LLG 2019 Annual Meeting Transcript

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:30:57Z ]

   karis a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   and a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   banseljaj a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   apieum a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   bookofportals a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   djeikon a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   dersaidin a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   durka42 a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   gejyspa a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   fagri a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   gleki2 a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   greg_g a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:31Z ]

   guskant a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   ilmen a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   jacus a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   john.cowan a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   junpenplixlal a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   jawitkien a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   krtisfranks a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   la_mumoi a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   kurji a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

   lagleki a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:32Z ]

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

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   lalxu a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   lojbab a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   mukti a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   noras a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   mlitep a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   oddmint a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   porocyon a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   phma a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   solpahi a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   rlpowell a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   quetzal20 a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:33Z ]

   soon a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   sukender a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   uakci a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   ueslis a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   veion a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   vecusku a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   vlmutolo a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   vpbroman a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   xorxes a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:34Z ]

   xanri a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:32:35Z ]

   zazypap a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-09-16T01:41:34Z ]

   I have added everyone who is a member of the Members Meeting from last year and/or the entry channel "coi" in preparation to start the meeting for this year soon. The 2019 meeting was announced as starting on or about September 7th at the end of last year's meeting on July 11th. It will yet be a little bit longer, but not much more. I will announce to all here when it actually starting. 
   If you want to add anything to the agenda, here's the link.
    Message me if you have any problems. 

maltel [ 2019-09-28T14:00:24Z ]

   maltel a rejoint le canal.

mraxilus [ 2019-09-29T08:02:25Z ]

   mraxilus a rejoint le canal.

maik [ 2019-10-13T15:37:54Z ]

   maik a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2019-10-14T00:44:07Z ]

   The meeting will be starting soon. 

karis [ 2019-10-20T16:59:46Z ]

   Welcome to the official opening of the 2019 Members Meeting of the Logical Language Group (LLG). I am karis, President of the LLG, and I now call this meeting to order at 18:00 UTC on October 20, 2019.
   The first, and in many ways most important thing everyone needs to know is if now or any time in the future you would like to put a topic or specific proposal on the agenda you may do so through this link, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GsN-trDbpZ8dyXctDaoyC3gbf-movo_kqpcbc1gLy90/edit?usp=drivesdk. If you have trouble either message me directly on Mattermost or Telegram (@GryphKat), or email me at [email protected]. 

karis [ 2019-10-20T17:04:06Z ]

   @channel.   CALLING FOR THE ROLL 
   I will now ask everyone present to announce themselves, giving at least your name in lojban. This roll call will effectively continue through the entire meeting in case others join us later. 

phma [ 2019-10-20T17:04:52Z ]

   coi rodo mi'e .piier.

karis [ 2019-10-20T17:06:36Z ]

   coi .piier.

gleki [ 2019-10-20T17:10:52Z ]

   i mi'e la gleki mi jundi

karis [ 2019-10-20T17:38:21Z ]

   coi .gleki. 

mraxilus [ 2019-10-20T17:56:34Z ]

   coi mi'e la vlipa

maik [ 2019-10-20T18:06:09Z ]

   coi ro do.  I am present.  For the record, I go by "maik", "maiku", "maikxlx", "Mike", or "Mike S." on the Internet.  I am here mainly as an observer.

karis [ 2019-10-20T23:10:55Z ]

   That's fine, @maik. Join in whenever you want. 

karis [ 2019-10-20T23:12:30Z ]

   coi, @mraxilus. 

karis [ 2019-10-20T23:16:05Z ]

   As a reminder for everyone, English is the official language of this group, other than basic coi and co'o please striving to it or provide translations. If you need help with this because you don't speak English well, please ask and we will try and provide someone to help you. 

lojbab [ 2019-10-21T08:28:58Z ]

   coi .i mi'e lojbab

and.rosta [ 2019-10-21T08:49:41Z ]


karis [ 2019-10-21T11:19:28Z ]

   Welcome, both of you. 

veion [ 2019-10-21T14:05:06Z ]

   coi .i mi'e veion

karis [ 2019-10-21T15:35:26Z ]

   coi @veion

karis [ 2019-10-22T03:15:36Z ]

   suskeyhose a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-10-22T03:17:44Z ]

   Welcome, @suskeyhose. Please take a look at the pinned messages. 

greg_g [ 2019-10-22T05:26:22Z ]

   coi .i mi'e greg

karis [ 2019-10-22T10:06:39Z ]

   coi greg

suskeyhose [ 2019-10-22T12:49:43Z ]

   coi .i mi'e la saski'o mi jundi

karis [ 2019-10-22T16:42:45Z ]

   coi @suskeyhose. 

ilmen [ 2019-10-23T19:01:19Z ]

   coi mi'e la .ilmen.

ilmen [ 2019-10-23T19:02:05Z ]

   Has a meeting announcement been sent to the LLG mailing list?

jacus [ 2019-10-23T22:02:57Z ]

   coi .i mi'e la jacus  (Josh)  I'm mostly just observing as well.

karis [ 2019-10-24T03:59:09Z ]

   I posted announcements to the  Lojban, Lojban Beginners, and ckule lists (capitalization as I see it where I usually read these). I do not know where law it may have been posted by others, though. When I checked nothing seemed to be happening on the LLG mailing list so I didn't, but that's a good idea. I'll do it tonight. 

karis [ 2019-10-24T04:00:36Z ]

   The other postings were all least three weeks ago, and I added a reminder to at least two. 

karis [ 2019-10-24T04:02:17Z ]

   If anyone wants to share it there's a copy in the links chat here on Mattermost, and I'll make sure everyone new has access. 

karis [ 2019-10-24T04:27:17Z ]

   I just posted it to that list as well, @ilmen. 

karis [ 2019-10-24T04:29:02Z ]

   Welcome @ilmen and  @jacus. Observing and participating in everything except the actual voting is open to all. 

gleki [ 2019-10-24T07:41:14Z ]

   As for CLL. The attempt to update it is a total failure. We are no longer able to publish new editions because Robin's scripts no longer work. Most likely causes of this: xml of the text is no longer valid + libs used by the scripts are no longer available for download since they are deprecated. Robin is telling me he is working on it. If he doesn;t succeed some of us will eventually have to try themselves. Maybe it will be me. I guess we should wait for Robin first

gleki [ 2019-10-24T07:42:35Z ]

   As for messengers. I could hear several requirements: no need to have a phone to be able to sign up, to have multilevel threads + resumes of each thread (in the form of the root message of each thread), security concerns.
   I don't know what are the security concerns. I guess having your own email server and chat via email is a viable option. There will be no man in the middle in this case.
   In case of Telegram, Discord, Slack messages are stored elsewhere and you are not safe. Your identity can be determined.
   My humble suggestion: stop thinking of peculiar details of messengers, use only basic functionality like on IRC and learn Lojban.

gleki [ 2019-10-24T11:43:29Z ]

   Also note that this mattermost deployment will most likely be shut down in the next few years. Framateam doesn't seem to profit from it. This will happen to every non profitable messenger and every deployment of course

maik [ 2019-10-24T14:28:59Z ]

   how do things go in these meetings? should we discuss these matters in another channel until Karis formally raises them here? 

maik [ 2019-10-24T14:44:53Z ]

   I responded in #Way Station, for now

noras [ 2019-10-24T16:14:43Z ]

   mi'e noras.

remmy [ 2019-10-24T21:48:26Z ]

   remmy a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2019-10-25T01:52:49Z ]

   If anyone wants to raise topics as @lagleki just did they need to be on the agenda and raised at the correct point in the meeting. 

karis [ 2019-10-25T01:53:15Z ]

   Welcome @noras.

karis [ 2019-10-25T01:53:37Z ]

   Welcome, @remmy. 

karis [ 2019-10-25T02:00:22Z ]

   @lagleki, are you making a report on your efforts over the summer to have corrections for CLL reviewed? I haven't announced the time for reports yet, and this is incomplete as it talks about the difficulties producing a new edition, but says boring about the process used nor how well it worked. Please include the rest of this information when I ask for it. 

karis [ 2019-10-25T02:04:42Z ]

   @maik, there is a time during the meeting for such discussions and I will announce it. The meeting has a specific sequence specified in the LLG Bylaws, and they are based on common parliamentary procedure. If you, @lagleki, or anyone else wants to discuss these topics the best thing would be to add them to the agenda. 

and.rosta [ 2019-10-25T14:36:32Z ]

   Agenda item
   Proposal that the LLG website  (currently lojban.org)
   1. in the short term advertise Toaq (in ways yet to be decided, but principally by adding prominent links from the LLG site to the Toaq site)
   2. in the medium term augment this by such items as an essay on loglangs and links to other loglangs (if there are any) -- once these items have been created (by somebody) and approved by LLG or the board.

karis [ 2019-10-26T00:16:36Z ]

   I'll add it. Thank you @and.

remmy [ 2019-10-26T11:04:59Z ]

   coi .i mi'e la .dimnas. .a la .io'Anes.

karis [ 2019-10-26T12:23:14Z ]

   @channel is there anyone who believes notice for this meeting was not posted 14 days or more before the start of the meeting? In some locations  a series of announcements was posted so it was possible to miss the earlier one. 

gleki [ 2019-10-26T12:39:48Z ]

   Please add the following proposal. Accept and promote as a new language Classical Lojban described in CLL 1.1 edition

karis [ 2019-10-26T12:44:19Z ]

   Certainly, @lagleki. Are you unable to access the agenda? I'm pretty sure I remember you adding the one last year and the it should be just as easy since they are stored in the same Google Drive account. If you can it saves a step. 

gleki [ 2019-10-26T12:59:33Z ]

   Is the Google doc opened for editing for all?

maik [ 2019-10-27T01:22:45Z ]

   maik a mis à jour l'entête du canal en : Check pinned messages (find pin symbol to the right of here) for announcements and agenda.

karis [ 2019-10-27T06:22:42Z ]

   It is supposed to be. 

maik [ 2019-10-28T03:04:54Z ]

   maik a mis à jour l'entête du canal de : Check pinned messages (find pin symbol to the right of here) for announcements and agenda. en : Check pinned messages for announcements and agenda (find pin symbol to the right of here).

solpahi [ 2019-10-28T10:45:22Z ]

   Roll call results:
   LLG members:
   And Rosta
   vlipa (mraxilus)
   maik (Mike)
   saski'o (suskeyhose)
   jacus (Josh)
   dimnas (remmy)
   Note also that https://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG_members is out of date (bookofportals is not listed, and Alex Burka should be removed.)

dersaidin [ 2019-10-28T16:12:09Z ]

   DerSaidin / Andrew Browne  (observer)

lalxu [ 2019-10-29T20:01:58Z ]

   mi'e la lalxu .i nalcmi zgana  (la lalxu here, observing as a non-member.)

karis [ 2019-10-31T10:33:14Z ]

   Thank you, @solpahi. I had a list prepared to post when I saw you had already provided the information. At this time we have not yet reached a quorum of voting members 

karis [ 2019-10-31T17:53:33Z ]

   Ok, @channel. Since no one has commented on whether or not sufficient norice was given when I asked on October 23rd I assume all of you agree it was sufficient so I am declaring this so. 

karis [ 2019-10-31T17:57:35Z ]

   @channel the link to the minutes for last year will be posted within 48 hours. You will then have 72 hours to indicate disapproval or they will be included in this meeting as complete and accurate. Any objections to any part may be posted here.
   Is anyone unable to access Google Docs? If so, please tell me now how I can get them to you. 

solpahi [ 2019-11-02T18:07:17Z ]

   48 hours have passed.

solpahi [ 2019-11-03T18:05:30Z ]

   72 hours have passed...

ilmen [ 2019-11-03T18:12:58Z ]

   I haven't seen any notification for the new meeting in the Llg-members list, which might be a problem if some members are monitoring only the Llg-members list and not any other list (the other ones have seen plenty of notifications if I remember correctly).

solpahi [ 2019-11-03T18:19:14Z ]

   Sufficient notice was given on the main Lojban list and on Lojban-Beginners (Sep 28). llg-members was forgotten, however. After Karis was made aware of this, she sent out the meeting announcement to llg-members (Oct 24). Depending on what counts as "The Secretary/Treasurer shall notify each member at least fifteen (15) days before such a meeting", there was or wasn't sufficient notice. However, since nobody objected that sufficient notice was given, Karis declared it so.

solpahi [ 2019-11-03T18:21:37Z ]

   However, this does not explain why this meeting is proceeding at such a glacial pace. 

ilmen [ 2019-11-03T18:21:42Z ]


solpahi [ 2019-11-03T18:25:39Z ]

   Less than half the membership is present.

solpahi [ 2019-11-03T18:27:56Z ]

   I would interpret this as a very clear lack of interest. The LLG has to rethink its purpose (which I already said years ago). 

karis [ 2019-11-03T20:47:45Z ]

   This was discussed in the last couple of years. 

karis [ 2019-11-03T20:56:06Z ]

   As for the minutes, my computer has a major problem and I've been unable to boot it fully for several days. It is supposed to be looked at by a computer repair person tomorrow so I will have an update soon. The problem has not effected my ability to access the internet thanks to my cell phone. 
   I am therefore stepping ahead and announce it is time for reports by the LLG officers, and to hopefully make this go more quickly, reports of committees and projects. Go ahead and past them here as soon as possible. 

karis [ 2019-11-03T22:18:10Z ]

   There have been two major structural changes over the past year for LLG. One related to how meetings happen and one to its committees. 
   First is the completion of our first Members Meeting to take place on Mattermost. This made it easier for me to manage the meeting than when we were using an email listserv mainly because the structure allowed me to see all the messages without having to open each separately then piece together from the included text to which it replied, and I was able to make sure I hadn't missed any messages and neither had anyone else. There were some who found the structure challenging to navigate, difficult because email notifications are not detailed at all, and hard to log in to. A huge challenge for all was that the Members Meeting lasted much longer than anyone's patience or focus seemed to. This has led to discussions of how to prevent the issue in the future and about the validity of votes where only a third or fewer of the voting members present vote at all.
   Second, after extensive discussion about the usefulness of continuing the BPFK (byfy) committee and what to do instead it was dissolved. In its place, as an effort to involve more of the lojban community of all fluency levels and interests, a new committee was formed called lojbo fuzykamni, and to be also known as the LFK or lyfy. Later in this meeting we will be hopefully adding people to the committee to get out off the ground.
   Other actions of last year's meeting will be presented as part of the minutes. You are also welcome to join that conversation after the fact so you can read all the ins and outs of any part of that meeting. 

karis [ 2019-11-04T02:40:38Z ]

   calavera1963 a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2019-11-04T09:09:40Z ]

   The minutes for the 2018 Members Meeting are available by following this link. I was able to redo them on my phone. If you have any trouble, please message me.

karis [ 2019-11-04T09:11:57Z ]

   These are available by following the above post. Please reply with any corrections here. 

xorxes [ 2019-11-04T22:19:59Z ]

   sorry I'm so late everyone, I had computer trouble. mi'e xorxes

banseljaj [ 2019-11-05T17:19:18Z ]

   coi banseljaj

banseljaj [ 2019-11-05T19:36:25Z ]

   Hi guys. I'm late but I'm here.

banseljaj [ 2019-11-05T19:36:32Z ]

   @karis *wave(

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-11-06T12:06:49Z ]

   coi ro do mi'e la robotin .i mi punji pa se casnu lo liste

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-11-06T12:07:34Z ]

   Hello, everyone. I am Robotin. I have added a topic to the list.

