ]

   Cowan, not Cowen, otherwise yes.
   
   

gleki [ 2019-06-06T09:57:15Z ]

   The Google doc can be changed once we are only discussing my proposal. Since the proposal is a draft. If you think that the Google doc shouldn't be changed anymore then ok, it's no big deal.

gleki [ 2019-06-06T09:58:56Z ]

   What confuses you is that if my proposal passes then according to it the Google doc can no longer be changed. But the proposal itself is just being discussed. I don't even propose to vote on it now.

karis [ 2019-06-06T11:54:38Z ]

   I Apologize to @john.cowan about my typo, now fixed. I typed it when I wasn't yet awake.
   
   Now I understand what you meant, @lagleki. I knew the Google doc couldn't be changed if your proposal passes. What confused me was how you phrased your post. In any case... 

karis [ 2019-06-09T04:20:56Z ]

   @channel, @lagleki has offered an AMENDMENT to his proposal as follows. I clarified the wording with him before officially announcing this.
    
   @lagleki would like to change the wording to replace "Any full member of LLG" with "Any voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL" and  "LLG  Member" to "LLG Member or John W. Cowan".
   
   Are there any objections? 

gleki [ 2019-06-09T06:04:54Z ]

   The change looks fine to me. Thanks for formalisation of my suggestion.

karis [ 2019-06-09T12:02:02Z ]

   No problem. 

karis [ 2019-06-11T04:26:54Z ]

   @channel as there have been no objections, @lagleki's ammendment to their proposal has been made.
   
   The full new wording will be in my next post. 

karis [ 2019-06-11T04:36:23Z ]

   I (@lagleki) propose that we discuss the following draft:
   Veto mode of updating CLL:
   Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes have been recorded ~15 years ago. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL
   Proposed solution in short: a one-time job with most hard work delegated to Gleki, with minimum possible effort from anyone else. Gleki asks LLG voting members, John W. Cowan, and fluent speakers if a collection of mistypes is okay or not and after getting the feedback compiles a new version of CLL and presents it to LLG for verification and approval.
   Proposed solution in detail:
   the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background  denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.
   
   Any voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and any fluent speaker of Lojban can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually. In case a fluent speaker vetoes a change this vetoing must be done in Lojban and optionally in English by providing reasons why this  change should not be applied. In case a voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan vetoes a change the member or John W. Cowan must provide in English their reasons why this change should not be applied. The replier must be informed beforehand that their replies with their publicly visible IDs, names, nicknames will be publicly logged by LLG for future reference.
   Who is "fluent speaker of Lojban"? Any person who can speak grammatically correct Lojban and who can be understood by any LLG member who is a fluent speaker too. Veto mode minimizes possible scenarios when such a fluent speaker disagrees with a change to CLL but some malicious person (like Gleki, zo'oru'e) pretends that he/she/ze/they don't understand that a veto was made. In  such cases any other LLG member or fluent speaker can translate the veto or even veto a change themselves instead of that person.
   
   Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes but for this one-time job the document is final)
   LLG waits for 2 weeks since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.
   In 2 weeks in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.
   Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.
   LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.
   Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)
   
   le ve cusku (means of transferring veto replies): in case of LLG member this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. Among those are:
   * #lojban, #ckule,#jbosnu Freenode IRC channels.
   * https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/
   * this Framateam Mattermost channel
   * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban
   * any page of mw.lojban.org
   
   Non-formal procedures: anyone is encouraged to publish this proposal wherever allowed once this proposal passes.

karis [ 2019-06-11T09:06:57Z ]

   @lagleki, on rereading the proposal over again for the fifth or so time I realized I missed changing the wording in this last post to follow the amendment in the last paragraph. Would you please check and tell me if you meant "LLG member" as it has read free you submitted it, "LLG voting member", or "LLG voting member or John W. Cowan"? The last follows the amendment, however it does not match what I believe may be your intention for it technically opens the places fluent people may submit wide own on a technicality and burdens @john.cowan with having to monitor all such publicly logged means of communication to which he has access. 

karis [ 2019-06-11T09:17:54Z ]

   As no one has commented about the proposal details yet, after giving several days for this I will now offer a few comments myself.
   
   First, I do not believe that only allowing two weeks after approval for anyone to a) hear about this proposal and vote, b) have the time to my read, consider, write an explanation, and submit this could easily leave many voting members who are not participating in this meeting  with the opportunity. And, since there are fluent Lojban speakers who are not voting members, these people would have even less opportunity. To answer the belief that they are all involved in one of the more well known online in lojban chats or voice chats, I remember a discussion in the Board Meeting last year about the difficulty of reaching the communities of lojban speakers who are connected through having learned via a language other than English. They too, presumably, have important contributions to make to this effort as well, and I don't even know if a list for the fluent speakers around the world exists for them to be contacted quickly.
   
   Second, somehow this proposal only says this chat is "a means" for providing vetoes for the non-fluent, yet specifically allows use of "any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member (or LLG voting member if @lagleki correctes it). This is discriminatory, though I doubt intentionally so, and leaves open the possibility that unless @lagleki will be the alloted veto period thoroughly monitoring all communication methods that fit the rest of us will also be responsible for catching all such submissions and bringing them to his attention very quickly. This is an extremely wide range of of means, even without including those extras @john.cowan could be responsible for if I was not correct in leaving him out of that line. 

gleki [ 2019-06-11T10:22:57Z ]

   I don't see how John W.Cowan is required to monitor anything. I think we should change "in case of LLG member  this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. " into "in case of LLG member or  John W.Cowan this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member and John W.Cowan means of communication is okay. "

gleki [ 2019-06-11T10:23:23Z ]

   I also suggest to change "Many mistypes have been recorded ~15 years ago. " into "Many mistypes were recorded ~15 years ago. "

gleki [ 2019-06-11T10:24:56Z ]

   I'm not sure "malicious person (like Gleki, zo'oru'e)" would be okay in an official proposal or official activity. On the other hand, boring document is no good.

gleki [ 2019-06-11T10:28:23Z ]

   1. "Two weeks" might be too short. What do you suggest? Two months? It's up to us to inform everyone we can reach.
   2. I'm not sure what you suggest in regards to publicly accessible chats. I wanted every reply to be publicly logged so that in future we remember why a given change was vetoed, what was the motivation behind such a veto.

karis [ 2019-06-11T13:23:38Z ]

   1) Two months sounds much more me reasonable, though we do need to be sure to allow for those, likely few, people without easy email access while on vacation as it's that time of year. 
   
   2) I think the same options, this chat (with translations, if not in English), or a specific list of logged communication methods including email to you or any Board member willing is fine as long as everyone who can file vetoes can use the same methods. I objected to there being many  ways listed for one group and not the other. The methods should be specific, in my opinion, so they can be monitored by you and who ever else is willing to do so and can forward them to a centralized place in the form of copies, and links as well as appropriate. I suggest a designated chat here to keep them readily accessible and to provide additional logging. 

karis [ 2019-06-11T13:29:58Z ]

   I'm glad you, @lagleki, agree that expecting @john.cowan to monitor anything wasn't reasonable. I also don't know which, if any, logged chats and such he monitors so including that it needs to be accessible to him doesn't make sense. If it is all gathered here anyway he can read it easily enough then. 

karis [ 2019-06-11T13:38:06Z ]

   As a point, if only a few people are still paying attention to what is going on here still it is my suggestion that someone proposes we continue this and any other topics at the next meeting. I'm concerned that only five people even voted on the last proposal as this represents fewer than a quarter of the voting members. 

gleki [ 2019-06-11T15:02:23Z ]

   What if the next meeting doesn't help? 

gleki [ 2019-06-11T15:03:24Z ]

   Which phrase suggests John needs to be accessible?

gleki [ 2019-06-11T15:04:32Z ]

   2. You want to add email as another ve cusku?

karis [ 2019-06-11T15:41:03Z ]

   I said he did not. If I had put him in every time you said "LLG Members" THEN he would be expected to be available so I did NOT follow the amendment exactly. I was just explaining this decision.
   