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-11-06T12:26:08Z ]

   ki'e lo sidju be mi bei lonu punji

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-11-06T12:26:20Z ]

   Thank you to the one who helped me put it.

karis [ 2019-11-07T18:23:22Z ]

   Hi @banseljaj and @xorxes! 

karis [ 2019-11-07T18:24:13Z ]

   Welcome, @la-robotin-daiter. 

karis [ 2019-11-07T18:25:22Z ]

   @channel, Arnt has tendered his resignation in an email. 

karis [ 2019-11-08T11:36:08Z ]

   @channel now you've all had time to read the minutes, is there anyone who is not in agreement with these notes? If so, please state your objection. 

gleki [ 2019-11-08T11:49:42Z ]

   Yes please fix mistypes. "I'd" should probably be changed to "if", maybe other mistypes

solpahi [ 2019-11-08T12:50:38Z ]

   The ones I noticed were:

mukti [ 2019-11-09T17:36:44Z ]

   I have belatedly joined this meeting.

karis [ 2019-11-09T23:00:53Z ]


karis [ 2019-11-09T23:01:36Z ]

   Thank you. I'll fix those. 

karis [ 2019-11-09T23:16:30Z ]

   Done. The vote was 11 for, 0 against, and 0 abstentions. 

karis [ 2019-11-09T23:19:04Z ]

   With these corrections are There any objections to accepting the minutes from last year? 

maik [ 2019-11-09T23:46:31Z ]

   "gleki purposes, on updating the CLL [...]" should probably contain "proposes"

maik [ 2019-11-09T23:48:40Z ]

   The phrase "gleki purposes" occurs ~~twice~~ three times.  The phrase "karis purposes" occurs once.

maik [ 2019-11-09T23:53:33Z ]

   I didn't notice anything else.

karis [ 2019-11-09T23:59:29Z ]

   Ok. I'll fix it in a minute. 

karis [ 2019-11-10T00:17:51Z ]

   From what I can tell there are now 11 voting members present, which is half the current number. It would be great if one other shows up, or alternately resigns because it will take that before we can vote to remove those people who've shown no interest in participating for years. Doing so will make meetings more successful. 

gleki [ 2019-11-10T05:22:08Z ]

   Yes, automatically turn such members into observers

gleki [ 2019-11-10T05:22:49Z ]

   No need to wait for years. Not being present would mean they are no longer a member

la-robotin-daiter [ 2019-11-10T07:33:24Z ]

   Can quorum be achieved by voting to remove inactive people?

lojbab [ 2019-11-10T07:58:18Z ]

   I believe that what Karis is saying is that we need one more person or one more resignation in order to achieve quorum, and THEN, when quorum is achieved, we can vote to remove inactive people.  Thereafter (in future meetings), we would have fewer inactive members, and thus achieve quorum more quickly at the start of the meeting.

karis [ 2019-11-10T08:49:26Z ]


karis [ 2019-11-10T08:52:15Z ]

   I hoped the two people we added last year would be involved this year as well. Maybe they will join yet. 

karis [ 2019-11-10T09:17:46Z ]

   As I mentioned in #side conversations when I redirected the conversation from #way station, the Bylaws do not actually state that quorum is needed, but I feel it is more appropriate to have it when possible. I've copied the appropriate section there. 

karis [ 2019-11-10T09:21:22Z ]

   @channel, are there any more reports? @lagleki, now would be the time to report on how well your summer project to make corrections to the CLL went. 

gleki [ 2019-11-10T09:23:54Z ]

   As I said we are no longer able to print anything. Robin told me a few days ago he had succeeded in updating the scripts but no news since then. Let's wait a bit more. 

karis [ 2019-11-10T09:28:10Z ]

   Ok. Please keep us updated.

karis [ 2019-11-10T09:29:28Z ]

   Are you able to give us some idea of the percentage of changes that were not vetoed of those you proposed?

gleki [ 2019-11-10T09:41:16Z ]

   Percentage means nothing since the set of proposals for this release cycle was almost arbitrary
   At least the number of vetoes was not 0, not 1 and not 2

gleki [ 2019-11-10T09:45:18Z ]

   Btw I suggest that for future release cycles LLG sets an algorithm of updating CLL e.g. based on this last (failed) attempt but being automatic. So that CLL update process coordinator can trigger a new release cycle at any time given there are no other release cycles active at the same time

karis [ 2019-11-10T10:00:18Z ]

   That would, as currently established, be up to the new committee. 

karis [ 2019-11-10T10:18:01Z ]

   I'm asking for some more data then that more than two changes were vetoed. How many changes were proposed and how many were vetoed? Did John Cowan affect with all, or did he want any to stand? How many items was this?
   Your effort may not have immediately been able to change the CLL available so it  may not have been fully realized yet, but you did get results however the list to be corrected was created. 

gleki [ 2019-11-10T10:51:41Z ]

   Can't you see? That last link explains it all

karis [ 2019-11-10T11:07:14Z ]

   No, actually it does not clearly list the vetoes with number 2 and 3 being almost the same lists, and each containing multiple individual vetoes. I count at least ten vetoes before reaching your "veto 4". You also make the document much harder to follow by including the extra and not recognizing Curtis' name. It is easy to check and see he's a voting member and was recently an LLG vice president as well.  
   Your report and your writeup are not finished. 

gleki [ 2019-11-10T11:23:54Z ]

   Individual vetoes are in fact part of the same pull request

gleki [ 2019-11-10T11:24:48Z ]

   This was certainly a mistake to include mezohe's pull request without splitting it into separate ones

gleki [ 2019-11-10T11:26:16Z ]

   There are two users named Curtis. They had almost the same lists but in different places (Facebook and mattermost).

gleki [ 2019-11-10T11:26:44Z ]

   I have no clue who is Curtis on Facebook. Might be a impostor

karis [ 2019-11-10T12:31:38Z ]

   There is no reason to consider the Curtis Franks on Facebook to be an imposter, and I'm ignoring your comment to me that you could open an account in the name of karis. Further, as he states in his second post he amended his list of vetoes. It is the more recent and therefore the changes are as he specified to the full list of vetoes he made in the first post. His vetoes deserve the same treatment as yours or anyone elses.

gleki [ 2019-11-10T12:35:46Z ]

   Ok next time I will create many accounts and name myself after those who have vetoed. And then on behalf of them I will deny these vetoes

karis [ 2019-11-10T12:37:17Z ]

   @channel, if everyone is satisfied with the corrections specified above to the minutes we can declare them accepted in full and continue this meeting. Unless I hear otherwise this is what we will do. 

banseljaj [ 2019-11-11T15:40:24Z ]

   I accept the minutes as amended

karis [ 2019-11-11T18:09:34Z ]

   Thank you. 

solpahi [ 2019-11-11T20:27:00Z ]

   Jacob Errington would like to resign.

solpahi [ 2019-11-11T20:36:30Z ]

   And they now have resigned via email to the LLG mailing list.

solpahi [ 2019-11-11T20:40:37Z ]

   Alex Burka, Arnt Richard Johansen, and Jacob Errington should be removed from this list:
   And bookofportals (Aris Merchant) and Wesley Wilson (according to the 2018 minutes) should be added.
   I would do it myself, but I'm not an LLG member and this is an official page.

solpahi [ 2019-11-11T20:47:08Z ]

   That would put us at 11 out of 22

krtisfranks [ 2019-11-11T23:09:32Z ]

   I am present.

gleki [ 2019-11-12T05:20:29Z ]

karis [ 2019-11-12T11:08:46Z ]

   Yes. I just saw Jacob's letter. I also, finally, seem to be gotten my account fixed so I can edit pages. The have tried several times before. 

gleki [ 2019-11-12T15:14:16Z ]

   I suggest that you change bylaws first.

karis [ 2019-11-12T20:36:38Z ]

   We have other business first. 

karis [ 2019-11-13T02:59:06Z ]

   First, at this time, with the resignation of Jacob Errington and the others, this meeting now has reached quorum.
   Second, as there are have been no more concerns posted about the Minutes, I am now adding them to the record as they now read.

karis [ 2019-11-13T03:01:09Z ]

   @channel, at this time anyone interested may nominate themselves or someone else to the LLG Voting Membership. Feel free to ask any questions. 

karis [ 2019-11-13T03:14:36Z ]

   Tommy Lee has requested a leave of absence for this meeting. I haven't heard anything from our Parliamentarian John, so does anyone know if this effects how many Members we should be counting as the total? 

maik [ 2019-11-13T03:27:08Z ]

   I am no parliamentarian, but anyone who took the time to request a leave of absence I would count as a member.

solpahi [ 2019-11-13T07:11:11Z ]

   I would like to become a member.

karis [ 2019-11-13T18:24:11Z ]

   @maik I certainly consider him to retain his membership in the long run. It's more how to treat it now. 
   Thank you, @solpahi.

karis [ 2019-11-13T18:25:18Z ]

   I'll give everyone else a day or so more to consider if they also want to be a member. 

lalxu [ 2019-11-13T18:47:50Z ]

   I (Lynn / la lalxu) would like to become a member as well

karis [ 2019-11-15T01:09:20Z ]

   Thank you as well. 

karis [ 2019-11-16T02:58:18Z ]

   @solpahi and @lalxu  are interested in becoming Logical Language Group voting members. Per the Bylaws their positions becomes effect immediately after the vote occurs, assuming they are voted in. Being a voting member means supporting the ongoing efforts of the LLG, participating in the annual Members Meetings, and we, the Board, hope working on your choice from among the various projects underway or needed yet not started. Have I missed anyone, and do any of you have anything tips like to say on this manner?

maik [ 2019-11-16T04:55:44Z ]

   i have no comment as a current non-member except to express support for voting in the two persons interested in becoming members.

karis [ 2019-11-16T18:04:43Z ]

   @channel I just received a message from BookofPortals saying he'll be unable to join us. 

gleki [ 2019-11-17T10:37:19Z ]

   Can anyone check if the produced CLL pdf okay? its text should be still the same as in CLL 1.1. We should pay attention to formatting glitches only http://vrici.lojban.org/~gleki/cll.pdf

karis [ 2019-11-17T12:21:22Z ]

   Please post any issues found  in Side Conversations so the meeting isn't interrupted.

karis [ 2019-11-18T17:10:40Z ]

   @channel, please vote on adding @solpahi and @lalxu to the voting membership by responding to this post. Thank you. 

maik [ 2019-11-18T18:40:33Z ]

   I would like to report that I did not receive an email notification for the last announcement calling for a vote for adding new members.  I checked my spam too.  And my account settings appear to be in order (which I did not change in the first place).  Did anyone else receive an email?

maik [ 2019-11-18T18:47:40Z ]

   The last notification I received was on Nov. 13.  I think I know the reason:  Notifications are sent only when I am offline, and I have been online (keeping a tab open for Mattermost at all times) for the last few days.  No notifications were sent for that reason. 

maik [ 2019-11-18T18:48:36Z ]

   Sorry if I sounded a false alarm, but I think it's worth confirming that the notifications are being sent.

karis [ 2019-11-18T19:06:54Z ]

   Thank you for both for telling us it happened and for figuring out why. I haven't noticed this problem, but I use the Android app and have gotten in the habit of closing it on an inactive channel. 

karis [ 2019-11-18T19:08:43Z ]

   It may be that people who leave it open will need to check in every day or two. 

maik [ 2019-11-18T19:12:55Z ]

   No problem, and yes.  I've been checking in a couple times a day.

karis [ 2019-11-18T19:49:52Z ]

   I check in as well.

ueslis [ 2019-11-18T22:50:04Z ]

   mi zanru

phma [ 2019-11-19T01:23:05Z ]

   mi zanru tu'a la solpa'i .e la lalxu

maik [ 2019-11-19T02:06:14Z ]

   [Ueslis] I approve. 
   [phma] I approve regarding Solpahi and Lalxu.

banseljaj [ 2019-11-19T03:49:15Z ]

   I vote for the inclusion of both.

karis [ 2019-11-21T14:04:09Z ]

   @channel, come on people. Would the rest of you please cast your votes on this? 

xorxes [ 2019-11-21T21:12:05Z ]

   I vote yes on solpa'i & lalxu

and.rosta [ 2019-11-21T22:41:47Z ]

   I voted Yes on Monday by replying to the message Karis asked us to reply to, but the Mattermost app does not show this message now.

and.rosta [ 2019-11-21T22:42:35Z ]

   That is, I cannot see my original Yes-voting message.

and.rosta [ 2019-11-21T22:44:03Z ]

   (Repeating my vote of Monday:

karis [ 2019-11-21T23:48:25Z ]

   I never saw it, so thanks for reposting. 

karis [ 2019-11-21T23:54:08Z ]

   I also vote for both @solpahi and @lalxu. That brings the vote for both to 6 for, 0 against, and 0 abstentions. 

karis [ 2019-11-22T00:01:00Z ]

   Welcome to the the voting membership, @solpahi and @lalxu! 

maik [ 2019-11-22T00:41:17Z ]


ilmen [ 2019-11-22T13:14:30Z ]

   I hereby approve of the membership of Solpahi and Lalxu.

karis [ 2019-11-24T21:04:41Z ]

   I'll add your vote, @Ilmen. 

karis [ 2019-11-24T21:14:24Z ]

   @channel, the second part of this is discussing the possible removal of any Members who haven't participated in meetings 
    nor reached out to any officers in years. Doing so is allowed by the Bylaws. 

maik [ 2019-11-25T15:35:48Z ]

   As observer I suggest: 
   1. Remove every member who has failed to give any response in the wake of the current meeting's announcements.
   I also suggest: 
   2. Remove every member who now stands absent in two annual meetings in a row (more precisely, remove every member who both was absent in the previous meeting and is absent in the current meeting). Alternately, remove anyone who now stands absent three years in a row (namely 2017, 2018, & 2019).

karis [ 2019-11-25T17:27:21Z ]

   I think we should not remove anyone for missing one or two meetings without messaging an officer. Whether we do so with a cut off of three, four, or more doesn't matter that much to me. As I see it anyone can miss notices of a meeting, and when the format or timing changes  it's even more understandable. Two meetings missed could be due to getting caught up in life events like expecting then having a young child or caring for an ailing parent can easily distract a person from anything in their lives for a year or two at least. 

solpahi [ 2019-11-25T23:03:27Z ]

   What would you suggest instead, @karis?

solpahi [ 2019-11-25T23:07:29Z ]

   Removal after three years of absence seems fair to me. It's easy to re-attain membership, after all.

karis [ 2019-11-26T01:05:11Z ]

   Three or four years seems fair. The only reason four might be better is that going through and voting to remove someone takes time away from more interesting and participatory parts of the meetings. When we get to New business we could make this process streamlined and almost automatic if we choose, though. 

maik [ 2019-11-26T02:28:48Z ]

   Again, this is just my suggestion: Maybe the removal of a member kicks in after four annual meeting absences with communication, but removal after two annual meetings without any communication to officers about absences.  I do think the process somehow should be made automatic.  If a removed member comes back, maybe it can somehow be streamlined so that the person can automatically return as member so long as there are no objections (or something like that, if possible under the current bylaws).

maik [ 2019-11-26T02:31:24Z ]

   A couple considerations: First, I think the LLG tradition of reaching quorum is an honorable one, but is placed at risk by the absentee-member situation.  

maik [ 2019-11-26T02:31:57Z ]

   Secondly , if it ever becomes desirable to make a bylaw change, the absentees turn that change into a hardship for the majority that wants it, even though the absentees are not even there to even hear the proposal.  That does not strike me as fair.

maik [ 2019-11-26T02:32:15Z ]

   But as I say, that's just my 2 cents.

lalxu [ 2019-11-26T15:50:53Z ]

   I agree with solpahi: re-attaining membership is trivial, but members being absent for three years without even bothering to figure out how to let an officer know is a clear sign that they have lost interest in participation _for now_. Furthermore it is harmful for the LLG's decision-making ability to have a large % of inactive membership (it only makes quorum harder to achieve.)
   What do we have to lose in being strict about this? @karis 

lalxu [ 2019-11-26T15:56:35Z ]

   As for voting to remove someone: IMO there shouldn't need to be a vote. The process should be automatic.
   I envision something like: “At the end of a role call, membership is recomputed. Members who failed to answer that role call and two previous ones, AND failed to notify an officer in any way about their non-participation in this meeting or the two previous ones, are removed from the LLG. They may freely become voting members again, even during the _proposal and approval of new members_ part of that same meeting.”

maik [ 2019-11-26T16:09:34Z ]

   i very much like the idea of automatic removal, but the current bylaws require a vote.

karis [ 2019-11-26T16:39:20Z ]

   I'd love to hear from more people on this. 

lalxu [ 2019-11-26T16:47:12Z ]

   Hm, where in the bylaws are you reading that?

maik [ 2019-11-26T16:52:54Z ]

   Article 4 Section 3: 
   > A member shall also be considered to have resigned, if, after proper notice of an annual meeting has been sent, the member fails to submit a proxy or written intent to participate by telephone, AND, the members present at the meeting confirm by vote to accept this failure as a sign of resignation. 

lalxu [ 2019-11-26T16:56:44Z ]

   ta'o (by the way), just letting you all know that I added an item to the agenda:

ilmen [ 2019-11-26T18:05:30Z ]

   The automatic removal of inactive members as suggested above sounds good to me.

ilmen [ 2019-11-26T18:09:43Z ]

   We might also want to discuss (under the scope of that proposal) whether lojban.org should only contain official material (e.g. moving community (unofficial) materials and discussions to a subdomain like cecmu.lojban.org or something), or whether its content should be made wholly unofficial and official stuff be moved instead to LLG's hypothetical new website.

maik [ 2019-11-27T18:56:44Z ]

   I agree with Karis it would be nice to hear from others.  In the meantime, double check my counting if you like, but I think the following is correct:
   - There are (24) LLG members, counting Solpahi and Lalxu;
   - (15) members are present: Karis, Phma, Gleki, Veion, Ilmen, Lojbab, Noras, And, Xorxes, Banseljaj, Mukti, Krtis, Solpa'i, Lalxu, Ueslis
   - This means (9) members are absent.
   - (2) of the absentees have asked for a leave of absence: Tommy Lee, BookOfPortals
   - This means (7) members are out of communication: Adam Lopresto, Timo Paulssen, Thomas Porter, Theodore Reed, clsn, Paul Swift, camgusmis.
   - I know camgusmis participated last year, but about the others I am unsure.  Unfortunately, the 2018 meeting minutes was entered into the record without the roll call.  If this info is not readily available, we could look into it and look into past meetings.  

karis [ 2019-11-28T04:28:15Z ]

   Unless I'm missing someone the following is an accurate roll for the 2018 Members Meeting. In some cases I don't have names listed in both English and lojban, and where this is so or I've made errors please tell me so I can correct the record.
   Members present for the 2018 Members Meeting:
   Pierre Abbat (piier) 
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki) 
   Sylvain Déjardin (ilmen) 
   Ali Sajid Imami (banseljaj) 
   Curtis Franks (krtis) 
   Nora LeChevalier (noras) 
   Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) 
   Jorge Llambias (xorxes) 
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) 
   Robin Powell (camgusmis) 
   And Rosta (.and.)
   Karen Stein (karis) 
   Veijo Vilva (veion) 
   Wesley Wilson (ueslis) ** new
   Aris Merchant (eris / BookofPortals) ** new
   Non-Members Present:
   Robotee Deither (la-Robotin-Deiter) 
   Andrew Browne (dersaidin) 
   ueslis (until added to membership) 
   la eris/ BookofPortals (until added to membership) 
   Members Who Resigned During Meeting:
   Arnt Johansen
   Alex Burka

maik [ 2019-11-28T05:13:35Z ]

   Robin Powell is the "camgusmis" I mentioned.  And Rosta goes by ".and." Lojbanically, but of course that is obvious.

karis [ 2019-11-28T20:47:06Z ]

   I couldn't remember what name Robin used. 

maik [ 2019-11-29T17:37:34Z ]

   is the roll for the 2017 annual meeting readily available?

karis [ 2019-11-30T20:17:35Z ]

   I believe this is the list of members from 2017:
   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
   I'm working on a list of those who attended the meeting. 

karis [ 2019-11-30T21:04:33Z ]

   Present at the 2017 Members Meeting at the time Roll Call was completed:
   Pierre Abbat
   Arcadia Balandin
   Alex Burka
   Sylvain Déjardin
   Miles Forster (proxy via gleki)
   Curtis Franks
   Ali Sajid Imami
   Nora LeChevalier
   Robert LeChevalier
   Jorge Llambías
   Adam Lopresto
   Riley Martinez-Lynch
   Robin Lee Powell
   And Rosta
   Karen Stein
   Paul Swift
   Veijo Vilva
   Mitsuko Wate
   7 members do not appear to be present:
   Jacob Errington
   Arnt Richard Johansen
   Timo Paulssen
   Thomas Porter
   Theodore Reed
   Mark Shoulson
   Tommy Whitlock

karis [ 2019-11-30T21:06:14Z ]

   I now hold the proxy for Aris Merchant (BookofPortals /eris) on their request. 

karis [ 2019-11-30T21:34:00Z ]

   According to my records and research the following Members have not participated in the Members Meetings since before the Fall of 2016, either in person or by proxy:
   Thomas Porter
   Theodore Reed
   Mark Shoulson
   Would anyone like to speak specific to these three before we vote to remove them from the Membership? 

maik [ 2019-11-30T22:41:04Z ]

   So Paul Swift and Adam Lopresto were in the 2017 meeting.  What about Timo Paulssen?  Did he show up in the 2016 meeting, whereas the other three did not?

maik [ 2019-12-01T02:11:03Z ]

   clsn a été ajouté au canal par maik.

solpahi [ 2019-12-01T12:19:51Z ]

   Timo Paulssen did announce their presence at the 2016 meeting (date: 2016/12/22), which was also the last time they posted to llg-members.

maik [ 2019-12-01T16:23:30Z ]

   Some observations: Right now with 24 members, the quorum is at 13. Removing Timo Paulssen along with Thomas Porter and Theodore Reed and would at least reduce the quorum from from 12 to 11.  Recall that a third of the membership was absent until yesterday, and that fully a quarter has given no communication regarding the present meeting, and that it recently took over three weeks to reach quorum, and that only about a third of the membership cast votes for the new members.

and.rosta [ 2019-12-01T17:44:33Z ]

   If it's possible, I advocate that for quoracy reasons, absent members be removed from membership.

maik2 [ 2019-12-02T18:38:15Z ]

   maik2 a rejoint le canal.

maik2 [ 2019-12-02T18:38:46Z ]

   maik2 a quitté le canal.

mukti [ 2019-12-03T12:56:17Z ]

   I would like to add my voice in support of the notion of removing members who haven't been active for a long period, without prejudice to the possibility of them returning as members in the future. This is something that was regularly done some years prior. It seems to me that failure to attend two consecutive annual meetings is a reasonable threshold to consider a member inactive.

mukti [ 2019-12-03T13:00:31Z ]

   While I think this will ease one of the things that makes our meeting process inefficient, I'm going to continue to advocate time-boxing the annual meeting so that all votes and on-the-record discussions happen within a pre-determined period.

mukti [ 2019-12-03T13:03:10Z ]

   Other organizations, even of international scope, are able to get this done within hours. I think we could too. I could also reconcile myself to a not-entirely-synchronous meeting that spans days. We do ourselves no favors when we allow the process to continue to sprawl across months.

karis [ 2019-12-03T22:19:16Z ]

   I have received a letter of resignation from Adam Lopresto as he said he didn't want to hold us back and wasn't able to put as much time into lojban as he would like. 

karis [ 2019-12-03T22:22:35Z ]

   I'm curious how any international volunteer organizations would be able to hold meetings of less than a month or two. Even in the midst of an involved topic of new business with more than just a few participants it takes us at least a week or two to cover one topic because people don't check in several times a day, and often seen unable to do so more than once every two or three days. 

ilmen [ 2019-12-05T23:43:57Z ]

   This might not be the most appropriate time, but I've just finished a report of BPFK activity since August 2015, i.e. covering the period during which BPFK discussions were held only in Lojban.

ilmen [ 2019-12-05T23:44:57Z ]

   Each thread is listed with its date, original title, a translation of the title in English, and a short summary.

karis [ 2019-12-08T22:59:54Z ]

   Thank you, @ilmen! Since reports have already happened now is fine. 

karis [ 2019-12-08T23:13:45Z ]

   @maik, I'm not sure what you mean by a third of the Membership being absent until November 30th, though. 

maik [ 2019-12-08T23:34:32Z ]

   I meant that just before clsn showed up, I was counting 8 out 24 absent.

maik [ 2019-12-08T23:37:45Z ]

   I am now counting 6 out of 23 absent -  (Tommy Lee, Timo Paulssen, Thomas Porter, Theodore Reed, Paul Swift, camgusmis) with Adam Lopresto having resigned and BookOfPortal, as I understand it, on the roll by proxy.

maik [ 2019-12-08T23:39:10Z ]

   @karis ^

karis [ 2019-12-09T15:25:38Z ]

   Ah, so you were including the two new members. I wasn't sure. 

karis [ 2019-12-11T13:15:11Z ]

   I fixed the above post. I was missed several errors because I had something to do immediately after posting it. 

karis [ 2019-12-11T13:19:50Z ]

   Ok @channel,
   We are voting to remove Thomas Porter, Theodore Reed, and Mark Shoulson from the LLG Voting Membership, without prejudice should they want to rejoin in the future.
   Please reply here to cast your vote. 

maik [ 2019-12-11T14:35:38Z ]

   @Karis, are you sure this is what you want to vote on?  Mark Shoulson (clsn) is here.

maik [ 2019-12-11T14:47:03Z ]

   I think this is correct based on the information that I got in this channel earlier and from the 2018 meeting:
   Paul Swift - last seen 2017 meeting.  It's now almost 2020.  Not in communication.  
   Timo Paulssen - last seen answering 2016 meeting roll call.  Not in communication.
   Thomas Porter - last seen before 2016 meeting.  Not in communication.
   Theodore Reed - last seen before 2016 meeting.  Not in communication.

karis [ 2019-12-11T14:57:03Z ]

   I'm sorry, @clsn and thanks, @maik. I'd missed that when I went over the names I had for this meeting and just included those name originally listed at the beginning of the discussion. To help me and anyone else who can benefit from it I am going to post a link in the "links" channel in the next couple of days and ask everyone here to fill in any missing names (real world, lojbanic, or internet) for the me I've added, then add anyone else you think should be included. This will help as I've always had trouble with names.

solpahi [ 2019-12-11T15:33:50Z ]

   Who are we voting to remove then?

solpahi [ 2019-12-11T15:34:39Z ]

   I vote yes (remove) for all the ones maik listed.

karis [ 2019-12-11T15:37:32Z ]

   I have been corrected. The people we are voting to remove from voting Membership in LLG at this time are the following:
   Timo Paulssen 
   Thomas Porter 
   Theodore Reed
   Please reply to this message with your votes before 12:00 noon UTC on December 13, 2019. Thank you. 

solpahi [ 2019-12-11T15:38:41Z ]

   I vote: remove all three.

karis [ 2019-12-11T15:40:11Z ]

   I did not include Paul Swift because he was present at the meeting only two years ago. 

phma [ 2019-12-11T16:45:59Z ]

   I vote yes.

ueslis [ 2019-12-11T16:53:30Z ]

   mi zanru (I approve)

ilmen [ 2019-12-11T17:10:27Z ]

   I approve of the removal of the three aforementioned people from the membership.

lojbab [ 2019-12-12T12:21:22Z ]

   I abstain on the removal of members.

karis [ 2019-12-13T12:14:30Z ]

   I vote in favor. 
   As the proxy for @bookofportals, they abstain. 

karis [ 2019-12-13T12:22:44Z ]

   @channel, the vote to remove Timo Paulssen, Thomas Porter, and Theodore Reed without prejudice should any of them choose to run for reelection to the LLG voting Membership is:
   For - 7
   Against - 0
   Abstain - 2

karis [ 2019-12-14T03:34:33Z ]

   it's now time to propose yourself, or someone else, to be on the LLG Board. If you are proposing someone else, please make sure they agree to the responsibilities of Board membership. These include being willing to participate in ongoing and special meetings of the Board and of the Membership. Board meetings run throughout the year and are intermittently active. 
   Please have all nominations, including for those on the current Board submitted here before 12:00 noon on December 16th at the latest. 

gleki [ 2019-12-14T04:38:55Z ]

   I propose myself to be on the LLG board and each of the following members who agrees to be on the LLG Board:
   karis, lojbab, mukti.

phma [ 2019-12-14T05:32:31Z ]

   How busy does being on the Board make one?

and.rosta [ 2019-12-14T10:47:14Z ]

   I propose myself to remain on the board. In answer to Pierre's question, my two stints on the Board have not made me palpably busier than being an LLG member.

karis [ 2019-12-15T09:45:10Z ]

   I accept the nomination. 

karis [ 2019-12-15T19:20:52Z ]

   It's intermittent, so very different from Members Meeting sort of busy. 

phma [ 2019-12-16T08:10:10Z ]

   I propose myself.

karis [ 2019-12-16T13:37:42Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2019-12-16T13:40:35Z ]

   @channel since I forgot to specify a time zone I will accept nominations until 23:59 UTC December 16th.

karis [ 2019-12-16T13:46:50Z ]

   So far the nominees are:
   Myself, @lagleki , @lojbab, @mukti, @and, and @phma (piier).

banseljaj [ 2019-12-16T21:45:03Z ]

   I would like to remove myself from the board.

krtisfranks [ 2019-12-17T04:04:56Z ]

   mi zanru tu'a la solpa'i .e la lalxu

krtisfranks [ 2019-12-17T04:12:48Z ]


krtisfranks [ 2019-12-17T04:14:17Z ]

   It technically fails the other condition, so we are all safe. And, in face, that is a way to get around this in the future. Just vote to cancel the membership of literally everyone; if the vote passes, then only those who satisfy both resignation conditions are removed. We would still need to determine who those people are, but it would make expression of the vote easy.

krtisfranks [ 2019-12-17T04:16:12Z ]

   I would like to propose myself for the Board.

krtisfranks [ 2019-12-17T04:19:09Z ]

   If we vote to automate the lingering members removal process, do that count as satisfying the bylaws? In other words, do we need to have a particularized, explicit vote for it each time, or is the body giving its blessing to the process just once enough to satisfy us? (Remember that we would still need to determine those who were affected by the removal, which gives people the opportunity to squabble :) ).

ilmen [ 2019-12-17T17:25:16Z ]

   I'm fine with all the proposed changes (additions and removals) to the Board membership.

karis [ 2019-12-17T17:29:40Z ]

   Thank you, but you don't actually need to state it. 

karis [ 2019-12-17T17:30:44Z ]

   If you don't want to be on the Board all you need to do is refuse if you're nominated. 

karis [ 2019-12-17T17:38:00Z ]

   Here's the process:
   "A written notice shall have been sent to each member at his last known address at least fifteen (15) [10] days before such Annual or Special meeting, which notice shall state the alterations, amendments, or changes which are proposed to be made in such By-Laws. Only such changes as have been specified in the notice shall be made. If, however, all the members shall be present at any regular or Special meeting, these By-Laws may be amended by unanimous vote, without any previous notice."
   We can set up a special meeting right after this one to do make the change. 

karis [ 2019-12-17T17:41:55Z ]

   @krtisfranks, please translate. 

karis [ 2019-12-17T17:49:53Z ]

   Assuming @krtisfranks and what I think he does (I'm not thinking clearly as I broke a finger yesterday) he led like to add his votes to the recorded total. 

maik [ 2019-12-17T17:51:37Z ]

   {[krtisfranks] mi zanru tu'a la solpa'i .e la lalxu} = "I approve regarding Solpahi and Lalxu".   Yes, most likely he wants to add his vote.

karis [ 2019-12-17T17:55:25Z ]

   Thanks. I don't speak lojban at all well as I have great trouble learning the vocabulary due to a learning disability, there are others here who aren't fluent, and primarily English is the official language of the LLG so I expect translations of everything else. If a person cannot provide that we'll do our best to find someone who can. 

karis [ 2019-12-17T18:09:12Z ]

   The following are the nominees for the upcoming LLG Board:
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki) 
   Karen Stein (karis) 
   Robert LeChevalier (lojbab) 
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) 
   And Rosta (.and.)
   Pierre Abbat (piier) [phma here] 
   Curtis Franks (krtisfranks) 
   The procedure is that the three with the most votes along with up to four others who receive votes will make up the new LLG Board. 

karis [ 2019-12-17T18:11:28Z ]

   You may cast votes for individuals or the group as a whole, since there are no more than seven nominees. Please reply to this post with your votes. Voting ends on December 19th at 23:59 UTC. 

gleki [ 2019-12-17T18:11:54Z ]

   According to my international passport and mw.lojban.org it's Arkadii, not Arcadii

gleki [ 2019-12-17T18:12:29Z ]

   And Rosta, not Johansen?

karis [ 2019-12-17T18:13:45Z ]

   I'm sorry. Thank you. Where I looked my records were incorrect. I've fixed this. 

ilmen [ 2019-12-18T20:11:54Z ]

   I vote in favor of all the seven proposed members.

phma [ 2019-12-19T17:14:23Z ]

   I vote for all seven.

gleki [ 2019-12-19T17:30:34Z ]

   I vote in favor of all the seven proposed members.

lojbab [ 2019-12-20T01:36:25Z ]

   I vote for all seven, too.

karis [ 2019-12-20T16:06:45Z ]

   I also cast my votes for all seven who have requested en nominated, as does @bookofportals. 

karis [ 2019-12-20T16:15:22Z ]

   The new members of the Board  of Directors are:
   The new Board of Directors for the Logical Group are... 
   And Rosta (.and.)
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki) 
   Curtis Franks (krtisfranks) 
   Karen Stein (karis) 
   Pierre Abbat (piier) [phma here] 
   Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) 
   Robert LeChevalier (lojbab) 

karis [ 2019-12-24T11:42:05Z ]

   It is now time for old business, of which there is one which is determining who the initial members of the LFK (lojbo fuzykamni) will be. As this is a new committee I'm including the text of the decision by which the committee was formed. If you have any questions please post them here. The proposal as passed is long (requires two posts) so I'm restating it right after this. 

karis [ 2019-12-24T11:42:34Z ]

   "The BPFK (a.k.a. "banpla fuzykamni", "baupla fuzykamni", "byfy") is hereby
   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,
     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 [ 2019-12-24T11:44:48Z ]

   .... 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 [ 2019-12-25T18:33:33Z ]

   @channel happy Chanukah, merry Christmas, and best wishes for whichever holiday or holidays you celebrate! 

phma [ 2019-12-26T17:48:17Z ]

   So do we nominate people, and then vote on them?

karis [ 2019-12-29T00:03:01Z ]

   Oops. My answer didn't go through.
   As I understood BookofPortals' hoped that a few people would have met over the summer, in the channel I set up for it, to figure this out. Since that didn't happen let's first see how many people are interested. 

karis [ 2019-12-29T00:06:46Z ]

   Who is interested in being a part of the new committee? 

phma [ 2019-12-29T16:55:18Z ]

   I'm interested.

bookofportals [ 2019-12-29T19:04:43Z ]

   I'm back. I sincerely apologize for not joining this meeting sooner; I was prevented from joining by health problems, which I explained in further detail to Karis. I'm feeling somewhat better now.

bookofportals [ 2019-12-29T19:05:14Z ]

   I'm also interested in being on the committee. 

karis [ 2019-12-30T12:56:12Z ]

   I'm interested as well. I don't remember if we discussed how people join in the future. So you remember, @bookofportals? 

bookofportals [ 2019-12-30T19:51:10Z ]

   The resolution says that’s delegated to the committee. It also says the committee is supposed to try to form a consensus. Putting those two things together, one would send the committee a request, and then it would discuss whether it made sense to add a new member under the circumstances until a consensus was reached. I’d guess it might consider whether new members seemed beneficial given the committee’s current size and activity level, the technical experience of the candidate, and how involved the candidate was with the Lojban community. A consensus would then hopefully form, and the request for membership would either be accepted or declined.

karis [ 2019-12-31T06:34:15Z ]

   Yes, but we still need an initial committee. 

dersaidin [ 2019-12-31T18:10:00Z ]

   "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 [ 2020-01-01T07:08:52Z ]

   There was also some talk of soliciting nominations from the community; I was going to handle that, but didn’t because of my health problems, and to be honest it’s been so long that I’d forgotten until now; that’s my bad. I don’t see all that much point at this late a date. This meeting was well advertised at least, and more members can trivially be added later.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-01T07:17:02Z ]