   I was not saying to link the email. I was saying that if I, for instance, receive an email I would post a copy in the chat I will set up for this and for screenshots from whatever chat with a link, if possible. If I see a post in a chat, including this one, I will therefore screenshot or otherwise copy it and post that to the designated chat. 

gleki [ 2019-06-11T17:11:57Z ]

   But only in case the author of a post is informed of making their post public

karis [ 2019-06-12T02:55:55Z ]

   Well, you specified that for the non-fluent people so it should apply to all, or the group should be closed to most and the vetoes all be as private as we can. 

gleki [ 2019-06-12T06:17:43Z ]

   Every vote vote with reasons provided by the author should be publicly logged. No matter who is the author, an llg member, John or a fluent speaker. The author must be informed that their vote and reasons will be publicly logged.
   
   Is there anything wrong in regards to this in the discussed text of the proposal? If yes please say what phrase should be changed to what

lojbab [ 2019-06-12T23:28:24Z ]

   My opinion on the procedure is that, when a draft is published, it should be announced here (or some equivalent channel for member discussions outside the meeting) and on the members (and maybe also the Lojban) mailing list, and John Cowan should be notified/sent a copy.  Members may comment (on a suitable channel and.or the mailing list) and/or may vote to approve the text.  If gleki agrees with a comment, and changes the text accordingly, he will acknowledge the comment as responded to (if he objects, then presumably some discussion will ensue, hopefully leading to agreement; if there is no agreement, then John Cowan will decide).   When a majority of members has approved of the draft, and John Cowan has approved, then the draft will be considered approved (the Board will serve as the certifying authority that these criteria have been met).  John Cowan's role differs from members in that he has veto power over any change, and over the entire text, although he can also post comments for changes/discussion if he wishes, per the above.  When a draft is posted, the Board will decide on a maximum period for review/discussion. and/or a maximum period of silence on the commenting channel, as signifying an end.  If insufficient members have approved by that end, the Board can choose to approve in their stead.  The Board can negotiate with John Cowan to resolve any objections he has, so as to gain his approval.  The President of LLG shall have the authority to adjudicate any issues with these procedures, subject to appeal to the Board.

bookofportals [ 2019-06-13T00:08:48Z ]

   Just so everyone remembers, the LFK will be elected in the Fall, and one of it's functions (its core function, arguably) will be to take over maintenance of documentation. All we're talking about here is a temporary stopgap for dealing with some errata. It's temporary, doesn't need to be perfect, and frankly shouldn't be too big a deal.

lojbab [ 2019-06-13T00:29:44Z ]

   The LFK will inherently not have authority over CLL, because John Cowan as author has reserved his right to veto. 

lojbab [ 2019-06-13T00:31:00Z ]

   The implementation of the LFK motion will be up to the Board of Directors, as are all things done by LLG outside of the members' meeting.

bookofportals [ 2019-06-13T00:32:02Z ]

   The motion establishing the committee did explicitly give them authority. However, I think it's quite unlikely that the committee would act against the wishes of the original author. 

bookofportals [ 2019-06-13T00:33:17Z ]

   As I understand it, the president does not intend to actually call for appointments to the committee until the next members meeting.

bookofportals [ 2019-06-13T00:35:58Z ]

   I intended no challenge or disrespect to the board's authority, or to John Cowan's. I was simply trying to point out that we've already decided on a long term maintenance process (hand it off to the LFK), that this is just a discussion about how to deal with gleki's errata in the meantime, and that given those facts, I was of the opinion that people might be overthinking the problem.

bookofportals [ 2019-06-13T00:39:40Z ]

   We're talking about documentation updates here. They're important, but they also aren't likely to be extremely contentious (as, for instance, language changes are). The probability of a dispute that can't be resolved amicably is pretty low.

bookofportals [ 2019-06-13T00:48:49Z ]

   And furthermore, right now we're discussing errata, which are the smallest possible documentation corrections and should usually be fairly obvious one way or the other.

karis [ 2019-06-13T02:26:34Z ]

   @lojbab, would this be after the initial vetoes and @lagleki's rewrite, or do you mean each change should be presented in context together with all the others (marked some how with the original provided as well)? 

gleki [ 2019-06-13T02:33:16Z ]

   I want every llg member, fluent speaker and John Cowan to have veto power over any change to CLL.

karis [ 2019-06-13T02:39:26Z ]

   I believe @lagleki meant for these changes to stand, once approved, unless further problems are noticed later. I doubt the LFK would be going over all the pre-written material rapidly at the beginning anyway, so this would mean one less group of things it had to address.
   
   As for whether the LFK is by vote responsible for upkeep of the CLL, due to @john.cowan's reserved right of veto means it can only make changes to it in any form after providing him with the draft and asking for his approval. The Membership meeting, Board, or any person or group other than these hasn't the right to change this. The only reason it isn't written into the LFK charter is this meeting wasn't reminded that the situation existed. 

john.cowan [ 2019-06-13T03:03:34Z ]

   To be clear, I do *not* claim a veto, only the right to be heard.

karis [ 2019-06-13T03:06:37Z ]

   Alright. It may be that @lojbab misremembered. In any case all changes should be given to you before publishing or posting publicly so you have an opportunity to speak if you choose. 

john.cowan [ 2019-06-13T03:19:55Z ]

   Yes, thanks.

gleki [ 2019-06-13T05:52:59Z ]

   I insist we allow John to make veto decisions if he chooses to. This would be in line with the current state of the draft.

karis [ 2019-06-13T19:44:34Z ]

   @lagleki no one is saying we won't. 

karis [ 2019-06-15T03:41:10Z ]

   @lagleki are you willing to change the procedure in your proposal from presenting it to the LLG to the more specific method that @lojbab gave as a suggestion in the post to which this is linked? 

bookofportals [ 2019-06-15T04:28:59Z ]

   @karis I believe that @lagleki disagrees. He said "I want every llg member, fluent speaker and John Cowan to have veto power over any change to CLL." This appears to be an expression of disagreement with lojbab's proposal.

karis [ 2019-06-16T06:25:18Z ]

   @bookofportals ,as I understand what @lojbab said his idea would happen _after_ the veto period and is details of how @lagleki's rough drafts produced afterwards are shared for LLG member review. @lagleki doesn't explain how this would be done in his proposal. 

gleki [ 2019-06-16T10:23:55Z ]

   > are you willing to change the procedure 
   
   No. Why? There are communication channels listed. A person provides reasons why a certain change should be discarded. Then Gleki collects all responses and compiles a new version of CLL. What can be simpler?

gleki [ 2019-06-16T10:25:07Z ]

   > This appears to be an expression of disagreement with lojbab's proposal.
   
   Lojbab seems to have proposed that majority should decide. This proved to be detrimental. Almost any Lojbanist disagrees with at least one proposal. In the end almost all Lojbanists are unstatisfied. Veto mode solves that.

gleki [ 2019-06-16T10:25:29Z ]

   > after the veto period
   
   Which veto period are you talking about?

gleki [ 2019-06-16T10:27:32Z ]

   > @lagleki's rough drafts produced afterwards are shared for LLG member review. @lagleki doesn't explain how this would be done in his proposal. 
   
   Maybe you want from my proposal something else? I compiled a list of proposed changes. Through designated communication channels vetoes are sent and collected by Gleki. Non-vetoed changes are included into a candidate edition of CLL, which is presented to LLG. the new CLL edition become a release version. That's all.

karis [ 2019-06-17T00:36:30Z ]

   I believe you misunderstand me. I was saying nothing about changing the veto in your proposal in any way. Neither, I believe, is @lojbab. Once the veto period is over you would write up the documents with the vetoes in place then you'd "present them to the LLG for approval". You don't say how you are sharing them nor how this final approval is accomplished.
    
   Since no specific mechanism for having the corrected documents disseminated nor approved is included I'm suggesting @lojbab's method specifically for this step. 

gleki [ 2019-06-17T05:00:13Z ]

   Sharing them in this channel or whatever llg will be using at that time. Approval can be done using standard llg procedures.

karis [ 2019-06-18T15:08:37Z ]

   "Standard LLG procedures" is what @lojbab and I were trying to define in this case. 

karis [ 2019-06-18T15:17:37Z ]

   @channel, unless anyone else has something to add to this discussion before 0:01 on June 20th voting on @lagleki's current proposal will begin then. 

karis [ 2019-06-23T15:05:20Z ]

   @channel,
   
   VOTING
   
   No one seems interested in voting on this proposal, or those who do want to are all waiting until the last minute. Therefore, the voting period is ending at 23:59 UTC tonight. If anyone has an issue with this, plead send me a message explaining what it is. 

karis [ 2019-06-23T15:11:58Z ]

   The proposal, with amendments, follows:
   
   With discussed corections:
   
   Veto mode of updating CLL:
   Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes were recorded 15 years ago or more. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL
   Proposed solution in short: a one-time job with most hard work delegated to Gleki, with minimum possible effort from anyone else. Gleki asks LLG voting members, John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and fluent speakers if a collection of mistypes is okay or not and after getting the feedback compiles a new version of CLL and presents it to LLG for verification and approval.
   Proposed solution in detail:
   the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background  denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.
   
   Any voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and any fluent speaker of Lojban can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually. In case a fluent speaker vetoes a change this vetoing must be done in Lojban and optionally in English by providing reasons why this change should not be applied. In case a voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan vetoes a change the member or John W. Cowan must provide in English their reasons why this change should not be applied. The replier must be informed beforehand that their replies with their publicly visible IDs, names, nicknames will be publicly logged by LLG for future reference.
   Who is "fluent speaker of Lojban"? Any person who can speak grammatically correct Lojban and who can be understood by any LLG member who is a fluent speaker too. Veto mode minimizes possible scenarios when such a fluent speaker disagrees with a change to CLL but some malicious person pretends that he/she/ze/they don't understand that a veto was made. In  such cases any other LLG member or fluent speaker can translate the veto or even veto a change themselves instead of that person.
   
   Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes but for this one-time job the document is final)
   LLG waits for 2 months since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.
   In 2 months in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.
   Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.
   LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.
   Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)
   
   le ve cusku (means of transferring veto replies): in case of LLG member this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. Among those are:
   
   #lojban, #ckule,#jbosnu Freenode IRC channels.
   https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/
   this Framateam Mattermost channel
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban
   any page of mw.lojban.org
   Non-formal procedures: anyone is encouraged to publish this proposal wherever allowed once this proposal passes.

karis [ 2019-06-23T15:22:42Z ]

   While I'm sending multiple announcements, here's another.
   
   @channel,
   
   There is now a public channel to discuss and produce whatever is necessary to get the LFK started, so anyone can join easily. Among other things this group will be wiring the actual message to be sent out for announcing the creation of this committee. Please join if you are interested. 

phma [ 2019-06-23T16:37:43Z ]

   I vote yes.

karis [ 2019-06-23T17:04:01Z ]

   @phma thank you for responding. Was there a problem with my initial post saying when voting would start so it wasn't shared or clear, or did you just get around to it? 

phma [ 2019-06-23T17:55:58Z ]

   I had other things going on. Wednesday I had to leave early to pick something up at a doctor's office, then filled the time with errands before a meetup that evening; Thursday I had to prepare food for a potluck at a place I'd never been to before.

karis [ 2019-06-23T18:19:16Z ]

   Ok, good. It means the information got out and everyone has either been busy or is uninterested in voting. I'm hoping that we can quickly take care of Board elections, since I can't find a record of them from the fall, and then close the meeting. @lojbab and I are discussing ways to speed up the meeting without losing participation so they don't run nearly this long in the future. 

bookofportals [ 2019-06-23T18:53:40Z ]

   I abstain. I'd personal wait for the LFK, but these procedures seem fine as a temporary measure. 

bookofportals [ 2019-06-23T18:55:15Z ]

   Personally, I misinterpreted your message. I thought you were going to make an announcement when voting started, and were just saying when you'd make that announcement, so I kept waiting for you to actually say "Time's up, voting starts now". Entirely my error.

ilmen [ 2019-06-23T21:52:30Z ]

   Oh, I didn't notice votes were opened

ilmen [ 2019-06-23T21:52:47Z ]

   I vote in favor of Gleki's proposal.

karis [ 2019-06-23T22:24:37Z ]

   Since there was confusion I'll leave the voting open an extra 24 hours. That means it ends at 23:59 UTC tomorrow night. 

karis [ 2019-06-23T22:25:30Z ]

   @channel, please VOTE now. 
   

and.rosta [ 2019-06-23T22:28:04Z ]

   I abstain. (It seems like a good idea, but I don't want to cast a vote on it.)

karis [ 2019-06-23T22:36:45Z ]

   I would have been much happier about it if @lagleki had taken the proposal to the Board as I suggested rather than extending this meeting even further. 

gleki [ 2019-06-24T05:35:24Z ]

   Given that the board is totally silent it would mean voting on the proposal would be delayed

gleki [ 2019-06-24T05:44:51Z ]

   Can Karis and Gleki vote too?

gleki [ 2019-06-24T15:29:41Z ]

   In case I can vote I vote in favor of last Gleki's proposal

karis [ 2019-06-24T19:24:32Z ]

   Everyone who is a voting member gets to vote. I tend to wait and cast mine at the end of the voting period. 

karis [ 2019-06-24T19:28:45Z ]

   The Board didn't respond in the few hours between you posting the proposal there and posting it here, but would have dealt with it. The Board channel is active whenever there is something to discuss, as unlike this meeting it is continuously occurring. 

karis [ 2019-06-24T19:46:23Z ]

   Why wouldn't we be able to vote? 

karis [ 2019-06-26T02:35:12Z ]

   My vote was for the proposal.

karis [ 2019-06-26T02:38:22Z ]

   @channel VOTE TALLY
   
   Yes - 4
   No - 0
   Abstain - 2
   
   The proposal passes. 

karis [ 2019-06-26T02:46:32Z ]

   @channel, now we will rapidly deal with the composition of the Board.
   
   Currently the Board, according to @mukti's records, consists of:
   
   LeChevalier, Robert
   
   Director (1988-Present), Founder
   
   Imami, Ali Sajid
   
   Director (2014-Present), Member since 2012
   
   Balandin, Arkadii
   
   Director (2014-Present), Member since 2014
   
   Martinez-Lynch, Riley
   
   Director (2014-Present), Member since 2014
   
   Franks, Curtis
   
   Director (2015-Present), Member since 2015
   
   Stein, Karen
   
   Director (2015-Present), Member 1990-2001 and since 2015
   
   If you see any mistakes please post it here.
   
   Is there anyone in the Board who would like to resign, or anyone who would like to propose themselves or someone else? 

gleki [ 2019-06-26T06:42:02Z ]

   Since the proposal passed do you think it should be published in the wiki at mw.lojban.org?

and.rosta [ 2019-06-26T06:56:59Z ]

   I propose myself, with the intention of furthering LLG's mission to support loglang research where opportunity arises, tho I don't foresee myself labouring in the next year to initiate such work. In the unlikely event that somebody did seek to take the initiative regarding that half of LLG's mission, having me on the board would make that initiative much more likely to be greeted enthusiastically rather than yawned at or shooed away.

gleki [ 2019-06-26T06:58:52Z ]

   I second this proposal.

gleki [ 2019-06-26T06:59:22Z ]

   Btw, any more details on this kind of research?

karis [ 2019-06-26T15:59:43Z ]

   It should not be published at this time. Please, @lagleki, write up just the details of how it will be accomplished and what the rest of lojbanistan can do to participate, in straightforward language without the explanation of why you proposed this solution. Present this in the Board Meeting channel and those of us for whom English is a first language will help you pilsner the result before it is published. This shouldn't take more than a week or two. At that point the result can be published across the chats and as a secondary document on the webpage. 

gleki [ 2019-06-26T16:02:51Z ]

   in this format? http://www.lojban.org/static/llg/minutes/2003_annual.html

karis [ 2019-06-26T16:07:47Z ]

   That format is for the minutes as a whole. It is my plan to directly ask @mukti if he will be able to produce minutes or if he wants someone else to take this task on for the moment. 

karis [ 2019-06-26T16:09:16Z ]

   Thank you, @and. I'll post a list of people who may be voted on including you in a few days. 

junpen [ 2019-06-27T02:12:55Z ]

   xlapam joined the channel.

karis [ 2019-06-27T04:08:23Z ]

   Welcome, @xlapam. Do you mind sharing why you've joined us? 

ilmen [ 2019-06-29T09:01:03Z ]

   coi la .xlapam.

karis [ 2019-06-29T23:52:48Z ]

   @ channel, 
   
   The following Board Members were voted in during the Members Meeting of the winter and early spring of 2017. The following winter the Board was accepted in full. That brings us to this meeting.
   