   The most obvious way to handle this would seem to be to take nominations and then proceed to voting on them.

ilmen [ 2020-01-01T19:44:24Z ]

   I'm interested in being a member of the new committee.

karis [ 2020-01-02T22:01:36Z ]

   That makes four of us who are interested so far. How about we vote on the four of us, then we can add people later? 

karis [ 2020-01-04T01:17:32Z ]

   Any more comments? 

maik [ 2020-01-04T03:01:10Z ]

   Does anyone have ideas about what specific tasks, exactly, it is anticipated that the LFK is going to perform?  Or are the work details to be decided later?

karis [ 2020-01-04T12:40:34Z ]

   ** This may ramble a bit as I'm dealing with my aunt's death on Wednesday. **
   The committee description includes a general idea. Basically the committee responds when community members think there's something about the language that needs to be fixed. It also is involved when someone finds an error, or thinks they found an error in the CLL. Dictionaries too fall under this and hopefully LFK will generate enough interest to get people to review the definitions, at least of the basic gismu etc. and actually publish a book as companion for the CLL. Anyone can be involved in the discussion and in submitting proposals. The committee is meant, in part, to constrain official lojban from undergoing dramatic or unnecessary change. 
   One problem we have had is people seeing lojban as being in flux so what they learn now they will have to relearn, potentionally again and again. Lojban isn't perfect, nor a perfect representation of its ideals and it need not be according to its developers. The goal of LLG and thus of the LFK isn't to keep redeveloping it, 
   An important point is that the committee may never, or almost never have any work. 

maik [ 2020-01-04T16:34:17Z ]

   [My condolences to you and your family.]
   Yes, that is a general gist, and it seems to answer my question: the exact details still need to be worked out.
   As a casual Lojban learner, I do not think the worst problem is the occasional changes that Lojban has experienced over the last few decades.  Rather, I see the major problem as the lack of a solid dictionary.

maik [ 2020-01-04T16:36:05Z ]

   As for myself, my current commitments limit the amount of time I could give to the LFK. However, if I were to offer a single suggestion, I would say, give the LFK a _specific_ focus: using all available current resources, create a multilingual dictionary using the Wiktionary framework [i.e. software to be hosted at Lojban.org].  First, focus on completing the English edition of the dictionary, emphasizing official cmavo and then gismu.  Secondly complete a Lojban edition, emphasizing the same core vocabulary, which would greatly ease the task of learning Lojban for motivated non-English speakers.

maik [ 2020-01-04T16:46:08Z ]

   To add a bit of commentary: certain aspects of the way Jbovlaste currently functions are pretty bizarre -- word definitions apparently have owners (am I allowed to edit someone else's word?), and definition writers are intended to compete with each other via a voting system.  IMO there should _not_ be multiple definitions for Lojban words within the same language, and no one should "own" Lojban's words.  Everyone should be allowed to improve the definitions, add examples, etc., consulting together on a discussion page as needed.  This is what wikimedia software allows teams to do.

maik [ 2020-01-04T16:51:30Z ]

   The biggest owner of all is Official Data, whose definitions apparently are set in stone, can't be practically "outvoted" (assuming this were actually a good way to conduct the business of writing a dictionary in the first place).  IMO the LFK's job should be taking over Official Data, the BPFK cmavo definitions, the info in the CLL, and everything else and creating an improved dictionary.  The LLG should give the LFK all authority and backing necessary in order provide Lojban a good dictionary with clear definitions, helpful examples, etymologies and mnemonics, etc.

karis [ 2020-01-05T17:52:06Z ]

   I've never used the Wiktionary framework, but that makes perfect sense as an initial project. The idea of opening up the way issues were solved with the LFK was part of a discussion on the need to get more people involved in the LLG so it was continued to be considered valid as the central lojban authority. 

karis [ 2020-01-05T17:55:24Z ]

   It isn't so much small changes that are the problem, but big changes or changes to the core language that turn people off. This happened a lot before the baseline was put in place, but the fear of it continues. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-05T20:32:57Z ]

   Karis, I'm very sorry. You have my condolences, and I'm sure that everyone understands if you need a while to process this.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-05T20:46:24Z ]

   The LFK has considerable discretion to look at whatever issues it likes. Re creating a dictionary, that is certainly going to be a very high priority for the LFK. I think updating the CLL to reflect xorlo and dotside will be a higher priority for me personally, but it's clear that a dictionary is very important. I'm not sold on Wiktionary specifically, but it's certainly an option worth discussing; Jbovlaste is, as you mention, decidedly suboptimal.  

bookofportals [ 2020-01-05T20:54:50Z ]

   (I say that it will be a high priority for the LFK because it was a priority that the BPFK never got through, and so it almost has to be a priority for the LFK as well.)

maik [ 2020-01-05T21:04:02Z ]

   Hi @bookofportals, I was mainly curious simply as to what the LFK's focus was going to be, though in passing, I did share a few of my opinions and thoughts on the dictionary situation.  If, as you would have it, updating the CLL is going to be the LFK's primary focus, then perhaps Gleki will be interested to know that, since he seems quite devoted to the idea of having a revision process for an up-to-date CLL.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-05T21:05:35Z ]

   He's mostly interested in bug fixes I think, rather than updates, or at least that's the feeling I get. In any case, the fact that I personally want to work on updating the CLL doesn't mean that'll become the committee's focus, even if I'm elected. 

gleki [ 2020-01-05T21:16:33Z ]

   Wrong. I'm interested in normal process of updating CLL using git and git only. Implementing xorlo might be more interesting to some but it's just another pull request among many.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-05T21:17:18Z ]

   Okay then! My apologies for being mistaken.

gleki [ 2020-01-05T21:18:31Z ]

   On another note just don't ruin the language with your commits as some already did (Robin even if unintentionally)

maik [ 2020-01-05T21:19:25Z ]

   It seems to me that the people who are interested in updating/maintaining/whatever-ing the CLL should be working together.

maik [ 2020-01-05T21:21:01Z ]

   I hope you don't think I would commit any changes to the CLL code base without letting people know what I was doing.

maik [ 2020-01-05T21:21:44Z ]

   All changes would have to be run by John Cowan in the first place.  He's the boss.

gleki [ 2020-01-05T21:23:40Z ]

   You certainly can because the majority here have no clue what git is. After talking to Robin I got an impression that he envisioned one person that can revise diffs only after compilation process. 
   That's certainly against the idea of committee driven release cycle process.
   He of course had negative experience of being the only person to do the work. And by the way this is how CLL 1.1 not only fixed mistypes but added at least one problem.

gleki [ 2020-01-05T21:25:16Z ]

   For the Wikipedia article ilmen and I once made a translatiom of a short story. Creating a high quality corpus of texts might be a good task for your committee

maik [ 2020-01-05T21:29:18Z ]

   i haven't joined the committee yet so it's not my committee.  I was basically trying to figure out what it plans to do, before I make any commitments.  As I have said yesterday and in the past, it's my opinion that, by far, Lojban's worst deficiency is the lack of a high-quality dictionary.  you can ask for a high-quality corpus all you want, but it's hard to write a high-quality corpus without access to a high-quality dictionary.

gleki [ 2020-01-05T21:31:06Z ]

   Idk, I can only suggest that you start forking dictionary with examples.

maik [ 2020-01-05T21:33:45Z ]

   IMO the dictionary should be a community effort, wiki-style. 

karis [ 2020-01-06T04:58:01Z ]

   The issue with an open community effort is that's what produced what we already have. There needs to be some oversight and structure to control how (to maintain parallel structures for related words, for instance) and when changes are made (which words first and such).

maik [ 2020-01-06T05:24:42Z ]

   Of course.  I am not advocating what we have now.  Presumably the LFK would provide the oversight and structure, and set the standards, which would evolve over time.  Unlike the current situation, when someone adds a word and no one (apparently) can edit it further (other than to add an up ordown vote), under a wiki, as i envision it, one person may add a new word, and another person may add examples, and yet a third would tweak the formatting to make it match related words, and add cross-referencing links.  No one "owns" the word, but edits are recorded udner history, and people will know what people are contributing.  Discussions are captured on the discussion page as necessary.

maik [ 2020-01-06T05:26:04Z ]

   My idea is simply to use a model that already works and is quite successful:  Wiktionary and Wikipedia are excellent resources, on balance.

maik [ 2020-01-06T05:27:22Z ]

   I am open to other ideas, of course.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:04:04Z ]

   So, I was going to present a model to the committee of how to handle change approvals. My suggestion was going to be that the only changes that could be done without consensus approval were incredibly obvious typo fixes. I was envisioning that the committee would primarily handle centrally controlled documents like the CLL, where "every substantive change requires at least two weeks of review" is a reasonable default.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:09:33Z ]

   One of the problems is whether the definitions are prescriptive or descriptive; if they're prescriptive, having at least one pass under centralized review might desirable. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:10:04Z ]

   I was thinking more along the lines of the way a programming language is developed; every change must undergo review.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:13:10Z ]

   On the other hand, you're right that the Wikimedia projects have been quite successful, and that model certainly has huge advantages for cross-referencing and adding lujvo and expiremental cmavo. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:14:30Z ]

   Perhaps for the dictionary and similar enterprises (if there are any, which wouldn't surprise me), a hybrid approach would be warranted, with the LFK replacing officialdata and a wiki model for everything else?

maik [ 2020-01-06T06:24:55Z ]

   As far as the CLL, any substantive change would have to be approved by the author, John Cowan.

maik [ 2020-01-06T06:26:22Z ]

   If you have a detailed proposal of what you have in mind though wrt to change proposals, I would be willing to read it.  

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:35:10Z ]

   He's on record as saying that he doesn't even claim a veto over CLL changes. I don't see anyone failing to assign the opinions of the original author an extremely great weight though.

maik [ 2020-01-06T06:36:09Z ]

   Ah, okay, I didn't know he said that.  I was under the impression that he reserved his right to veto any change.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T06:45:46Z ]

   It doesn't plan to do anything because it doesn't actually have members yet. I can offer my opinions on what it will do, but even if I become a member others might disagree with me. You can always apply later though?

gleki [ 2020-01-06T06:49:55Z ]

   Take a look at jbovlaste XML export. Git is much better than wiki.

maik [ 2020-01-06T06:50:24Z ]

   Of course, I didn't expect a detailed roadmap before the members were selected.  By asking, I just wanted to shake the tree and see what dropped out, and also wanted to see how people would respond to the lojbanic wiktionary idea.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T07:06:25Z ]

   That makes sense.

gleki [ 2020-01-06T07:32:26Z ]

   Wiktionary is an unformalized set of pages with notes. That's unacceptable. Even jbovlaste is much better

gleki [ 2020-01-06T07:38:57Z ]

   There are some wikis that have git as their storage engine (e.g. https://docs.requarks.io/storage/git)  but none that I know of that are suitable for a dictionary. Although tuning even the one from the link above would not be very hard

maik [ 2020-01-06T07:41:17Z ]

   Wiktionary can be given a structure using the markup language and by imposing formatting standards.  the flexibility is a pro not a con.

maik [ 2020-01-06T07:42:14Z ]

   There is at least one wikimedia-based project that has a database behind the scenes, but I actually don't think it's worth it.

maik [ 2020-01-06T07:45:31Z ]

   It's called Omegawiki.  personally I wouldn't want to be in the business of designing a database with tables and fields, writing an interface, etc.  Just put the info on the page the way Wiktionary does it;  the software is turn-key.  If you are going to make this into a software project, people are going to get confused, and the dictionary itself will never get done.

gleki [ 2020-01-06T08:03:39Z ]

   Flexibility is a con since you need to produce a dictionary from it

gleki [ 2020-01-06T08:04:30Z ]

   And I would start with a database model in the first place. Otherwise one can just use pen and paper

gleki [ 2020-01-06T08:10:09Z ]

   If there is no database model then it will be me to get confused

maik [ 2020-01-06T08:11:57Z ]

   The model I am pointing to is proved to work.  Wiktionary is a great resource I use in many languages everyday.

maik [ 2020-01-06T08:12:46Z ]

   Why do you want to recreate the wheel?  All that work for what?  A voting system that is not only useless but actually fosters perceived ownership of words and competition.

maik [ 2020-01-06T08:13:32Z ]

   I say, look at what works, and do that. 

gleki [ 2020-01-06T13:37:43Z ]

   Not for Lojban. Which is not just yet another natlang.

maik [ 2020-01-06T14:36:33Z ]


maik [ 2020-01-06T14:38:23Z ]

   What, exactly, makes Mediawiki unsuitable for writing the English definitions and other information on Lojban words?  And for writing definitions and other information in other languages?

maik [ 2020-01-06T15:03:09Z ]

   If you have more than bromides to offer, I am open to discussion.  Let's say we agreed to put the the Lojban dictionary into a relational DB in the traditional way.  Fine.  How do we navigate the history of entries as they change?  How do we audit the behavior of editors?  What Webpage front end do you propose?

maik [ 2020-01-06T15:04:35Z ]

   Mediawiki allows us to do all that stuff and more, out of the box.

maik [ 2020-01-06T15:07:55Z ]

   By the way: if I recall correctly, Omegawiki had a serious problem because it puts its info in a RDB.  It can't allow new users to edit existing info in its RDB, because there is no way to track the changes -- they hadn't written that functionality yet.  This is what happens when defeat the purpose of software that you are using.

gleki [ 2020-01-06T18:57:16Z ]

   Lack of database model suitable for lojbsn. Compare it to jbovlaste

gleki [ 2020-01-06T18:58:00Z ]

   Btw we already have mediawiki. I once wanted to migrate jbovlaste into mw.lojban.org but too much coding

gleki [ 2020-01-06T18:59:27Z ]

   I'd say git store, not relational db. We are not serving millions of db transactions per sec.

gleki [ 2020-01-06T18:59:51Z ]

   Robin does point in time postgres backups but how to even use them for diffs...

gleki [ 2020-01-06T19:00:33Z ]

   I can propose a lot but who are the developers? I have no time

maik [ 2020-01-06T19:02:01Z ]

   I don't understand what are you objecting to.  

maik [ 2020-01-06T19:02:57Z ]

   You don't want mediawiki because there is no "definition" column in a "word" table in the database, or are you objecting to something else?

gleki [ 2020-01-06T19:03:15Z ]

   Mongodb format: https://gist.github.com/lagleki/b2014dab83f7053e16e9431cfafecf45

gleki [ 2020-01-06T19:03:35Z ]

   I hope this answers your questions

maik [ 2020-01-06T19:05:50Z ]

   I am sorry to disappoint you, but I have no idea why you are so committed to certain technological preferences when Mediawiki is designed to allow a team to collaborate and manage content without everyone being computer science pros, as Wiktionary proves.

maik [ 2020-01-06T19:07:02Z ]

   I mean, yes it's nice to have the information structured in a relational DB or git or whatever, but that function is well enough served by having a layout convention in the wiki markup code.

maik [ 2020-01-06T19:07:45Z ]

   For example, there would be a rule that the definition is always preceded by "==definition==" or whatever.

maik [ 2020-01-06T19:10:59Z ]

   Also, relational dababases can be inflexible.  Suppose we want a special field for half a dozen words.  In Mediawiki, I just put the info on the page, or create a template or something.  With a DB either I have to add a new column in the word table, or I have to create another table with a foreign key, or whatever.  ultimately i don't see what the benefit is of having such an elaborate infrastructure rather than just adding the special data on the pages as needed.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T20:05:11Z ]


bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T20:07:49Z ]

   See the Wikibase and WikibaseLexeme extensions. They allow for a structured SPARQL dictionary within MediaWiki. You get the full wiki features, but also the ability to run structured queries. It's used for Wikidata, and some Wikitionaries also make use of the database.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T20:11:15Z ]

   And you can have a special field for half a dozen words because it's RDF.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T20:11:30Z ]

   Everyone's problems are solved.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-06T20:13:26Z ]

   Also, this entire conversation should really be in Side Conversations. 

maik [ 2020-01-06T20:14:19Z ]

   Sorry about that - please bracket out this conversation for the purpose of making meeting minutes.

maik [ 2020-01-06T23:48:06Z ]

   Getting back to the meeting (sorry again for the diversion):   I have decided I would like to join the LFK.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-07T01:35:11Z ]

   Just to help out: There was a large side discussion above (now moved elsewhere), after which maik stated intent to join. Currently, interest in joining has been declared by phma, karis, ilmen, maik, and myself. 

karis [ 2020-01-07T01:36:30Z ]

   This discussion on the structure of the dictionary the LFK will be, hopefully, developing should now move to the LFK channel. Thank you. 

karis [ 2020-01-07T01:39:32Z ]

   @channel there are now five people who have requested a place on the new LFK committee. Are there any objections to having these five people make up the initial LFK? 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-07T01:40:24Z ]

   What is the deadline for objections? 

karis [ 2020-01-07T01:51:26Z ]

   As there has been time for discussion with nothing raised relevant to this core discussion I will allow 48 hours for objections. Should there be none i will then announce the five of us make up the LFK at this time. Anyone who decides they want to join after that time will need to request this directly from the LFK. 

dersaidin [ 2020-01-07T06:52:44Z ]

   In general, +1 to using git. It is a great tool for cooperatively editing plain text documents (or anything generated from plain text documents).

gleki [ 2020-01-07T08:21:34Z ]

   You forgot about permissions maik. With permissions adding a new field by admin might be possible. I'm not talking about relational databases only. My example above even uses mongodb

karis [ 2020-01-08T03:27:53Z ]

   @dersaidin and @lagleki please continue this in the LFK channel. Thanks. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T07:02:22Z ]

   @mukti ju'i do. Robin and lojbab seem to need you

karis [ 2020-01-13T12:50:11Z ]

   They spoke about the recent issue already. 