   Ali Sajid Imami
   Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)
   Karen Stein (karis)
   Curtis Franks (krtisfranks) 
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti)
   Miles Forster (selpa'i)
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki)
   Thomas Porter
   
   Please point out any corrections, and lojban names if not indicated above. 

junpen [ 2019-06-30T12:33:42Z ]

   coi .ui la .ilmen. i mi du'e roi cenba le ka se cmene .i .ai .au zo .junpenplixlal .a zo .junpen. gau basti zo .xlapam.

junpen [ 2019-06-30T12:40:30Z ]

   le za'i se cinri le se casnu cu mukti .i mi pu jundi le se mrilu notci be le me cy ly ly me'u poi cnino bei la gleki

gleki [ 2019-06-30T14:37:45Z ]

   coi jbocre

karis [ 2019-06-30T16:08:58Z ]

   Please provide translations. They are necessary in this meeting whenever someone uses a language other than English. 

karis [ 2019-06-30T16:13:54Z ]

   @junpenplixlal, @lagleki ^^^

john.cowan [ 2019-07-01T01:43:15Z ]

   I have gone through the CL 1.2 Google Doc and marked most of the items "JC OK". Some of them have suggestions from me different from what appears as a proposed change. On a few I have written "JC will think about it." None of these are vetoes.
   
   If there is anything that I have failed to mark, it is an oversight and I'd appreciate being told about it here or at at [email protected].

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T02:29:11Z ]

   coi jbopre .i xu do lonu mi de'u fanva cu curmi?

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T02:30:20Z ]

   .i za'a lo xe fanva cu se nitcu

karis [ 2019-07-01T05:04:59Z ]

   @la-robotin-daiter English, please. There are people here who do not speak lojban, or are not very fluent. Lojban is always welcome as long as this is also provided. 

karis [ 2019-07-01T05:07:04Z ]

   @john.cowan thank you for going through the suggestions so quickly. 

gleki [ 2019-07-01T05:45:21Z ]

   mi curmi

junpen [ 2019-07-01T06:19:18Z ]

   .i mi go'i .i .e'o fanva ki'e le xendo .i mi ge tcidu gi nai certu ciska lo jufra be fi le bangenugu no'u le glibau

junpen [ 2019-07-01T11:50:07Z ]

   I wrote that I allow translation and begged it and colled the offerer of the translation kind, and explained that I read but I don't write English skillfully. Before that gleki said that he or she also allows translation, because robotin daiter said he or she asked if translating my utterance is allowed, and said that translation is needed, he or she observed. gleki called ilmen skillfull lojbanist, and said hello, and I said hello too, and said that my name changes too often, and that I will make junpenplixlal or junpen be my name instead of xlapam, (which I used when I enter here because I registered for long time ago, but which I no more liked), because ilmen said hello to me.
   
   Sorry that I interviened. I didn't know that English is considered so absolutely necessary here.
   
   Anyway this is my last utterance here. I choose to become silent from the set to become silent and to speak English.

gleki [ 2019-07-01T12:12:11Z ]

   mi badri le nu sarcu fatu'a le glibau i mabla javni i ku'i za'adai lei catni cu jai bapli

solpahi [ 2019-07-01T14:10:17Z ]

   .i doi kamni co lojbo joi ji'a na'e lojbo ♪♫♬ ...

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T14:19:48Z ]

   .ua .uanai .i pe'i di'u na drata sagypemci...

karis [ 2019-07-01T14:25:55Z ]

   @junpenplixlal please do speak if you have something you want to say, either in English or lojban, or something else if there's a person here willing to translate. If you feel you need someone to do this for you with lojban (either lojban to English I'd you understand English well enough, or both ways if you don't) I'm sure someone would be happy to do it. On the other hand I had no me reading and understanding your English post so you can use this language and we will ask what you mean is we are ever confused. 

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T14:30:08Z ]

   lagleki: I am saddened that English is necessary. Bad rule. However, you are correct in observing that the authority does force it. 

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T14:30:25Z ]

   .i zo'onai mi tugni .i je'a mabla javni

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T14:30:48Z ]

   la-robotin-daiter: In all seriousness, I agree. Truly a bad rule.

gleki [ 2019-07-01T14:44:39Z ]

   "za'adai" is more like "as you can see" I think

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-01T14:46:22Z ]

   .i .u'u .ie

lojbab [ 2019-07-01T15:08:29Z ]

   This cannot be the elected Board, which can only have 7 members.  selpa'i explicitly resigned from membership and was never on the Board.  I don't know who Thomas Porter is, so I doubt that he is on the Board.

lojbab [ 2019-07-01T15:25:55Z ]

   Your message of the 25th citing mukti

lojbab [ 2019-07-01T15:26:23Z ]

   would seem to be the correct list

lojbab [ 2019-07-01T15:31:54Z ]

   I would prefer to keep mukti as Sec/Treas because we have no real provision for someone else to take over without his considerable assistance.  He has password control over all sorts of business-y sites (he left me a copy of some of these when you guys visited me), and only he knows the state of state and corporate and IRS filings.  I am skeptical that any one (including mukti) could possibly produce coherent minutes for the meeting as it currently exists, wherein neither you nor I seems to be sure whether we have held Board elections (and if we haven't, then all of the proposal discussions have been out of order)

and.rosta [ 2019-07-01T16:55:36Z ]

   Karis, that message is rather too on the computer-mangled side, given it's addressed to someone who might not be equipped to demangle it..

karis [ 2019-07-01T19:12:25Z ]

   Sorry, I'll redo it correctly in a little while. 

karis [ 2019-07-01T19:14:45Z ]

   Redo... 
   @junpenplixlal if you have something you want to say, either in English or lojban, or several other languages, there's likely a person here willing to translate. If you feel you need someone to do this for you with lojban (either lojban to English if you understand English well enough, or both ways if you don't) I'm sure someone would be happy to do it. On the other hand I had no trouble reading and understanding your English post so you can use this language and we will ask what you mean if we are ever confused. 

karis [ 2019-07-01T23:13:11Z ]

   @channel,     BOARD VOTE
   
   Since no one has asked to add someone or be added themselves, or is now time to vote on the Board. You may vote for all those listed as a group or vote for specific individuals. This voting period will end at 23:59 on July 4th, or sooner if everyone has voted.
   
   The people currently on the Board, using the list @lojbab agreed was correct, are:
   
   Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) 
   Ali Sajid Imami 
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki) 
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) 
   Curtis Franks (krtisfranks) 
   Karen Stein (karis) 
   
   
   
   

bookofportals [ 2019-07-01T23:47:44Z ]

   @karis Point of order: Unless I'm missing something, And requested to run above, and gleki seconded. 

bookofportals [ 2019-07-01T23:48:16Z ]

   I apologize for the disruption if I am mistaken.

and.rosta [ 2019-07-02T05:22:31Z ]

   Yes, I did propose myself for the Board.

gleki [ 2019-07-02T07:29:32Z ]

   I have to report on an important bug in my passed proposal on updating CLL. The document shows changes in the underlying docbook-xml code but not how the resulting CLL version will be rendered (i.e. how it will look like). The proposal passed, John Cowan had no problems with it. But some reviewers might not be knowledgeable enough.
   
   For this proposal we will have to rely on the rendered version of CLL that I will have to present to LLG (all accordng to the proposal) so that LLG can revise the result once again.
   
   For the next release cycles (if they are carried this way) there should probably be 1. a fuller more precise manually written explanation of differences 2. and/or a rendered version of CLL (probably a web-version) with all proposed changes integrated.

phma [ 2019-07-02T22:24:47Z ]

   Can we vote for And?

karis [ 2019-07-03T01:14:18Z ]

   Apparently my reply to @bookofportals didn't post. At it said was...
   
   @bookofportals, thank you for reminding me. Yes, the list of people should have included And.
   
   @channel as a correction, the list of people you may vote for includes And.

karis [ 2019-07-03T01:17:06Z ]

   @lagleki this is one reason I wish you'd waited to post your proposal information. I wanted to have the post to be reviewed by someone who's original language is English. A second or third review might have also caught this. 

karis [ 2019-07-03T01:31:13Z ]

   @channel,
   
   I have added everyone to the new channel for posting corrections arising from @lagleki's recent proposal so the posts and any conversation are separate from the Members Meeting. Feel free to remove yourself if you aren't interested in it. 

gleki [ 2019-07-03T13:24:42Z ]

   but the proposal passed.

phma [ 2019-07-03T22:03:19Z ]

   I vote for the current board and And.

karis [ 2019-07-04T02:59:13Z ]

   @lagleki yes, it passed and instead of having anyone go over what you planned to share you sent it out and then found out it was flawed. 

gleki [ 2019-07-04T03:05:49Z ]

   Do you mean a passed proposal can be blocked by llg from being ever published? Should there be a vote on whether a proposal can be published?

karis [ 2019-07-04T03:09:12Z ]

   What I am saying is that if you had waited until your post was read over by one or more Members before you posted in other groups than this issue you've found would likely have been noticed first. 

karis [ 2019-07-04T03:10:13Z ]

   I am not saying that I was trying to block it being posted at all. 

karis [ 2019-07-04T03:11:41Z ]

   @channel, voting on the board is open, in case anyone wasn't sure. Please vote for any or all of the following. If you want everyone you can say you are voting for the whole slate rather than list each person separately if you prefer.
   
   @channel,     BOARD VOTE
   
   Since no one has asked to add someone or be added themselves, or is now time to vote on the Board. You may vote for all those listed as a group or vote for specific individuals. This voting period will end at 23:59 on July 4th, or sooner if everyone has voted.
   
   And Rosta (la And) 
   Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) 
   Ali Sajid Imami 
   Arkadii Balandin (la gleki) 
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) 
   Curtis Franks (krtisfranks) 
   Karen Stein (karis) 
   
   
   All of these people can be on the Board together if they all receive votes.
   
   Please vote quickly so we can end this meeting. It has gone on much too long. 

gleki [ 2019-07-04T03:56:14Z ]

   The voting period ended. Whoever wanted or could read it had read it by that time. 

gleki [ 2019-07-04T03:56:51Z ]

   I vote for all of those individuals

and.rosta [ 2019-07-04T10:26:52Z ]

   I vote for all seven.

karis [ 2019-07-04T13:26:23Z ]

   Reading the proposal and voting on it, in this case, didn't necessitate reading the list of changes for how easy it was to understand. 

karis [ 2019-07-05T03:56:23Z ]

   Voting on the Board will close at 23:59 tomorrow, July 5th.

ilmen [ 2019-07-06T14:53:48Z ]

   For the Board vote, I vote for all seven as well.

karis [ 2019-07-07T02:22:13Z ]

   @channel, 
   
   Alright, including my votes the vote for the people to be on the LLG Board is as follows:
   Votes in favor - 
   And Rosta (la And) 5
   Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) 5
   Ali Sajid Imami 5
   Arkadii Balandin (la gleki) 5
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) 5
   Curtis Franks (krtisfranks) 5
   Karen Stein (karis) 5
   
   Votes against - 0
   Abstentions - 0
   
   Congratulations! 

karis [ 2019-07-07T02:23:08Z ]

   If someone else doesn't propose ending the meeting now, then I will. 

bookofportals [ 2019-07-07T03:17:15Z ]

   @karis I move that this meeting now adjourn.

karis [ 2019-07-07T04:55:14Z ]

   Thank you, @bookofportals.
   
   SECOND WANTED
   
   @channel, @bookofportals a moved that the meeting be adjourned. Is there a second? 

phma [ 2019-07-07T04:55:42Z ]

   I second it.

karis [ 2019-07-08T23:41:33Z ]

   Thank you, @phma.

karis [ 2019-07-09T00:15:13Z ]

   VOTE TO ADJOURN
   
   @channel, please vote now on the motion to adjourn.
   
   The next meeting of the LLG Membership shall begin on or about Saturday, September 7, 2019. Additions to both new and old business may be added to the Google document at
   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GsN-trDbpZ8dyXctDaoyC3gbf-movo_kqpcbc1gLy90/edit?usp=drivesdk
   or you may pass them along to me or any Board member for inclusion. 

gleki [ 2019-07-09T05:04:18Z ]

   I vote aye

gleki [ 2019-07-09T05:06:16Z ]

   As for business there is a plan to deal with CLL updates done via the passed proposal. The veto period will end August 26. Then Gleki prepares compiled candidates and presents to llg

gleki [ 2019-07-09T05:07:28Z ]

   As for new business maybe a next release cycle of updating CLL should be dealt with. I already found many more mistypes not included into the passed proposal.

bookofportals [ 2019-07-09T06:05:36Z ]

   I likewise vote aye.

bookofportals [ 2019-07-09T06:06:51Z ]

   And I'd like to propose electing the LFK as an item of old business (old because it's work we set out this session that we'd just be finishing up).

karis [ 2019-07-09T18:05:19Z ]

   I'll add them. Anyone should be able to themselves as well. 

karis [ 2019-07-09T18:06:21Z ]

   The next release cycle will be LFK business as currently set up. 

phma [ 2019-07-09T21:15:15Z ]

   I vote aye.

lojbab [ 2019-07-10T05:42:58Z ]

   I vote aye.

karis [ 2019-07-10T15:12:57Z ]

   @channel, the vote will conclude at the end of today, 23:59 UTC. 

karis [ 2019-07-11T07:14:23Z ]

   I also vote aye.
   
   @channel, 
   
   The vote to end this Members Meeting is 5 trees for it, none against, and no abstentions. The Norton carries and this meeting is over. 
   
   Please remember the next meeting has been announced and will, unless the Board decides otherwise, be using this same platform. It is scheduled to begin on or about September 7fb. An announcement will also be distributed through various chats in case anyone else would like to participate. As we hope to have the agenda as complete as possible before the meeting starts don't forget to add any motions or topics to the agenda before the beginning of September. This is part of our efforts to streamline the meetings so they take much less time without leaching out any participants. 

karis [ 2019-07-11T07:14:59Z ]

   Thank you all for your participation and your patience. 

solpahi [ 2019-07-11T12:21:14Z ]

   mi na ponse su'oi mu tricu .i ji'a mi na se slabu la .norton. .i ku'i je'e

gleki [ 2019-07-11T13:58:39Z ]

   ko na darlu i le catni cu zanru ije pagbu le vreji be tu'a lylygy

karis [ 2019-07-12T01:13:13Z ]

   @channel,
   
   Sorry about that. My autocorrect sometimes makes errors I don't catch, as all of you should know by now. 
   
   The motion carries and this meeting is over....
   
   This is our part of our efforts to streamline the meetings so they take much less time without leaving out any participants.

karis [ 2019-07-12T01:15:15Z ]

   ^^^ Despite the meeting being over this is still a predominantly English chat. Translations are necessary if you're going to use lojban. 

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-07-21T09:33:18Z ]

   sezna'e: lo jbobau nu penmi cu na curmi lonu tavla fo lo jbobau

lojbab [ 2019-07-28T15:55:01Z ]

   nago'i

lojbab [ 2019-07-28T15:56:18Z ]

   Rather, it is requested that talking in Lojban be supported by translations.

lojbab [ 2019-07-28T15:58:51Z ]

   Possibly more important, the phrase "lo jbobau nu penmi" is inaccurate except in a metaphorical sense.  The meeting is that of la lojbangirz aka LLG.  It is not a meeting  of "lo jbobau"

gleki [ 2019-07-29T15:49:27Z ]

   i le lojbo catni voi cmima la lojbangirz na curmi li'o

gleki [ 2019-07-31T18:59:52Z ]

   I hereby veto the proposed change to CLL called "Chapter 11. Properly mark sumti-raising when using {jei}". Reason for the veto: it introduces a bug in the words "tu'a jei", which is ungrammatical.
   