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:02:43Z ]

   As there is no more old business on the agenda we shall proceed to new business. The topics and proposals on the agenda for new business are basically on three topics. The first is @maik's suggestion that the LLG reafirm our support for xorlo as a part of the definition of lojban. From what I can tell this comes as a direct result of @lagleki's argument that because there is no written record he is aware of from the BPFK made at the time the decision approving xorlo as to what it entailed and that the committee members were voting on this specific definition, nor one from the LLG from when it voted to follow the BPFK's suggestion and ratified xorlo, therefore the votes are suspect as people may not have known what specifically they were voting on. I will note that a clear description of xorlo does exist, but it was added to the LLG documentation online at a later date. 
   Please correct me @maik and @lagleki if either of these statements are incorrect.
   Discussion on this topic is now open. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:04:31Z ]

   Correct except that I don't address voters' awareness of what they were voting for. I address our awareness, awareness of current members of llg.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:08:40Z ]

   I also assert that a clear description of xorlo does not exist.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:09:52Z ]

   I'm also against absolutely any changes to the language that do not provide precise proposed changes to the reference grammar book.

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:14:06Z ]

   Your point about changes that don't "provide precise purposed changes to the reference grammar book" I assume refers to the CLL until and unless another volume is written. This is also on the agenda, though let's hold this until we have discussed xorlo specifically so as not to make the discussion too confusing to follow. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:15:56Z ]

   Well, I have to reiterate. I consider the CLL the only official description of Lojban. I disapprove of any reaffirmations of xorlo unless we can clearly see which sections, paragraphs and other parts of the CLL are changed and how. I can't vote for or against a mystery.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:17:07Z ]

   So I'm against reaffirmation of xorlo. And I propose cancel LLG's decision to approve xorlo

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:20:22Z ]

   If I understand correctly, @lagleki, you want to get rid of xorlo completely rather than looking at a specific definition and voting for or against that? 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:22:32Z ]

   No. I want to annull LLG's decision to approve xorlo.
   When we can see a proposal named "xorlo reform" listing changes to CLL and the content of such changes I might vote in favor of such changes.
   These two actions are not in disagreement to me.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:25:48Z ]

   I also have a counterproposal (rival to xorlo) on implementing plural logic. And as you can see I have a proposal of supporting another version of Lojban. But since xorlo by some chance is being discussed before them there are low chances that  LLG members would first vote for and then against the same proposal during the same meeting.

maik [ 2020-01-13T13:32:40Z ]

   For reference: https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=BPFK_Section%3A_gadri_as_of_25_Dec_2004

maik [ 2020-01-13T13:33:02Z ]

   For some reason, the tables are not being rendered properly

maik [ 2020-01-13T13:36:13Z ]

   (not rendered properly at least for me).  Here is the old wiki's version: http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section:+gadri+as+of+25+Dec+2004&bl

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:40:33Z ]

   I see your proposal to support a language that is based on lojban, but voting on whether or not to reaffirm xorlo doesn't prevent votes on this other topic. Nor does it prevent votes on changing the name of the current language, though the officers need to decide if that is appropriately a decision for the Board or the Membership before the Members consider it. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:41:51Z ]

   A reference to what? Judging by it's name it's a page related to BPFK , not LLG.
   The page doesn't list all the changes impacting the CLL.
   It doesn't explain what else besides gadri is affected, e.g. what would be interpretation of those new definitions of gadri when they are used in sumti that are arguments of one selbri or e.g. joined with JOI or A or CEhE. E.g. how to interpret {lo rozgu joi pa broda}, {re gerku ce'e lo prenu cu batci}. It de facto implies sections explaining JOI, A, gadri and their quantifiers have to be changed but the page doesn't say how they should be changed.
   All in all, I consider it a undercooked proposal.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:46:23Z ]

   I don't like such discussions. Why can't those that want changes simply learn git and make pull requests to a git repository and then present the result for voting? I consider it highly impolite to propose changes without doing the actual work and thus forcing other to decide what was meant. We currently have no technical problems to update the CLL. You saw yourself that one person forked the CLL into another language (called "Relojban" at the time we last discussed it); such forking is an example of correct behavior to me, the person does changes that can be revised no matter whether that particular project is of interestto the LLG.

maik [ 2020-01-13T13:46:55Z ]

   in the table, the BPFK page summarizes the two major effects of xorlo, corresponding to the two adjustments that would be required in order for the CLL to be up-to-date.

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:49:59Z ]

   The BPFK  _WAS_ a part of LLG! The page may not list all the changes to the CLL, but there is a difference between saying people voted on a vague idea (as you've said elsewhere, @lagleki) or weren't aware of what they were voting on and the document the second link @maik referenced from December 2004 and thus closely contemporaneous with the BPFK and LLG decisions. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:50:27Z ]

   So where is your pull request to the content of the CLL? Why are you talking riddles? Which sentences in the CLL are changed into which sentences?

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:53:18Z ]

   There is also a more detailed discussion that was produced more recently (see other page referenced above) which seems to answer any other questions about xorlo. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:53:44Z ]

   Do you imply that maik provided the link because he believed that LLG members had later voted in favor of xorlo having that page in mind?

maik [ 2020-01-13T13:54:28Z ]

   I provided the link because it provides a description of the change.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:54:36Z ]

   > which seems to answer any other questions about xorlo. 
   So please answer my questions on the interaction with connectives and which sentences are to be changed in the CLL?

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:55:24Z ]

   I suggest that the LLG reject the proposal to reaffirm xorlo and send it to LFK for development of its documentation.

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:55:52Z ]

   If you are so concerned that the LLn Members didn't know what they were voting for in detail why don't you ask them? You can easily contact several and answer your own concern, @lagleki. 

maik [ 2020-01-13T13:56:52Z ]

   Or, the LLG can reaffirm xorlo and direct the LFK to do impact analysis on the CLL.  this could conceivably generate the pull request that you are asking for.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:57:03Z ]

   No, @karis. That mustn't be a correct action. Imagine those members are no longer available. Why having documentation in someone's heads? It should  be in electronic or paper form. And in my view it must be eitherin the CLL version approved by the LLG or nowhere.

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:57:36Z ]

   When it is time to vote we can decide to ask the LFK for documentation. We aren't voting now, though. 

karis [ 2020-01-13T13:58:32Z ]

   We do not know if it was or wasn't in paper form without asking. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:58:49Z ]

   > We aren't voting now, though. 
   Yes, sure. So my suggestion is to reject any proposals not supported by candidate draft unapproved editions of the CLL. Everyone who wants such changes should be directed to LFK.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T13:59:54Z ]

   > We do not know if it was or wasn't in paper form without asking. 
   Searching for lost documentation? I suggest that we simply assert that the documentation is lost and start from scratch. Historians would ask LLG members what they were voting for.

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:00:17Z ]

   You've made the suggestion, so now it might be good to allow others to talk as well. 

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:02:13Z ]

   Let me ask this wrt to Gleki's suggestion:  does anyone know that John Cowan would agree to a xorlo pull request?

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:02:51Z ]

   There's no point in talking about writing a pull request if it's going to be rejected

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:03:20Z ]

   I think he would but it's better to not use any proxies and ask directly.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:04:08Z ]


gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:04:25Z ]

   I disagree. I wrote several pull requests some of which we rejected ... by myself because later I found them unsatisfactory.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:04:41Z ]

   at any rate, I don't think that the language definition should come from the CLL.  I think the the language should be decided, then be incorporated into the CLL.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:06:00Z ]

   Those are technical differences. In my view candidate editions of the CLL must be reviewed by the LLG or its committees and certain version of such candidate editions would be turned into official releases.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:07:00Z ]

   This way everyone would be able to read the whole book, view the differences separately and decides whether those changes are good for hem or not and then cast a vote like "I vote in favor of candidate edition hexrexlojban-X.Y.Z.pdf"

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:09:21Z ]

   If maik's proposal in its current form is adopted then the LLG would have to hire someone to make the relevant changes to the CLL. The person in  charge would either deduce the rest of the impact (and that would require a separate vote) or won't (and that would lead to a broken language).

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:09:47Z ]

   IMHO, writing a full-blown pull request to the CLL on xorlo would be a "phase 2" part of a larger, more comprehensive proposal.  

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:10:38Z ]

   Small issues can probably be handled with a simple pull request.  

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:10:53Z ]

   Okay but then reformulate your proposal and don't insist on making xorlo an official part of the language if even you yourself can't list all the changes in the text of the CLL.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:11:00Z ]

   Xorlo will probably have a significant impact on the CLL.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:11:53Z ]

   I mildly suggest that you instead propose an addition of simple plural logic to the CLL as opposed to xorlo reform.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:12:27Z ]

   The impact would be minimal in case this change is a domain-specific language.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:13:26Z ]

   We don't have to call it "xorlo", but the changes would be essentially the same:  remove automatic distributivity of sumti, and make the inner quantifier refer to the size of the instance not the whole class.  That's all there really is to it, when you boil it down.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:15:10Z ]

   i wouldn't even bother arguing for them, if i did not think these changes were required to make Lojban human-tractable.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:15:18Z ]

   What you describe has a significant impact on the CLL.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:15:26Z ]

   I know that.  

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:15:50Z ]

   There is another proposal that is not to touch most parts of the existing language and use a domain-specific language instead.

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:16:18Z ]

   We wouldn't necessarily have to hire someone, but we could if necessary. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:16:48Z ]

   If you don't hire anyone then the CLL would describe something different from what is approved by the LLG.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:18:16Z ]

   @gleki, I do not believe that anyone is going to use experimental gadri for something as basic to human language as plural reference.   People have been using {lo} for that and they're going to continue to do so.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:19:01Z ]

   Even if it leads to a logically broken language?

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:19:34Z ]

   Whether hired or volunteer the person or persons making the actual changes would have them reviews by us. 

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:19:45Z ]

   There is nothing logically broken about plural logic.  Jbo-masses, though, I am not sure about.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:19:45Z ]

   This argument is not much valid to me. People have been uttering ungrammatical sentences for many years.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:20:15Z ]

   @maik plural logic or xorlo? xorlo in its current is at least underspecified and thereofre broken.

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:20:56Z ]

   > Whether hired or volunteer the person or persons making the actual changes would have them reviews by us. 
   @karis  so my suggestion is to remove extra step and turn to reviewing direct changes to the CLL instead. Less work.

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:23:59Z ]

   By the way, just as a hypothetical, who would have the authority to approve or reject pull requests?  I assume the LFK?

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:25:37Z ]

   @Karis, who were you thinking of hiring?  I do not know there is anyone in the world that would be qualified to give advice for changes to the CLL other than those who are active or have been active in Lojban.  

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:25:43Z ]

   By the way, are new items on the agenda in "New business" section still accepted for this meeting?

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:36:59Z ]

   @lagleki said we "would have  to hire someone to make the relevant changes to the CLL." I replied that we might not need to hire someone, @lagleki apparently took this to mean changes to the CLL wouldn't be made is we did not. My point was that whomever made the changes themselves would have such write up reviewed by us (i meant in the form of LFK or the entire Membership of LLG). My thought was that if we hired someone or utilized volunteers whomever it was would need to be from lojbanistan. 

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:38:16Z ]

   Oh. So you mean those who propose changes must provide written down changes to the CLL themselves?

gleki [ 2020-01-13T14:40:45Z ]

   I didn't necessarily mean that we would have to hire non-members. My concern was that changes unsupported by pull requests would lead to lots of work in others (whether they are members of LLG, new learners etc.)

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:41:15Z ]

   Send me in direct message what you want to add. It depends on its relevance to other topics already there and if it can realistically be discussed together with one or another. I am being restrictive about this as one reason last year's meeting went so long was agenda items added during discussions of other topics, often in response to then. 

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:45:08Z ]

   No, I do not necessarily mean that those proposing changes must provide all relevant CLL changes written out themselves. For new proposals this is currently a decision to be made by the LFK. It would be helpful, certainly, to provide our though. 

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:50:04Z ]

   I'll repeat my earlier question on this thread:   Just as a hypothetical, who would have the authority to approve or reject CLL pull  requests?  I assume the LFK?

karis [ 2020-01-13T14:52:41Z ]

   My understanding is that is part of what @bookofportals wanted to be their responsibility in consultation with @john.cowan. 

maik [ 2020-01-13T14:55:13Z ]

   So, BOP + JC would process pull requests, not LFK + JC?  

karis [ 2020-01-13T17:13:53Z ]

   No, LFK and John. LFK would LFK them after consultation with him. John said he didn't want veto power, but he should be kept in the loop and I expect anything he didn't like wouldn't happen. 

karis [ 2020-01-13T17:14:35Z ]

   By "their" I meant LFK. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T18:16:02Z ]

   I think the LFK should ask him what kind of role he wants when we're coming up with the procedures. Certainly, I think it would be extremely helpful to have so much expertise contributing to our decisions; how exactly he is involved will be a matter of finding something that everyone is happy with.

ilmen [ 2020-01-13T20:20:02Z ]

   I hereby propose that:
   **1)** Instead of immediately cancelling Xorlo as Gleki suggests, the LLG commands the LFK to organize a taskforce charged to write up a formal pull request to the GitHub CLL repository, pull request which would exhaustively describe Xorlo, so that the submitted version of the CLL would fully define Xorlo Lojban. Upon completion of this pull request, the taskforce should submit it to John Cowan and to the LLG for a vote of approval. The LLG would then have three options:
   **A)** The pull request is satisfying and the CLL is updated accordingly; the LLG officially declares that this new version of the CLL represents the only official Lojban, and that this new definition of Xorlo fully replaces any previous officially-endorsed conception of Xorlo, be they implicit or explicitly layed out in written documents. (If such documents exist, their officialness would then be cancelled.)
   **B)** The LLG thinks the pull request is flawed or does not correspond to the idea the LLG has of Xorlo (however fuzzy it might be), and asks the LFK to revise their pull request accordingly, and submit the corrected version to the LLG at a later date for a new vote of approval.
   **C)** The LLG may decide that Xorlo, as fully described/documented in the pull request, is actually not an appropriate change to the Lojban language, and may decide to cancel the former officialization of Xorlo (this might require a separate vote). It could additionally decide then to implement an alternative reform similar but not identical to Xorlo, which would better suits LLG's views for the Lojban language.
   **2)** In order to write up the Xorlo pull request commanded by the LLG, the LFK (or a dedicated taskforce set up by it) would proceed the following way:
   **2a)** Review the prior discussions or documentation on Xorlo, and write a summary of all the changes to CLL Lojban entailed by Xorlo;
   **2b)** Submit their summary of Xorlo to Xorxes, the conceiver of Xorlo, in order to check whether it is faithful to Xorlo as he envisions it; adjust the Xorlo summary according to Xorxes' comments;
   **2c)** Evaluate which parts of the CLL will need edition to comply with Xorlo, and how much work will be needed. If the amount of work is seen as excessive with regard to the available volunteer resources of the LFK, this latter might petition help from the LLG, such as the hiring of somebody for the task, if the LLG deems it necessary.
   **2d)** Edit a fork branch of the official CLL for implementing the Xorlo proposal.
   **2e)** Submit the resulting CLL fork as a pull request to Xorxes, John Cowan and the LLG for review and a vote of adoption.

ilmen [ 2020-01-13T20:22:01Z ]

   What do you think of that roadmap? Any concern, objection or suggestion of improvement?

lalxu [ 2020-01-13T20:44:09Z ]

   I think this is a good proposal.
   ~~how should the approval of John Cowan and LLG be "weighted"? I think we should define this in advance.~~
   ~~i.e. is Cowan just "one of the votes", or does he have a veto right?~~
   ok, I agree with bookofportals that we need to contact John Cowan and ask what kind of role he wants to answer these questions.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T21:29:55Z ]

   I agree that referring the matter to the LFK for a recommendation and appropriate proposed CLL revisions is appropriate. I'd suggest that giving the LFK overly detailed instructions about how exactly to do that consideration might be inadvisable. I'd agree that Ilmen's proposal (section 2 a-d) is a reasonable starting point, but if the LFK bumps into problems it should be free to structure its deliberations in a different manner; I'd leave the details of the consideration process out of the motion. I agree with part 1 and 2e.

ilmen [ 2020-01-13T21:45:19Z ]

   Well, the LFK process as I sketched above is just a suggestion.
   We might want to adjust the proposal a bit to allow the LFK to just issue a Xorlo appendix as a temporary solution if it comes to the conclusion that updating the CLL for Xorlo would require too much work.

maik [ 2020-01-13T21:50:35Z ]

   I very much like the idea of revising the CLL to reflect the language definition as we understand it.  However, it feels safer to commit to doing an impact analysis before committing to creating the actual revision.  

maik [ 2020-01-13T21:55:20Z ]

   In fact, if we have to make a major revision to the CLL,  I would prefer to do a thorough review of the semantics rather than proceeding bit by bit.  There are a lot of little points that are unclear in the CLL, beause the CLL's examples seemed almost contrived to avoid edge cases and complex interactions.  For example, 25 years ago, Jorge raised the question of how {ri} works in {le re nanmu cu prami le ri speni} -- does it mean each of the men loves his own wife, or they love both wives.  25 years later, I still have never seen an answer.

maik [ 2020-01-13T21:56:31Z ]

   So I would do is make an inventory of issues, decide the semantics, resolve the issues, and then after we get some degree of "stability", then proceed to make a revision.

maik [ 2020-01-13T21:57:04Z ]

   But I wouldn't want to commit to doing this in a short amount of time.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T21:58:51Z ]

   I was presuming the timeline would be "by the next annual meeting". 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T22:01:22Z ]

   Which is hardly short, and if it isn't enough time, the LFK can always say "we need more time" or "we've decided to try an alternate approach".

maik [ 2020-01-13T22:03:44Z ]

   [be back in a few minutes]

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T22:04:39Z ]

   [totally okay!]