   I already added this veto to the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit#heading=h.7v3kwk2nll54

gleki [ 2019-07-31T20:02:26Z ]

   https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914bf26add7b049347ac54e

gleki [ 2019-08-05T08:10:37Z ]

   This text was posted to a Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/10156375425926705/?comment_id=10156466109061705&reply_comment_id=10156466320876705&notif_id=1564983469124811&notif_t=group_comment&ref=notif in reply to the last passed proposal to update CLL.
   
   ```
   Curtis W. Fraŋks: I know that this is not the official forum for this, but I just want to record it somewhere while I have it ready:
   • This one is fine, but update definitions in cmavo list: "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei lo'i ratcu"
   I hereby veto:
   • "Chapter 9: JC will think about it
   Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e"." <-- (I think that "se" is fine. I am not sure what Example 9.9 is, because the labelling does not align properly, but we may need to edit that instead)
   • "Chapter 11: JC OK (obviously)
   Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --John Cowan" <-- (I think that "ka" is fine and "du'u" is erroneous)
   • "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama" <-- (the "cu" is required)
   • "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal <-- (vetoed until we resolve it; see below).
   • "{o} is uttered like "o" in "choice”" <-- (I do want and approve JC's suggestion, for the reasons mentioned; thus, I also veto the original proposed edit)
   • In "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary", there are several instances in which "a" is incorrectly changed to or written as "an" in the proposed edits; I veto specifically such "a"->"an" changes and further edit any proposed new text which incorrectly uses "an" instead of "a" such that "a" is used instead (if I am not allowed to make such latter edits, then I approve of the addition of the text - I would rather it be included and minorly ungrammatical than not included at all); this is a line-item veto and I do not veto the rest of the proposal nor amend it in any way (see below).
   Approved, but preferring further immediate edits:
   • "Lion exemplifies members of set #301 JC: “members” is vague in the suggested wording, make it “the members” instead" <-- (I accept the proposal but also prefer JC's version)
   • "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary : JC says also to leave out “<secondary>proscribed where not required</secondary>”, which is no longer appropriate." <-- (Note that this is a grammatical change, not just a correction; but I approve it anyway)
   Needs further review or resolve:
   • "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal.
   • "Chapter 17
   Section 10. After Example 10.4.5, the reference to Example 10.4 should be instead to Example 10.4.5. JC OK
   In section 13, the first paragraph states "Historically, these character sets have only covered the English alphabet and a few selected punctuation marks.", which is incorrect. There have been multitudes of character sets for writing systems other than the English alphabet.
   [...] Change to something along the line of "Historically, each of these character sets has only covered a particular writing system.
   JC suggests instead changing “Historically” to “Originally”, which is what I meant, and then dropping “have”.
   I prefer John's wording. (.karis.)" <-- (I commented in the Google doc)
   ```
   
   I have no confirmation that the user named "Curtis W. Fraŋks" is a member of LLG but I veto  these changes on behalf of this person with the same wording.

gleki [ 2019-08-05T17:16:23Z ]

   One more post from Facebook: 
   ```
   Curtis W. Fraŋks I retract my last veto (about "a(n)" in the Chapter 4 stuff).
   ```
   So I retract my previous veto on "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary" proposal.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-07T03:49:25Z ]

   .i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
   Chapter 9: Section 11: description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e". Therefore, delete the "se" here.
     .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi jinvi lo du'u zo se drani gi'e xamgu
   
   .i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
   Chapter 11: Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u
     .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi jinvi lo du'u zo ka drani kei .e lo du'u zo du'u narseltcu gi'a toldrani
   
   .i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
   Make it "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama" with optional "cu"
     .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi jinvi lo du'u zo cu tolzi'e seltcu 
   
   .i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
   Any sort of definitive choice about interpretation of "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" or similar
     .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu lo dausnu be ri na mulno
   
   
   .i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
   {.o} is uttered like "o" in "choice"
     .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi lo nu lo selti'i pe la .ko,uyn. cu ca'irselzarbi'o kei cu djica gi'e zanru
   
   
   .i li'a bu'o mi na selcuxykemfitytoltu'i lo zoi .glico.
   Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary 
     .glico. selti'i pagbu
   
   .i li'a bu'o ca'e ga'i mi je'a zanru .ai lo nu lo zoi .glico.
   leave out “<secondary>proscribed where not required</secondary>”
     .glico. selti'i pe la .ko,uyn. cu ca'irselzarbi'o
   
   ni'o mi'e .krtis. mu'o

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-07T03:55:17Z ]

   ____
   I hereby veto the following proposals:
   • "Chapter 9: JC will think about it
   Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e"." <-- (I think that "se" is fine. I am not sure what Example 9.9 is, because the labelling does not align properly, but we may need to edit that instead)
   • "Chapter 11: JC OK (obviously)
   Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --John Cowan" <-- (I think that "ka" is fine and "du'u" is erroneous)
   • "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama" <-- (the "cu" is required)
   • "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal <-- (vetoed until we resolve it; see below).
   • "{o} is uttered like "o" in "choice”" <-- (I do want and approve JC's suggestion, for the reasons mentioned; thus, I also veto the original proposed edit)
   
   For clarity, I do not veto any part (or whole) of any proposal which concerns Chapter 4 and adding unnecessary hyphens to lujvo.
   
   As an additional point (strictly speaking: not one which is part of this vetoing process), for clarity, I hereby also and separately express approval of JC's proposal about omitting “<secondary>proscribed where not required</secondary>” (as pertains to Chapter 4 and unnecessary hyphens hopefully-now being permitted) from the text of the CLL and express support for its official adoption, contingent on the adoption of the aforementioned change to Chapter 4; I can so move if desired/required at this time.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-07T03:56:56Z ]

   While only express mention of vetoes is required for this process, I do think that several other points should be addressed - as Gleki represented on my behalf yesterday.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-07T04:02:08Z ]

   Additionally, immediately after (and only immediately after) we approve all changes which are currently on the relevant docket but prior to finalization of this version of the CLL text or printing of the same, I propose that we look for the following string throughout the CLL text and, in every occurrence thereof, replace "an" with "a"; namely:
   • "an y" (as in "an y-hyphen"; where formatting may be applied particularly to the "y" or the "y" may be surrounded by various quotation marks).

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-07T04:10:41Z ]

   If we are going de facto consider the official cmavo list as less official than the CLL because the former has not been published on paper, then I advocate that we include the official cmavo and gismu lists (in whole) in the next physical print publication of the CLL as appendices. They are and should be equally official in my opinion; thus, if there is a conflict between the CLL proper and either list, then that should be considered an unresolved contradiction in official Lojban and should not be resolvable by resorting to consideration of which text has been physically printed. Alternatively, we can include a note in the CLL text that endorses them as co-equally official (in whole) and provides some information on where to find these official versions. In any case, we may want to physically print and publish the lists (in whole) independent of the CLL and possibly of one another.
   ^^ Before we do so, we must update, correct, and flesh out definitions in the lists. In particular, since it arose in the discussions of the changes proposed to us presently, we must make "mei" comply with the outcome of the relevant change proposal concerning "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei lo'i ratcu" herein.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-07T04:15:51Z ]

   ____
   
   I express approval of the following relevant proposed changes, but prefer further immediate edits to them once this docket is cleared and prior to finalization or publication of this version of the CLL:
   • "Lion exemplifies members of set #301 JC: “members” is vague in the suggested wording, make it “the members” instead" <-- (I accept the proposal, as it is an improvement, but also prefer JC's version to it)
   
   
   In my opinion, the following items need further review or resolution before we proceed to clearing this docket and finalizing or publishing this version of the CLL:
   • "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal.
   • "Chapter 17
   Section 10. After Example 10.4.5, the reference to Example 10.4 should be instead to Example 10.4.5. JC OK
   In section 13, the first paragraph states "Historically, these character sets have only covered the English alphabet and a few selected punctuation marks.", which is incorrect. There have been multitudes of character sets for writing systems other than the English alphabet.
   [...] Change to something along the line of "Historically, each of these character sets has only covered a particular writing system.
   JC suggests instead changing “Historically” to “Originally”, which is what I meant, and then dropping “have”.
   I prefer John's wording. (.karis.)" <-- (I commented in the Google doc; I neither express approval or disapproval of the currently-proposed relevant change; however, because I do not veto it, I effectively am allowing the proposal to be enacted at present (ignoring any future vetoes for now))

gleki [ 2019-08-07T12:19:44Z ]

   why increase the number of contradictions and even assert the contradictions as not resolvable? instead of resolving them

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-08T02:22:16Z ]

   Well, we should try to resolve them, but by intentional and thoughtful effort, rather than some sort of fake/de facto default brought upon by unplanned circumstance. The reality is, in my belief, that the texts are pairwise co-equally official already; thus, nothing changes and the number of contradictions remains constant. But I do not want there to be any question about it or for people to decide that they are not co-equally so, de facto or in effect or otherwise.
   