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T22:05:39Z ]

   As for the semantics, that could take till the end of time if we wanted to be thorough about it.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-13T22:06:43Z ]

   I'm not opposed to to getting into it, but doing it before doing anything else seems like a sure-fire way to make sure nothing else gets done.

maik [ 2020-01-13T22:33:56Z ]

   When I created this proposal, which was to reaffirm xorlo as a part of the language, I did not anticipate it would morph into a proposal to revise the CLL.

maik [ 2020-01-13T22:37:48Z ]

   I'd like to repeat I think updating the CLL is a good idea, but I am uneasy about a couple things.  This is just my opinion.  If people want to tear into the CLL, I will help.  First, I don't think we should feel bound to a timetable.  Second, I also don't think the LFK should agree to the implicit notion that the LFK is somehow beholden to a pull request procedure and that whatever the LFK decides must be in the CLL or else it's "unofficial".  

maik [ 2020-01-13T22:39:19Z ]

   Correct me if I am wrong, but the LFK is not specifically directed to put its findings in the CLL, is it?

karis [ 2020-01-13T23:44:49Z ]

   Not as I understand it. 

karis [ 2020-01-13T23:48:12Z ]

   @ilmen, are you presenting this as a formal proposal at this time or as a part of the discussion which could then be a formal proposal later? I suggest the second only because I would prefer to give everyone a chance to comment on any of this discussion so far rather than limiting them to your proposal, as formally proposing it would. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-14T00:46:29Z ]

   They asked for comments, which strongly suggests the second. Nor did they say “I move”, which is required to avoid exactly this kind of ambiguity.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-14T00:51:06Z ]

   The LFK charter charges it to keep a version of the CLL up to date with its standards. That does not mean that changes cannot be adopted without adding them to the CLL, although people have at times argued that that would be preferable as a matter of policy (and the committee could adopt such a policy). However, if the committee makes a change without adding it to the CLL immediately, it’s in charge of updating the CLL to match.

maik [ 2020-01-14T00:59:53Z ]

   Okay, I found the paragraph in question. Sorry for not reading the whole thing more carefully earlier.  The paragraph also seems to answer a question I had earlier today, regarding who processes pull requests.  It seems maintaining the CLL is entirely under the purview of the LFK, with the exception of the role of John Cowan.

karis [ 2020-01-14T04:41:44Z ]

   I asked @ilmen to be absolutely sure. 

gleki [ 2020-01-14T07:10:29Z ]

   I approve of this proposal. I again should reiterate. I'm completely against any changes to the language not supported by the CLL: lexical, grammatical, morphological. The only exception for that to me are political and research goal changes.
   If you want to approve xorlo you need to present a single pull request with changes to the brivla definitions, cmavo definitions, examples, explanations. We are past our inability to produce CLLs.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T07:13:05Z ]

   @bookofportals I totally disapprove of such changes. I (and many newcomers) want the single source of truth, not a bunch of hidden documentation that one has to ask about as  @karis suggested. I want the documentation here and now in its complete form.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T07:14:52Z ]

   You can produce new candidate versions of CLL once a month or every 3 months, collect feedback etc. and present it to the Board for approval.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T07:15:20Z ]

   The Board as I can see has no annual meetings.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T07:17:04Z ]

   That's quite different from implementing xorlo which is technically not needed because it doesn't fix any broken parts in the language. Indeed I'd approve of dealing with the issue you are mentioning here.

ilmen [ 2020-01-14T10:07:33Z ]

   @karis: I hereby precise that my proposal is a draft open to improvements, suggestions and criticism. I didn't mean to open a vote on it straight away or such. (I've intentionally avoided to say "I move that…")

maik [ 2020-01-14T12:40:18Z ]

   Xorlo is not a change at the current time.  It's been official for 15 years.  There is nothing in the Bylaws or in the LFK charter that entails that the CLL must be revised, as soon as possible and with great urgency, to reflect the already official xorlo reform.  Although I think it's a nice idea, it entails a possibly substantial amount of work.  IMO it's something that should be studied before being committed to.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T12:41:24Z ]

   Yes. And that is my proposal. Reject everything that is not presented as a pull request to the CLL.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T12:42:37Z ]

   Xorlo might be official but I don't understand it because there is no complete documentation. The existing documentation breaks a lot of things and doesn't tell how to fix them. So xorlo is unusable.

maik [ 2020-01-14T12:45:16Z ]

   Okay, that's all your opinion, and not policy at the current time.  I just want to be clear about the difference.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T12:45:56Z ]


maik [ 2020-01-14T12:52:29Z ]

   CLL semantics work for the things it works for, and not for the issues it manages to avoid.  As I pointed out to you in the past, just to give an example, there is no sensible way to refer to "the mothers of those 50 children [who aren't siblings]" because no {lo} woman is the single mother of all of them, jbo-masses of women {loi} aren't mothers, and sets of women {lo'i} aren't mothers.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T12:54:53Z ]

   That's beside the point. You want to show me something Lojban can't (whether or not it's true). I want to point out that xorlo reforms touches gadri, JOI, scope, CEhE, the whole brivla lexicon and other parts of the language without specifying how it must work after the reform.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T12:56:50Z ]

   As for your example I think it should be discused elsewhere. Similarly, solutions to it in Lojban without xorlo reform would be provided elsewhere.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T12:58:03Z ]

   You can ask for help in #lojban channel and then report to LLG of your findings.

maik [ 2020-01-14T13:07:15Z ]

   After the LFK decides a chair, I suppose the next step would be a slate of objectives.  My opinion is that a new official dictionary should be the top priority, as that clearly strikes me as the biggest, easiest-to-fix major gap in the language.  However, if it turns out that clarifying gadri semantics and related issues is deemed to the top priority by the majority of vocal Lojbanists, then it would be fine by me to embark on making a study reporting on the impact of xorlo and the reasons xorlo is needed, with a special view towards making, eventually, a revision to the CLL.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T13:08:12Z ]

   I agree about the dictionary. Most newcomers ask for it, not for some poorly understood and described xorlo reform.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T13:09:15Z ]

   One example from this week from Facebook.

maik [ 2020-01-14T13:11:18Z ]

   While on Lojban translation binge last summer, I personally felt the need for a good dictionary.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T13:12:32Z ]

   You may share your thoughts on the dictionary with the comminuty in written form.

maik [ 2020-01-14T13:14:07Z ]

   We're directed to #LFK to discuss the dictionary.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T13:14:25Z ]

   That's unfortunate

maik [ 2020-01-14T13:16:12Z ]

   We just don't want to get this particular channel too off-topic.

maik [ 2020-01-14T13:16:45Z ]

   we can talk about the dictionary on #lojban if that's wnat you want to do.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T13:17:20Z ]

   No. I want you to talk to the community. Not to hide under the roofs of monasteries with no secrets inside.

maik [ 2020-01-14T13:18:01Z ]

   Sure, understood.

gleki [ 2020-01-14T14:17:06Z ]

karis [ 2020-01-14T14:20:05Z ]

   @lagleki, just to clarify what you said, do you mean I suggested having, "a bunch of hidden documentation that one has to ask about" or I suggested having one single source of documentation? 

gleki [ 2020-01-14T14:35:25Z ]

   You said about asking llg members what they had in mind while voting in favor of xorlo. Of course I, @lagleki, can do that. But it won't solve the problem for other aspiring learners who visit mw.lojban.org or other Lojban resources. My take is purely paedagogical: learning resources must be easily accessible,  as comprehensive as possible and become more comprehensive (not less) over time. This is the whole reasoning behind my remarks on xorlo.

karis [ 2020-01-14T14:38:53Z ]

   You directly attributed something to me. That is what I asked you to clarify, not your position which you had already made clear. 

gleki [ 2020-01-14T14:45:02Z ]

   Oh sorry. Here is your post I was referring to: "If you are so concerned that the LLn Members didn't know what they were voting for in detail why don't you ask them? You can easily contact several and answer your own concern, @lagleki."

karis [ 2020-01-14T14:46:42Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2020-01-14T15:34:14Z ]

   Since no one else has specifically asked, will any of you who were either in the BPFK or LLG Members at the time the xorlo votes were taken please tell us what you remember of the details of xorlo as presented at that time?

ilmen [ 2020-01-14T22:33:24Z ]

   I, for one, was not present at that time.

karis [ 2020-01-15T12:37:45Z ]

   @phma will be back soon to answer as well. 

karis [ 2020-01-15T17:06:33Z ]

   Another question...
   Is anyone not satisfied by letting LFK deal with all the questions about xorlo, including those concerns @lagleki has raised? When the committee is finished the results will be presented to the Membership for a final review. 

gleki [ 2020-01-15T17:29:44Z ]

   If they present the full solution in the form of amendments to the content of the CLL (insertions, deletions, changes with fully specifying what is changed to what and where) I will be satisfied with their work. Voting in favor/ against their proposed changes is of course another topic that shouldn't be mixed with organizational procedures we are discussing here.

maik [ 2020-01-15T17:42:10Z ]

   [comment retracted - i misread what Gleki was responding to]

solpahi [ 2020-01-15T18:13:56Z ]

   Since it might help move things along, I offer this comment: Why does it matter whether anyone here remembers the details of xorlo's inception in 2003 and 2004? All the records are available and can be read by anyone who is interested. I myself read the entire BPFK xorlo thread (which is hundreds of pages) at least twice, years ago. Do most people understand xorlo? No, I don't think so, in fact most probably don't. Does that mean the official vote and the LLG's decision to add xorlo to the interim baseline are null and void? No. As I see it, xorlo is an official part of Lojban, whether or not it has flaws, and whether or not there are "change pages" for the CLL available now. Making the CLL xorlo-compliant is not a new goal, it's a very old goal. Either someone makes it happen or not, but the official status of xorlo is unaffected by this outcome, barring the unlikely event that the LLG passes a new motion that specifically removes xorlo from the interim baseline (which, unless xorlo were replaced by an even better reform, would be a tragedy, since CLL's gadri system is so much worse).

gleki [ 2020-01-16T10:37:50Z ]

   I would also like to ask the question of why it matters. Historian work here? Someone is writing a book?
   Other than that the main disagreement between solpahi's position and mine is that on pedagogical grounds I would like to reject everything that is not described together with the rest of available docs. If both the CLL and xorlo are official one of them must (under my proposal) either be discarded or integrated into the documentation of the other one.

and.rosta [ 2020-01-16T22:53:08Z ]

   I was present at the meeting that voted for xorlo. Xorlo was documented on the wiki. I probably abstained from the vote (on the grounds of no longer being an active Lojban supporter), but I knew perfectly well that CLL was logically incoherent (no criticism of CLL -- it took hundreds of hours of subsequent brainache to expose the problems and find solutions, and finding the solutions was beyond my powers) and that xorlo was far superior and, to the best of my ability to judge it, a genuine solution.
   Having said that, I also find Gleki's position, prioritizing documentedness over logical coherence, perfectly reasonable, but of course incompatible with the opposite priority. My suggestion would be to bifurcate Lojban into two versions (reflecting the two priorities) rather than wrangle pointlessly over these two equally reasonable but entirely incompatible positions. However, as I am no longer an active Lojban supporter, I shrink from formally proposing the bifurcation. But think how many years of tedious contention could have been avoided had such a bifurcation occurred twenty years ago!

and.rosta [ 2020-01-16T22:59:08Z ]

   Turning to my motion, which I believe is next on the agenda, I would like to withdraw the original formulation and replace it with the following:
   In the furtherance of the general purposes stated in Article 2 Section 1 of the LLG Bylaws, purchase a domain name and provide the necessary funding for hosting a new LLG-sponsored website.  The exact domain name of the new website is to be decided later, but should contain either "loglangs" or "logicallanguages".
   Establish a new standing committee, called the "Loglang Research Committee" a.k.a. the LRC, to create, build and maintain the new website. 
   The purpose of the LRC and its new website will be the general study and promotion of both existing and new constructed, human-speakable logical languages ("loglangs").  Much as the 
   organization known as the Language Creation Society endeavors to provide public resources useful to language creators ("conlangers") generally, the LRC, through its website, will endeavor to provide public resources useful to loglang creators, learners and researchers generally. Of course, these resources will also be available and potentially valuable for the continuing effort to document the Lojban language. 
   The LRC is directed to select a chairperson, or a spokesperson, who will represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting of the LLG.  Apart from this directive, the LRC 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

and.rosta [ 2020-01-16T23:01:24Z ]

   I'd also like for Maik to be able to speak to the motion and revise it as necessary, as he wrote it and is able to devote more consistent attention to the ongoing meeting then I am.

and.rosta [ 2020-01-16T23:09:38Z ]

   Regarding the bifurcation suggestion, the branches could be unified by means of the documentationists documenting the logicalist version. And those who favour stasis above all else could decide to stick with the current documentation in preference to any subsequent revision.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-16T23:23:43Z ]

   With all due respect, I think splitting the community is a terrible idea.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T06:36:15Z ]

   I also think that this is a terrible idea. And I also think that this terrible idea is what has been de facto implemented for Lojban in 2004. Since then people have been learning one language and been unable to quickly learn another language (the xorlo one) having to rely on word of mouth, which may have been leading to mastering the language later compared to what could have been in case of the documentation being completed and united.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T06:42:28Z ]

   I think that if @and wants LRC to deal with spoken logical languages only then LLG is not the right place to ask for. However, I think it'd be nice to make LRC study/research/promote/teach the following languages:
   1.spoken ones: Ithkuil, Lojban and similar ones
   2.logical constraint languages, Prolog, miniKanren and its dialects (e.g. clojure.logic)
   3.proof systems (Coq and similar languages: Agda, Idris)
   4.probabilistic programming languages and what mekso in Lojban could be turned into but hasn't (libraries implementing linear algebra, matrices and similar topics)
   5.any NLP research (dependency grammars and corpora in such grammars, possibly with implementing translations to loglangs like Lojban, any probabilistic methods like neural networks etc.)
   Of course, many of us are amateurs in all of those topics, including Lojban. However, over time such institution could become more and more valuable.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T06:46:17Z ]

   Let's face it: 
   a. many people can't master even Lojban, what to say even of other logical spoken languages 
   b. spoken logical languages are useless most of the time for most people. Learning them is a hobby in most cases, not leading to education valuable in life.
   c. unfamiliarity with linked topics I listed above won't move spoken loglangs forward
   Learning linked topics may turn LRC from a bunch of geeks into a valuable organization (that could help people find better jobs due to their expertise), not immediately of course.

karis [ 2020-01-17T08:49:58Z ]

   @lagleki, stating under what conditions you will accept the results of an LFK discussion on xorlo is not an answer to my question. I simply asked if anyone objects to passing the issue to them. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T08:52:55Z ]

   I'll announce this in a moment, @and, though I appreciate your efforts to move the meeting along. I need to wrap up the previous topic first. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T08:58:05Z ]

   @lagleki you've see your point about how xorlo was implemented abundantly clear. Please don't restate it at every opportunity, but save this procedural issue for when we are discussing your proposal about it. 

gleki [ 2020-01-17T08:59:59Z ]

   I don't object

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:07:14Z ]

   As there have been no objections to letting the LFK deal with any questions and concerns about xorlo that remain after the comments following my original statement of this question, I hereby do so. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:09:29Z ]

   @channel, it is now time to address the motion by @and. I will repoat it below. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:12:40Z ]

   @and purposes that:
   In the furtherance of the general purposes stated in Article 2 Section 1 of the LLG Bylaws, purchase a domain name and provide the necessary funding for hosting a new LLG-sponsored website.  The exact domain name of the new website is to be decided later, but should contain either ""loglangs"" or ""logicallanguages"".
   Establish a new standing committee, called the ""Loglang Research Committee"" a.k.a. the LRC, to create, build and maintain the new website. 
   The purpose of the LRC and its new website will be the general study and promotion of both existing and new constructed, human-speakable logical languages (""loglangs"").  Much as the 
   organization known as the Language Creation Society endeavors to provide public resources useful to language creators (""conlangers"") generally, the LRC, through its website, will endeavor to provide public resources useful to loglang creators, learners and researchers generally. Of course, these resources will also be available and potentially valuable for the continuing effort to document the Lojban language. 
   The LRC is directed to select a chairperson, or a spokesperson, who will represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting of the LLG.  Apart from this directive, the LRC 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

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:14:22Z ]


gleki [ 2020-01-17T09:15:58Z ]

   I think that if @and wants LRC to deal with spoken logical languages only then LLG is not the right place to ask for. However, I think it'd be nice to make LRC study/research/promote/teach the following languages:
   1.spoken ones: Ithkuil, Lojban and similar ones
   2.logical constraint languages, Prolog, miniKanren and its dialects (e.g. clojure.logic)
   3.proof systems (Coq and similar languages: Agda, Idris)
   4.probabilistic programming languages and what mekso in Lojban could be turned into but hasn't (libraries implementing linear algebra, matrices and similar topics)
   5.any NLP research (dependency grammars and corpora in such grammars, possibly with implementing translations to loglangs like Lojban, any probabilistic methods like neural networks etc.)
   Of course, many of us are amateurs in all of those topics, including Lojban. However, over time such institution could become more and more valuable.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T09:16:19Z ]

   Let's face it: 
   a. many people can't master even Lojban, what to say even of other logical spoken languages 
   b. spoken logical languages are useless most of the time for most people. Learning them is a hobby in most cases, not leading to education valuable in life.
   c. unfamiliarity with linked topics I listed above won't move spoken loglangs forward
   Learning linked topics may turn LRC from a bunch of geeks into a valuable organization (that could help people find better jobs due to their expertise), not immediately of course.

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:19:17Z ]

   Thank you for restating that now, @lagleki. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:32:47Z ]

   @solpahi and @gleki, would this proposal satisfy your proposals to support and promote loglangs in general (solpahi) and to promote The New Ithkuilic Language for research purposes only (gleki)? 

apieum [ 2020-01-17T09:47:08Z ]

   Hi, I'm not participating much but I'd like to show you my full support for this proposal 👍 also considering lagleki last statement, I think julia lang may interest some of you, first because they have cool tools, and then because they're creating a new language and still have existancial crisis, but their talks to resolve these issues are constructive (see this chronicle for example: https://github.com/WenjieZ/Julia-scope-discussion/wiki/Chronicle ). Wish you the best for this new project

gleki [ 2020-01-17T09:47:43Z ]

   Where can I see solpahi's proposal?

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:49:35Z ]

   Check the agenda. If you don't have it saved the link is in the links conversation here. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:55:53Z ]

   I do disagree, from an education perspective, that learning any language is not worthwhile, as learning languages (including only spoken and computer ones) enhances your cognitive functioning and is recommended by Alzheimer and aging specialists  as an important way to delay or prevent cognitive decline. 

gleki [ 2020-01-17T09:57:11Z ]

   Well in that regard yes but then why learn a loglang? Any natural language would do. @ads proposal isablut logical languages

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:58:20Z ]

   I am referring to your comment above, not his proposal. 

karis [ 2020-01-17T09:59:15Z ]

   Learning a loglang might simply suit your interests better. 

gleki [ 2020-01-17T09:59:16Z ]

   I have spoken logical languages in my comment, not spoken languages in general.

karis [ 2020-01-17T10:00:23Z ]

   Spoken logical languages are equally, or possibly even better for this anyway than other spoken languages. 

gleki [ 2020-01-17T10:03:23Z ]

   I disagree. Spanish, English, Chinese are spoken by more people and hence better suit cognitive functioning since you can find someone to talk to easier.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T10:04:33Z ]

   I hereby retract my proposal on the new ithkuilic language from the agenda.

solpahi [ 2020-01-17T11:38:42Z ]

   The proposal brought forth by And would indeed satisfy me, and I therefore withdraw my own "LLG reform proposal" from the agenda.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T11:46:16Z ]

   So I don't think your opinion can be scientifically verified: too few fluent speakers of Lojban to participate in tests.
   However, I retract my statement
   "b. spoken logical languages are useless most of the time for most people. Learning them is a hobby in most cases, not leading to education valuable in life."
   and replace it with the following statement:
   "b. for people without cognitive functioning disorders spoken logical languages are useless in most of cases in helping those people succeed in their professional careers."

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:32:09Z ]

   I hereby support And's motion about an LRC committee.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:40:41Z ]

   The name of the Logical Language Group hints at a more broader scope of interest than merely Lojban, but also covering all the existing logical languages and hypothetical future ones, i.e. the study of logical languages in general. But in practice little attention to logical languages outside of Lojban has been given by the LLG, as far as I can tell.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:41:40Z ]

   If LLG's only concern were to be Lojban, then it might better off be called the Lojban Group :)

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:43:27Z ]

   Ithkuilic languages aren't loglangs, although they share some similar goals. I'm not sure whether that should be in the scope of the LRC.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:50:15Z ]

   With regard to the existing speakable loglangs, here's a possibly non-exhaustive list:
   • Loglan (managed by the Loglan Institute, still displaying some degree of activity as far as I can tell)
   • Lojban
   • Voksigid (probably inactive/dormant)
   • Lojsk (probably inactive/dormant)
   • Gua\spi (currently dormant): http://www.jfcarter.net/~jimc/guaspi/index.html
   • Xorban (unfinished): https://xorban.wordpress.com/
   • Toaq (active and under development): http://toaq.org/

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:50:49Z ]

   I've heard of a thing called Lojban++ which was meant to be a fork of Lojban but with English words instead, but I've never looked into it

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:51:33Z ]

   CycL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL ) is a logical language that's not meant to be spoken but is used in a project of artificial intelligence.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T14:56:39Z ]


ilmen [ 2020-01-17T14:57:14Z ]

   Ah, I've never looked into Fith beyond short summaries

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T15:02:21Z ]

   As loglangs have some issues and concerns in common, I could imagine a place for sharing resources common or useful to every loglangs, and maybe even for discussing problems relating to loglanghood in general, i.e. concerning every loglangs and not specifically any one in particular

maik [ 2020-01-17T15:06:48Z ]

   I just want to mention I support the decision on the previous item re xorlo.

maik [ 2020-01-17T15:16:14Z ]

   I am not necessarily opposed to expanding the purview of the new LRC into two major areas:
   1. non-speakable and/or non-general-purpose languages such as proof systems, knowledge representation systems, etc.  Some of this may have direct relation to loglang design strategies.
   2. notable and interesting "engineered languages" that are not billed as "logical languages" per se: Ithkuil, Fith, Ceqli (only sometimes billed as a loglang), R. Morneau's MTIL (a favorite of mine).
   That said, @lagleki, I would like to ask why you think:
   > if @and wants LRC to deal with spoken logical languages only then LLG is not the right place to ask for
   It is possible that some people who join the LRC will want to focus on human-speakable, general-purpose logical languages (i.e. the conlang subtype).

maik [ 2020-01-17T15:47:13Z ]

   The post containing the link to the meeting agenda is pinned.  Click the "pin" icon in the channel header and it's easy to find.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T15:52:50Z ]

   Ah yeah, I've forgot to mention Morneau's Latejami language.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T15:57:33Z ]

   It has been suggested that the LLG's hypothetical future website could be hosted on the same website as the LRC's website. Presumably one would be a subdomain of the other, e.g. "llg.loglangs.com", "llg.logical-languages.org", or the other way around "loglangs.logical-languages-group.org" etc

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T15:58:27Z ]

   that would save some money (in comparion with having one website for each of the LLG and the LRC)

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:00:33Z ]

   That's only tangentially related, as I think the topic of setting up an LLG website hasn't yet been subject to an official discussion (I believe it's one of the items on the agenda?)

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:05:46Z ]

   Yes it is, all the way at the bottom of the agenda.

maik [ 2020-01-17T16:14:37Z ]

   "loglangs.org" is available.  This is my first preference for a domain name for the LRC.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:15:29Z ]

   Good to hear that it is available.

maik [ 2020-01-17T16:18:17Z ]

   Lynn has an item on the agenda for creating a website for the LLG.  looking ahead, I would be fine with bestowing "llg.loglangs.org" for that purpose, but that is a totally separate matter from the current proposal.  What does pertain to the current proposal is the domain name for the LRC website.  I would prefer a primary domain name for the LRC, as we are already starting to see a suggestions of expansion of the LRC's purview.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:18:24Z ]

   For the LLG, "llg.loglangs.org" looks good. (But we'll discuss this when the subject of the LLG website comes up.)

gleki [ 2020-01-17T16:28:25Z ]

   Because there is already LCS, an active organization.

gleki [ 2020-01-17T16:29:11Z ]

   But Latejami is definitely into Ithkuilic realm. No formal grammar. Why is it a loglang?

maik [ 2020-01-17T16:32:25Z ]

   Latejami does have a formal grammar.  It's just not emphasized in the body of the monograph.  At any rate, the language has qualities which are attractive to loglangers, so it would certainly would be mentioned in a list of languages of interest.

maik [ 2020-01-17T16:34:50Z ]

   I am not aware that LCS pays adequate attention to the issues that pertain to loglangs. 

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:35:57Z ]

   Yeah, I'd have on the main page a description of what a loglang is, along with mentions of some prominent loglangs (Lojban, Loglan, Toaq…), and a link to a page exhaustively linsting all the known loglangs (including ongoing or aborted projects), as well as a section for non-logical engineered languages of interest (e.g. sharing similar goals)

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:36:50Z ]

   Latejami's formal grammar is very succint

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:37:11Z ]

   Orders of magnitude simpler than that of Lojban

maik [ 2020-01-17T16:37:21Z ]

   Lojban's elder sister Loglan obviously needs to be covered

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T16:50:13Z ]

   Beyond hosting a definition of loglanghood, presentations of existing loglangs with links to their respective websites, hosting papers/essays about loglanghood and related topics, and possibly hosting generic discussions on loglangs, and maybe even LLG's homepage, what do you think the LRC should do?

gleki [ 2020-01-17T16:58:52Z ]

   Teach subjects to each other

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:00:54Z ]

   Besides those things, review issues that have confronted loglangs such as plural logic and intensional logic, cover developments in formal semantics, such as discourse representation theory, that will inform loglang development .  I would also like to see how mainstream theories in syntax outside of formal semanics would interface with logical languages, as I have seen assertions to this effect but little in the way of substance.

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T17:04:07Z ]

   Also documenting the strategies which various loglangs have adopted to cover controversial or uncharted territories of language philosophy or representation of natural languages in logic notations

gleki [ 2020-01-17T17:04:08Z ]

   Why aren't you using threads?

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T17:04:18Z ]

   such as events, embedded interrogatives, etc

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T17:05:40Z ]

   The LRC could pick up the abandoned https://www.reddit.com/r/Loglang, or set up an alternative /r/Loglangs with an -s

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:06:12Z ]

   [side note on threads:  sorry, i sometimes forget.  it would be nice if Mattermost had a feature to move comments to a thread.  That would make threading a lot more convenient]

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:07:53Z ]

   I planned on claiming r/Loglang as soon as I got 500 karma.  I could create r/loglangs right now, though.

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:12:52Z ]

   Yes, there are several philosophical issues which lie at the borders of formal semantics and other fields that would be fair game.  Such the nature of kinds, the nature of identity across possible worlds, the relationship between existence and reference.

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:14:23Z ]

   For starters, I suppose we make a list of languages and write a description for each.

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:14:55Z ]

   OH! one other major thing we could do on the LRC...

ilmen [ 2020-01-17T17:14:55Z ]

   ``the nature of identity across possible worlds``
   Ah, this topic interests me

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:15:57Z ]

   I very much admire Mukti's timeline of Lojban on the Lojban wiki.  I would like to take that and expand upon the various topics touched upon in that timeline.

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:18:09Z ]

   So add history, philosophy and logic to the list of potential things to add.  The thought of Leibniz and Frege, for example.

maik [ 2020-01-17T17:20:28Z ]

   There is a lot of work that could be conceivably done.

karis [ 2020-01-17T19:29:43Z ]

   You copy the original, put it into the thread, then erase the original. I haven't tried to do this on other people's posts, though. 

and.rosta [ 2020-01-18T04:40:06Z ]

   I was on the original board of directors of the LCS when it was first founded, but I resigned because I was strongly opposed to the policy of making membership conditional on the payment of a fee. The rationale for associating the LRC with LLG rather than LCS is firstly that LLG does not charge membership fees and secondly that the mission of the LCS is central to the declared mission of the LLG, as formally reavowed at a recent (the previous?) LLG meeting.

dersaidin [ 2020-01-18T07:50:08Z ]

   I'd suggest LLRC - seems inconsistent to have LLG but LRC.

gleki [ 2020-01-18T07:56:11Z ]

   logical-languages-group.org is much better for SEO purposes

gleki [ 2020-01-18T07:56:39Z ]

   or even logical-language.com (in singular)

gleki [ 2020-01-18T07:57:33Z ]

   You can't avoid fees anyway. someone has to pay for domains and hosting.

lalxu [ 2020-01-18T12:29:37Z ]

   I support And's proposal for the LRC (though I somewhat agree with dersaidin that LLRC is a better name for it :)).
   I support the loglangs.org website / domain name.
   I would side with gleki and prefer that the LLG website have a separate domain name such as logical-language-group.org.
   Domain names are pretty cheap, and hosting for static websites free through something like GitHub.

lalxu [ 2020-01-18T12:37:39Z ]

   (I dislike “llg.lojban.org” and “llg.loglangs.org” for the same reason: it inverts the hierarchy. The domain would imply that LLG is a part of Lojban or part of the loglangs.org project / the LRC.)
   (I would even prefer “llg.org” having sub-sites “lojban.llg.org” and “loglangs.llg.org”, but even better IMO is  “logical-language-group.org”, “lojban.org”, “loglangs.org”.)

ilmen [ 2020-01-18T13:52:48Z ]

   Some more loglangs are mentioned at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/loglang

ilmen [ 2020-01-18T13:55:36Z ]

   Is llg.org free though?

ilmen [ 2020-01-18T13:58:31Z ]

   If `loglangs.org` were the homepage of the LLG, where would be the L(L)RC pages? `llrc.loglangs.org`? ` loglangs.org/llrc/`?

karis [ 2020-01-18T15:33:08Z ]

   Are there any more comments on the value, or lack there of to forming the committee at all? All this discussion of what the websites should be called is secondary to whether the LRC/LLRC should exist. 
   If it does, though, I prefer the LLRC as the name. It would be a part of the LLG after all, as mentioned above. 

maik [ 2020-01-18T16:33:20Z ]

   llg.org is available for $5,750.00.

gleki [ 2020-01-18T16:36:38Z ]

   Bad for SEO

maik [ 2020-01-18T16:43:35Z ]

   I don't have a problem with LLRC as the name.  That implies the full name would be the Logical Language Research Committee then, which is fine by me too.

dersaidin [ 2020-01-18T17:56:07Z ]

   logicallanguages.org  is about $12/year

dersaidin [ 2020-01-18T17:56:31Z ]

   I have https://github.com/logicallanguages

dersaidin [ 2020-01-18T17:58:33Z ]

   There is also logicallanguages.group for $11

dersaidin [ 2020-01-18T18:05:33Z ]

   I'd suggest a convention of only hosting content about logical languages in general under these domains/repository. Lojban stuff can stay under lojban.org and lojban GitHub.  There would of course be lots of links to specify languages.

dersaidin [ 2020-01-18T18:06:37Z ]

   One exception I can think of is archiving a copy of all the materials on a language.

solpahi [ 2020-01-18T22:30:38Z ]

   I agree with @lalxu's points, and I would also tend to prefer "LLRC" over "LRC", though as karis said, the first step is to decide if we want to have such a thing at all, to which I say: Yes, I do.
   The llg website is a separate point on the agenda, I believe, but http://www.logicallanguagegroup.org/ or http://www.logical-language-group.org/ would be my preferences.

solpahi [ 2020-01-18T22:31:53Z ]

   And http://www.loglangs.org/ or http://www.logicallanguages.org/ for the loglang website. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-19T01:32:43Z ]

   If we're getting the LLG a new website, could the LFK have control of the Lojban.org site? It makes sense to have the main organization control the central sites and then have the committees handle the domain specific sites.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-19T01:52:58Z ]

   Note that the motion does not include a method for selecting members. That isn't a problem, it just means Karis gets to pick them. You probably at a minimum want a statement that the committee can modify its own membership.

maik [ 2020-01-19T02:14:02Z ]

   Hmm, true.  I guess we could insert this paragraph right before the current last paragraph:
   > The Annual Meeting of LLG membership will appoint the initial members of the committee by a simple majority vote. Following these initial appointments, the authority to appoint or elect members to the LLRC will be delegated to the committee itself. 

maik [ 2020-01-19T02:19:02Z ]

   Most people who expressed an opinion seem to prefer "LLRC" and "The Logical Language Research Committee" as names, so that would be the other adjustment to the proposal so far.

maik [ 2020-01-19T02:23:51Z ]

   The up-to-date text of the proposal can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10wtbo9LcOKquoAt90AjXC9wjUuWUn_P7lT0noXgJTaQ/edit

dersaidin [ 2020-01-19T05:04:51Z ]

   I'm also questioning "committee"

gleki [ 2020-01-19T06:26:42Z ]

   I suggest adding a hyphen between words. The term loglang is not known widely.

gleki [ 2020-01-19T07:02:53Z ]

   So only speakable logical languages. Sounds like yet another group of conlangers.

karis [ 2020-01-19T07:30:19Z ]

   I'm not sure the initial members need to be put to a vote as we've almost always  taken whomever was interested for projects and committees. 

dersaidin [ 2020-01-19T08:48:28Z ]

   Is it a committee though? What

and.rosta [ 2020-01-19T13:09:38Z ]

   Regarding membership, my preference would very much be to let the group (i.e. LLRC) self-organize and avoid faffing about with motions and voting.

maik [ 2020-01-19T13:17:07Z ]