   Meanwhile, we would try to review the documents (now and on a continuously ongoing basis into the interminate [sic] future). Contradictions should exist only by our oversight, rather than our intentional allowance. On the other hand, they should not be resolved without thought either - especially because that might mean that they are resolved with a sub-optimal result. I would rather just address the issue of a contradiction by acknowledging that it is there and actively resolving it as a community or body thereafter, rather than processing it unthinkingly and automatically through a waterfall logic.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-08T02:23:28Z ]

   Basically, if a contradiction exists, then we should actually try to think about and address it, rather than blindly follow the result chosen by a fake means. We should be up front with them.

gleki [ 2019-08-08T02:28:58Z ]

   Why not just include into the dictionary only those words that are used at least once in CLL and let usage decide for everything else temporarily for everything else?

gleki [ 2019-08-08T05:08:14Z ]

   I hereby veto the proposal titled "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary" from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit#heading=h.o25n04v0xa5o document
   The reason for my veto: The text "y-hyphen between the consonants of any impermissible consonant pair. This will always appear between rafsi. It is possible to optionally add an y-hyphen between the consonants of any permissible consonant pair e.g. for stylistic purposes or for the ease of pronunciation." might imply that {y} can be inserted between consonants of a single rafsi which is probably not what is intended ({klagau} can become {kylagau} otherwise).
   

karis [ 2019-08-10T08:21:37Z ]

   As I remember the discussions at the time the official gismu list was not published as a dictionary around the same time the CLL was first published, not because they were not equally official, but because we knew work needed to still be done to improve the definitions. The cmavo list was in a similar situation. 

karis [ 2019-08-10T08:44:19Z ]

   As for only including those used in the CLL and letting usage decide for everything else, this completely devalues all the work already put into creating and learning the basic vocabulary, and makes the existence of these official lists worthless. Without a core vocabulary all lojban users can be expected to understand with the same meanings and place structures there will be no single lojban language at all. There would rapidly develop a situation where two people who both believe they know lojban meeting for the first time wouldn't understand each other even as much as a person speaking German and a person speaking Yiddish can now. I know this pair are mutually understandable as my mother, speaking Yiddish she learned at home as a child around her grandmother, was able to travel through Germany without using English which has been her primary language since.   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:13:06Z ]

   **gleki**: Some people doubt certain places of gismu can be used at all. E.g. stagi2
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:13:44Z ]

   **gleki**: cmavo definitions are cryptic. including them would be wasting paper.
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:15:57Z ]

   **gleki**: By "let usage decide" i do not mean that {pilka} should denote something other than "peel" but that some definitions are confusing.
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:16:38Z ]

   **gleki**: "There would rapidly develop a situation where two people who both believe they know lojban meeting for the first time wouldn't understand each other" - this is aready the case with the currently known gismu.txt and cmavo.txt lists.
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:16:41Z ]

   **gleki**: and CLL
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:17:03Z ]

   **gleki**: There are conflicts in definitions. E.g. in {ta'u}, {girzu}, {me}.
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:18:05Z ]

   **gleki**: So including cmavo.txt into CLL would exactly lead to the problematic situation you are describing. Peopple would start looking at different parts of CL and get different incompatible conclusions.
   

vecusku [ 2019-08-10T13:18:10Z ]

   **gleki**: *CLL
   

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-10T20:35:06Z ]

   Re: "Why not just include into the dictionary only those words that are used at least once in CLL and let usage decide for everything else temporarily for everything else?"
   ^^ I would actually suggest doing the complement IF we fear contradictions (I do not in this situation - I just want them fixed when we notice them). Introducing another competing definition/usage of a word increases the probability of technical conflict. So, we should not do so for words which already appear in the CLL (operating under this condition); instead, we have nothing to fear from including words which do NOT already appear in the CLL, for there is no chance of conflict (except between definitions now to be included).

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-10T20:40:06Z ]

   This would also flesh out what is 'officially endorsed' by the CLL. If the CLL is the only formulation of the language which matters (not my view), then this tact expands the language as such; in fact, without it, the language would (under this understanding!) simply lack the gismu, cmavo, and rafsi not explicitly mentioned in the CLL.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-10T20:42:00Z ]

   I support this veto.

gleki [ 2019-08-11T06:09:32Z ]

   BTW there is no need to support vetoes :) one veto to rule out them all

gleki [ 2019-08-11T06:10:49Z ]

   What about stagi? No one can understand how to use its place structure. There should definitely be some official explanation

gleki [ 2019-08-11T06:12:16Z ]

   What about cmavo? Almost all of them are covered by cll. And its cmavo.txt definitions are cryptic. What should be the definition of ta'u in the appendix?

karis [ 2019-08-13T23:35:16Z ]

   As for stagi, I guess that's left to the new committee. Feel free to write up the problem and your suggestion for them. 

gleki [ 2019-08-14T07:41:30Z ]

   So yeah I suggest that such questions are solved sequentially. Adding gimste.txt and cmavo.txt as they are at once would be disastrous.

karis [ 2019-08-17T02:24:32Z ]

   There is actually a channel for this discussion and all, as far as I know, of you were sent invites long ago. 

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-20T00:41:00Z ]

   True! But support never hurts.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-23T02:26:46Z ]

   As a reminder to everyone: There are only 4 days left for vetoing proposed changes for CLL 1.2.

karis [ 2019-08-23T03:45:31Z ]

   Has anyone made a copy of the proposals with the vetoed ones marked? 

gleki [ 2019-08-23T06:20:22Z ]

   It's my job. Isn't it. Once the veto period is over I will start preparing for the next step

gleki [ 2019-08-27T07:49:06Z ]

   So the veto period is over. I'm moving to the next step: collecting recorded veto votes.

gleki [ 2019-08-27T12:28:53Z ]

   So here is the list of veto votes. Please, inform me if Iforgot to include any other veto votes.
   
   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/CLL_1.2._Technical

gleki [ 2019-08-28T07:03:46Z ]

   The situation is the following.
   
   @krtisfranks vetoed two changes: 
   
   ```
   • "Chapter 9: JC will think about it
   Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e"." <-- (I think that "se" is fine. I am not sure what Example 9.9 is, because the labelling does not align properly, but we may need to edit that instead)
   • "Chapter 11: JC OK (obviously)
   Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --John Cowan" <-- (I think that "ka" is fine and "du'u" is erroneous)
   ```
   However, this is against the passed proposal according to which every proposal is either vetoed or not.
   However, these changes are technically only parts of one proposal.
   
   Since krtisfranks didn't veto the proposal as a whole his two veto votes on the changes above are invalid.
   
   Shall we veto them outside of the passed proposal?
   Btw, @krtisfranks can you please explain why you think that "le ka do xunre [kei] cu cnino mi" is fine? According to CLL, "Every property abstraction specifies a property of one of the sumti in it; that sumti place is filled by using ce'u." Where do you think a {ce'u} would go in the bridi with {xunre}  being its selbri?

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-30T02:06:57Z ]

   Oh, I took them to be separate proposals but all under the same topic (not enveloping proposal) of "Various (!) errata", which is why John had to "see each one". But you might be correct. In that case, I am not sure what to do. Some of those fixes seem just as important as this issue, but it seems silly to introduce a new error (in my perception) needlessly.
   I cannot now veto the whole thing with any effect, so I will let others decide.

krtisfranks [ 2019-08-30T02:15:29Z ]

   I guess that I am drawing a distinction between "the notion of X is new to me" and "the property of Xness is new to me", where X is a predicate. First, the notion does not imply the actuality, but the property arguably does. The notion of you being an purple dinosaur can be asserted or surprising to me or all sorts of things, but none of that makes you a purple dinosaur. But to say "your purple dinosaur ness is surprising to me" does seem to assert that you are in fact a purple dinosaur and either you just became one or I have never met you before. Second, if I had ever thought - perhaps in a fever dream - that you were a purple dinosaur, then the notion of you being one would not be new to me; however, the property of you being one (or the event of it occurring) could indeed still be new to me because I would presumably be experiencing/perceiving it and having to come to terms with this newly-revealed reality. The basic distinction is the difference between "conceivably" and "is".
   
   If the selbri were not "xunre" (which has arity 1), would it be any better? I am not sure that it would be because there still is not "ce'u", but I am not sure how we are to refer to whole-predicate properties in that case. Maybe the grammar is broken.

gleki [ 2019-08-30T06:38:34Z ]

   I suppose simply ka is not okay here to translate "your redness"

gleki [ 2019-08-30T06:39:00Z ]

   The gloss "property" might be misleading here for translations

gleki [ 2019-08-30T06:42:54Z ]

   This second example is terrible.
   i cnino mi ma

gleki [ 2019-08-30T06:43:21Z ]

   Either remove it or use
   i le nu do xunre cu cnino mi

gleki [ 2019-08-30T06:44:05Z ]

   But I'd insist on just removing it. 
   i do cnino mi le ka xunre
   is sufficient, isn't it

gleki [ 2019-08-30T07:16:41Z ]

   I'm not completely sure I'm correct. I nevertheless took your two vetoes into account as if they were separate proposals. Let's see what LLG says when the compiled CLL is ready.
   
   For future release cycles it will be a good example of how NOT to make pull requests.
   
   Each proposal, even a tiniest one should go separately.

john.cowan [ 2019-08-30T18:33:27Z ]

   @krtisfranks the thing is that du'u is not "the notion of", it is "the fact/proposition/claim that".  Whether it's realis or irrealis isn't what this is about.

john.cowan [ 2019-08-30T18:36:43Z ]

   The example (11.4.4) needs to be changed completely if it is going to be an example of ka

gleki [ 2019-08-31T15:43:48Z ]

   The situation with the veto proposal is the following:  as noticed by another person and confirmed by me the method of generation of cll provided by Rlpowell is currently broken (https://github.com/lojban/cll/issues/310)
   
   I am able to generate CLL in html format under Ubuntu, I wrote a draft of instruction for that: https://github.com/lojban/cll/blob/docbook-prince/README-UBUNTU.md
   I'm not able to produce pdf, mobi, epub yet. Technically it's simple but I don't want to divert significantly from Robin's scripts so I'm waiting for him to first fix his scripts so that I can then safely adapt them to Ubuntu.
   
   At least it's nice that at least one person (me) was able to generate CLL not on Robin's servers.

gleki [ 2019-08-31T15:47:51Z ]

   One more suggestion from me is that the dictionary should be part of the same repository. Currrently, the dictionary in the appendix is generated from jbovlaste.lojban.org. Thus,
   1. it's vulnerable to vandalism (vandalized definitions of words can penetrate newer editions of CLL)
   2. it's not possible to vote on or veto these definitions.
   
   I currently copied a fresh dump of jbovlaste to the repository itself and changed scripts accordingly so that we can discuss and operate the dictionary together with the rest of CLL.

karis [ 2019-09-05T14:01:22Z ]

   My issue with what constitutes the official one for publication has been presented before. In summary, I would only include words from the original set of words lists, with corrections as Member approved and any other valsi or rafsi officially approved leaving out most all created for chats and translations. 

john.cowan [ 2019-09-05T23:02:24Z ]

   karis: if you mean gismu and cmavo, I agree.  If you mean other brivla, there is no "original set", only lists of varying age with no real authority for any of them.

karis [ 2019-09-06T02:06:24Z ]

   Those and the rafsi, @john.cowan. I was thinking, in particular, of those original stapled words lists we used to speak in lojban at early lojfests. That's definitely official once any approved changes are made. 

john.cowan [ 2019-09-06T15:06:37Z ]

   @karis Agreed

mraxilus [ 2019-09-29T08:04:16Z ]

   mraxilus a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2019-10-01T01:19:20Z ]

   Hi, @mraxilus. 

mraxilus [ 2019-10-01T05:40:47Z ]

   coi

karis [ 2019-10-01T22:31:44Z ]

   There won't likely be much happening for about 2 weeks when the meeting will start. Feel free to hang out and chat with whomever shows up until then. 

gleki [ 2019-10-02T05:20:06Z ]

   I think this is a wrong channel

karis [ 2019-10-02T06:53:10Z ]

   @lagleki it is the wrong channel for this year's meeting, but is a fine place to hang out and wait. I'll make sure everyone is in the right place in time. 

maik [ 2019-10-13T15:37:46Z ]

   maik a rejoint le canal.

krtisfranks [ 2019-11-15T01:39:03Z ]

   Hmmm... I agree, and I can somewhat understand the concern about making notions necessary here. If the notion can be irrealis in character, then nothing is ever necessary said. Giraffes being from Mars is neither new nor not new to me because it is not true (to the best of my knowledge) and I do not believe it to be such; even if notions can have the property of being new, false ones would have dubious claim to that particular property.
   
   So, what can be new? Is it properties themselves? Initially, I want to say that X's redness is either new by some standard or it is not. But if Y was not in-the-know about the case of X being red (whether that be due to change or simply not knowing about the color of X previously), then X's redness is in fact new to Y. Maybe it is properties which are new.
   
   In that case, when teaching a kid, the proposition that 2+2 = 4 itself would not be new to them; it is the quality that that proposition is true which would be new to them. Right? (Along with possibly an understanding of what addition itself is).

karis [ 2019-11-15T11:17:59Z ]

   Interesting. And yes, generally a child who's been read and talked to as well as given plenty of time to explore, play and try things so they've been exposed to ideas comes into school they are hopefully going to learn the validity of more concepts (like 2+2=4), among other things. A child without those sorts of exposure will as well, one would hope, but they'll have a harder time without the background knowledge the other has gathered. 

gleki [ 2019-11-15T15:03:03Z ]

   @krtisfranks what about just removing this example for safety? x3 is not filled, so it's already problematic

lalxu [ 2019-12-20T18:52:27Z ]

   I think gleki's final suggestion for this sentence is correct.
   
   x1 is new/unfamiliar/novel to observer x2 in feature x3 (ka) by standard x4
   
   I take this as: x2 had not experienced/witnessed x1 ckaji'ing x3 before. I do not know how to use x4. But note the x3 place.
   
   So I believe gleki's {do cnino mi le ka [ce'u] xunre} is correct: “you are new to me in your greenness”. Maybe I had witnessed you being red or purple before, but a green you is a new you.
   
   Similarly I might say a fact/proposition is new to me with {le ka mi djuno ce'u} as the implicit x3. Or if I do not believe it to be true knowledge, then {le ka mi pensi/sanji ce'u}. 
   
   In a roundabout (not as useful) way, I might say a property (ka) is new to me with something like {le ka ce'u xunre cu cnino mi le ka ce'u se ckaji do} “Greenness is new to me in its being exhibited by you.”  This says more or less the same thing as above, but the focus is different IMO.

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:22:46Z ]

   So since it was voted upon in 2007 and by 2007 the current version was this http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=How+to+use+xorlo&preview=5 probably they voted for the version 5 of the page.

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:13:05Z ]

   @laleki, did you notice the date of @veion 's post? It was a year ago. 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:13:49Z ]

   I already crossposted to the new meeting channel, sry.

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:21:28Z ]

   I wanted to make sure you noticed since it's easy to miss everything but the month when that's surg first. 

apieum [ 2020-02-11T16:24:08Z ]

   @apieum a quitté le canal.

karis [ 2020-05-11T13:10:24Z ]

   karis a mis à jour l'entête du canal de : LLG Members Meeting 2018  en : LLG 2018 Members Meeting

yatima [ 2020-12-31T14:26:27Z ]

   yatima a rejoint le canal.