   We can reword the new paragraph.  I wanted to choose the initial LLRC members it in the same simple manner that the initial LFK members were just chosen (they simply spoke up).  I thought there was tacitly a vote at work, but perhaps not.  [be back in a couple hours, it's snow time in my neighborhood]

maik [ 2020-01-19T14:56:05Z ]

   Are there any suggestions on how to reword the new paragraph dealing with initial members?  Or should I just remove it, leaving the overseeing of initial members to be covered by this paragraph:
   > Establish a new standing committee, called the "Logical Language Research Committee" a.k.a. the LLRC, to create, build and maintain the new website. 

dersaidin [ 2020-01-19T18:47:35Z ]

   Thoughts on "Logical Language Research Initiative" or "Logical Language Research Community"? Is a committee really the kind of entity we want?

bookofportals [ 2020-01-19T18:50:08Z ]

   A committee can run an initiative.

maik [ 2020-01-19T18:58:20Z ]

   The LCS calls itself a "society".  It could be the Logical Language Research Society.  

maik [ 2020-01-19T18:59:58Z ]

   I lean toward "committee" because the entity would have the specific task of creating a website, so it has a purpose.  Also, it is a subsidiary of the LLG, which is the larger society-like entity.

maik [ 2020-01-19T19:00:50Z ]

   I am not super adamant about my preference though.

dersaidin [ 2020-01-20T04:54:45Z ]

   Ok, probably a more important thing to discuss is what people think the purpose/goals for LLRC should be?

dersaidin [ 2020-01-20T05:16:55Z ]

   I have collected the outstanding questions people have asked the channel in the doc maik linked: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10wtbo9LcOKquoAt90AjXC9wjUuWUn_P7lT0noXgJTaQ/edit

gleki [ 2020-01-20T08:04:42Z ]

   You forgot to add Fith.

gleki [ 2020-01-20T12:02:48Z ]

   Into "interesting" group. Link: https://www.frathwiki.com/Shallow_Fith and links further from that page

gleki [ 2020-01-20T12:03:46Z ]

   I'm somewhat disappointed SWH is not reflected anyhow. Any ideas?

maik [ 2020-01-20T12:48:24Z ]

   In my view, the SWH is only indirectly connected to logical languages generally.  The obvious connection is that the first logical language Loglan was created to test the hypothesis, and Loglan's creator was always on the lookout for supposed SWH effects.  Arguably, the logicality of Loglan was just another means to achieve that end.  But in my view, and I suspect in the view of many, logicality itself is the appropriate end of logical languages and not merely the means to achieve something else.

and.rosta [ 2020-01-20T13:18:14Z ]

   Regarding Dersaidin's assemblage of questions, I think all questions except possibly the name of the new group can be left to be answered by the new group itself. LLG has two missions: one is promoting Lojban, which I hope will be delegated to LFK; the other is promoting logical languages, to be delegated to the new group. I look forward to discussing those questions, but in this LLG meeting let's confine ourselves to passing the motion and then let's move the new group's discussion to a googlegroups email forum.

gleki [ 2020-01-20T13:25:45Z ]

   Your initial motion was explicitly confined to spoken logical languages.

maik [ 2020-01-20T13:54:00Z ]

   The major focus of the motion is indeed the sort of languages exemplified by Lojban, Xorban and Toaq, as that's what the people behind it (myself, And, and Solpahi) are largely interested in.  However, there is no intention to avoid related sorts of languages or ancillary topics, a long list of which has already been given.  In fact, in the long run, I think it would be good to include a wide range of content.  We can insert some text into the proposal clarifying that the purview covers these related items, if that is deemed necessary.

dersaidin [ 2020-01-21T00:08:26Z ]

   I think creating the new group needs to define it's purpose and scope.

karis [ 2020-01-21T05:53:39Z ]

   I suggest that the initial members of this committee, should it be founded, become members in the same way as those for the LFK . It was relatively quick, allowed appoint a them, only those joined, and it was done in this open meeting so all of the members could participate. Since the membership in that committee, and apparently this one be changed by the committee members at any time it would be very easy to make changes later. 

maik [ 2020-01-21T12:26:12Z ]

   I agree with that.

dersaidin [ 2020-01-21T15:46:23Z ]

   That is true of membership - it can be modified later, but purpose/scope/goals should be clearly established.
   Otherwise people try to pull in different directions. Otherwise there is no way to justify decisions in terms of accomplishing that purpose.

maik [ 2020-01-21T16:52:27Z ]

   The purpose of the committee is to study and promote logical languages ("loglangs"), especially of the general-purpose speakable kind, though not excluding the notational languages used in math and logic.    However, by reference to Article 2 Section 1 of the LLG Bylaws, the scope of things to be studied by the proposed LLRC would not be limited to loglangs or loglangs of a certain sort.  the first paragraph of A2S1 reads:
   >  Purpose. 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. In the furtherance of these purposes, and in addition to the above activities, The Logical Language Group, Inc. may award grants to individuals for experimentation, travel, publication, study and similar activities.

maik [ 2020-01-21T16:58:28Z ]

   Besides this purpose, the proposal also indicates that the LLRC would be charged with creating a specific body of work, specifically a website that would publish the resources collected and possibly created by members of the LLRC.  To help visualize what this might look like, I would point to the Language Creation Society website as a sort of analogical model of what I hope would be achieved through the LLRC.

maik [ 2020-01-21T16:58:53Z ]


gleki [ 2020-01-21T20:04:11Z ]

   To promote the study but not to teach, huh

gleki [ 2020-01-21T20:04:25Z ]

   This can explain a lot :)

maik [ 2020-01-21T20:39:32Z ]

    Your offer to write the lessons for the teaching part is accepted.

karis [ 2020-01-22T03:03:05Z ]

   @maik, @lagleki has already written beginner lessons which both include experimental vocabulary and do not teach the correct terms for parts of apache in lojban. I therefore object to him writing any lessons for this without them being thoroughly reviewed by several others before inclusion.

karis [ 2020-01-22T03:17:55Z ]

   What some of you may be unaware of is the reason the goals not directly related to lojban are part of the LLG Bylaws. These were included, according to what I remember @lojbab, who wrote the Bylaws, saying was to allow the organization broader scope should the Members and Board ever chose to address these additional questions, not because he expected the LLG would necessarily ever do so. The Bylaws were written before much of the development of lojban was done As such they are not prescriptive of what LLG, or any committees of it should do, but instead left us that followed wide latitude. 
   Having a committee to address some of this is fine. I just wanted everyone aware that the Bylaws tell us what we can do, nor what we must. 

maik [ 2020-01-22T03:36:27Z ]

   That comment about lessons was a bit off the cuff, so if I may, I will withdraw it.  

bookofportals [ 2020-01-22T05:02:24Z ]

   I took it as in jest, though it might be advisable to mark such comments for clarity (as one would in Lojban). 

dersaidin [ 2020-01-22T06:32:10Z ]

   Lol lagleki

and.rosta [ 2020-01-22T23:16:52Z ]

   Noted, Karis. For most of the scope of that bylaw, other institutions and organizations are better placed to pursue those goals more effectively than LLG is; but this is not so for loglangs: there is no institution patently better placed to study loglangs than LLG is. That's why at the previous meeting the LLG affirmed its ongoing commitment to the bylaw and at this meeting the current motion is proposed.

karis [ 2020-01-23T03:38:23Z ]

   As long as this committee, if formed, bring in energy and commitment to the LLG in general and lojban in specific, or at a bare minimum does not detract from our core work (also affirmed at a recent meeting), then I am happy for LLG to provide the umbrella under which these efforts occur and what assistance we can provide to them. 

karis [ 2020-01-23T03:49:50Z ]

   I would also like to clarify that this section of the Bylaws was not discussed at the most recent Members Meeting, but either one or two years prior. As minutes are not available for either I will only say that my memory of the discussion resulted in a clear statement that the LLG still held this as a goal, but not the primary goal of the organization.

and.rosta [ 2020-01-23T10:00:53Z ]

   Karis, I think your conditions are unreasonable. Commitment to Lojban is irrelevant to loglang promotion and arguably it would be proper for a loglang research committee to critique Lojban, which might be construed as detracting from the Lojban supporting core work.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-23T21:55:08Z ]

   LLG policy has in the past been to focus essentially exclusively on Lojban; I think it's clear that the proposal would represent a change in that policy. 

bookofportals [ 2020-01-23T21:56:38Z ]

   It's within our scope, I think the main question is whether or not we want to do it.

karis [ 2020-01-25T02:47:14Z ]

   I'm sorry you see what I'm saying as setting a condition on the possible committee under discussion to not critique lojban. That is not my intent. What I see as detracting from our focus on lojban would be if there was less interest in or energy devoted to lojban among members because they are putting their time and energy into the work of this committee instead. 

gleki [ 2020-01-25T05:57:31Z ]

   I share the same sentiment as Karis. Hence I propose adding non-rival topics (non spoken languages) that would assist Lojban studies, not impede them.

karis [ 2020-01-25T16:33:15Z ]

   I am not advocating against other spoken languages. I simply want to not lose what energy and time is available for lojban because this committee would be new and exciting. LLG has ALWAYS had a problem getting the less interesting work completed, and I see the potential that this committee could make the problem worse by drawing the energy lojban needs to grow in users and volunteers. 

gleki [ 2020-01-25T17:06:45Z ]

   E.g. take xorlo. Its about quantification. If members learn about logic, logical problem solvers they may not only benefit from useful to their careers topics but also get a better grasp on explaining xorlo, quantification and why it is needed.
   I'm not much opposed to spoken loglangs either once the committee would deal with spoken languages per se and not administrative tasks. The latter might indeed sunk too much time.
   Hence I suggest the committee be mostly scientific and educational.
   Spoken loglangs often share core concepts and thus what is e.g. true for Loglan is often true for Lojban. So transfer of useful ideas would mostly be easy.
   However, personally I m not interested much in mastering other loglangs to fluency (because of what I just said) 
   And additional topics related to non spoken notation might benefit community too.

maik [ 2020-01-25T19:04:05Z ]

   I don't think the LLRC will draw energy from Lojban.  I don't envision either committee impeding or detracting from the other. 
   Depending on the interest of the person in question, (A) some people will be on the LFK and not the LLRC; (B) some people will be on the LLRC and not on the LFK; (C) some people will be on both committees.  People in group A will simply ignore the LLRC.  People in group B won't be working on Lojban projects regardless of whether the LLRC exists or not.  And people in group C are already splitting their time among multiple loglangs and related languages -- there are already Lojbanists spending time and energy on the Toaq server and Ithkuil Reddit site, to name just two examples, and many are contemplating their own loglangs.  And I expect further loglangs to be published in the coming years.

gleki [ 2020-01-25T19:15:21Z ]

   I think that in some cases people create their own loglangs because they don't see any other interesting things to do in this field.
   However if assistive topics are added that might concentrate efforts around Lojban. Which doesn't mean other loglangs would be somehow damaged. In fact the lack of study of logic, computing, knowledge representation hurts ALL loglangs.

maik [ 2020-01-25T20:18:07Z ]

   > I think that in some cases people create their own loglangs because they don't see any other interesting things to do in this field.
   Maybe.  In any event, people are going to do what they want to do.  
   > However if assistive topics are added that might concentrate efforts around Lojban. Which doesn't mean other loglangs would be somehow damaged. In fact the lack of study of logic, computing, knowledge representation hurts ALL loglangs.
   I see "assistive topics" as definitely under the LLRC's purview.  Please note that the third paragraph of the proposal already contains the following:
   > [...] the LLRC, through its website, will endeavor to provide public resources useful to loglang creators, learners and researchers generally.
   I am willing to reword this paragraph to be more explicit, but basically the idea is indeed to study "assistive topics" -- primarily though not exclusively topics in logic and linguistics -- and create resources that might be of use to loglangers, possibly in the form of white papers.  
   I can edit the paragraph if it needs to be stated more explicity that assistive topics are part of the purview.

gleki [ 2020-01-25T20:19:48Z ]

   I'd indeed included examples of assistive topics. E.g. in an addendum. It currently looks a bit legalese to me.

gleki [ 2020-01-25T20:20:31Z ]

   And what's the definition of loglang there?

gleki [ 2020-01-25T20:24:15Z ]

   Letting people do what they want by doing nothing yourself is quite different from showing them what they can do, i.e. providing choices to them

maik [ 2020-01-25T20:29:19Z ]

   **Two minor changes to the proposal:**  For consistency I will change "loglang creators ..." to "logical language creators ..." .  I am also going to remove the fourth paragraph about voting in the initial members, and leave it up to the LLG to decide how to do that.

gleki [ 2020-01-25T20:35:03Z ]

   Note that German, Sanskrit, Chinese, Esperanto are sometimes referred to as logical languages

karis [ 2020-01-26T17:50:03Z ]


karis [ 2020-01-26T17:51:40Z ]

   It's been three days since anyone except @maik, @lagleki, and myself have spoken. Does anyone else have something to contribute? 

karis [ 2020-01-27T11:03:13Z ]

   The LLG is more than its committees, don't forget. 

phma [ 2020-01-27T11:14:53Z ]

   I don't.

gleki [ 2020-01-27T11:34:57Z ]

   Please reply in threads

gleki [ 2020-01-27T11:35:12Z ]

   Has to understand what your are replying to

ilmen [ 2020-01-27T11:59:40Z ]

   The LLRC will have to write a definition of what a loglang is.

ilmen [ 2020-01-27T12:00:19Z ]

   And this definition will most likely be prominently linked to from the LLRC site front page

ilmen [ 2020-01-27T12:00:50Z ]

   If it's short enough it could as well be included directly in the front page, maybe.

ilmen [ 2020-01-27T12:01:05Z ]

   Or at least a summary thereof.

gleki [ 2020-01-27T12:08:03Z ]

   Well I mean didn't the LLG already done that? There should be some reference to the LLG terminology which would have higher scope than any of LLG's child organizations

karis [ 2020-01-27T12:24:19Z ]

   Likely @phma was responding to me, the comment directly preceding this comment. 

karis [ 2020-01-30T06:04:42Z ]

   They are committees of the LLG, not child organizations. The difference in terminology matters. 

karis [ 2020-01-30T06:11:57Z ]

   I have decided to divide the proposal as it is now written so we can vote separately on the creation of the new committee and on the possible purchase of a domain name for it or for the LLG set up such that each committee controls as section. This latter idea is actually part of a separate item on the agenda already and is not a necessary part of the proposal to organize a new committee.
   At this time is there is someone who wants to second the proposal, as presented in the document provided below? I have simply taken out the part about the domain. 

gleki [ 2020-01-30T06:25:07Z ]

   In that case specification what "logical language" means is needed

karis [ 2020-01-30T06:27:49Z ]

   Logical Language Research Committee Proposal (Current Draft)
   In the furtherance of the general purposes stated in Article 2 Section 1 of the LLG Bylaws,  
   Establish a new standing committee, called the "Logical Language Research Committee" a.k.a. the LLRC. 
   The purpose of the LLRC will be the general study and promotion of both existing and new constructed, human-speakable logical languages ("loglangs").  Much as the  organization known as the Language Creation Society endeavors to provide public resources useful to language creators ("conlangers") generally, the LLRC will endeavor to provide public resources useful to logical language creators, learners and researchers generally. Of course, these resources will also be available and potentially valuable for the continuing effort to document the Lojban language. 
   The LLRC is directed to select a chairperson, or a spokesperson, who will represent it as necessary before the Board of Directors and any Annual or Special Meeting of the LLG.  Apart from this directive, the LLRC 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

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T06:41:11Z ]

   @karis In the interest of moving things along, I second the motion.

karis [ 2020-01-30T06:41:20Z ]

   I understand this decision may cause some consternation, however one important reason is that as the decision to purchase a domain is a financial decision, a final determination about this part will require the approval of the Board, while forming the committee does not. When the Members Meeting gets to the proposal  

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T06:51:20Z ]

   Forgive me, but I can’t find anything in the bylaws about the board’s approval being required for financial decisions. If there is something like that, could you point me to it? I don’t object to the division of the question though.

karis [ 2020-01-30T07:07:56Z ]

   Article 5, Section 4: 
   Duties of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have the control and general management of the affairs and business of this Corporation.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T07:16:46Z ]

   I’m kind of doubtful that Article 5, Section 4 actually implies that the membership can’t generally (i.e. where not explicitly overridden, as it is for dissolution of the LLG) make decisions independently of the board, given that the membership is superior to the board (both by definition and because it elects the board) and not the way around. Still, I won’t press the point. 

karis [ 2020-01-30T07:21:49Z ]

   Since the Board can override Membership decisions its more like they operate coequally. 

karis [ 2020-01-30T07:33:40Z ]


karis [ 2020-01-30T07:51:29Z ]

   The proposal by @and to form  the Logical Language Research Committee (LLRC), as stated when aSecond  was requested, has been seconded by @bookofportals.
   As the discussion has been extensive already we will proceed with voting. If there are any objections to doing this you may present them. Note.
   Voting on the proposal by @and to form  the Logical Language Research Committee (LLRC), as stated when above, is now open. Please cast your vote before midnight UTC on February 2nd, 2020. At that time, and not before, we will discuss another topic. 

gleki [ 2020-01-30T08:23:55Z ]

   I vote nay on this proposal.
   Reasons: 1. No specification of what "logical language" is. 2. If by "logical language" something similar to TLI Loglan or Lojban is meant that would divert activity of LLG members away from Lojban.

solpahi [ 2020-01-30T10:49:28Z ]

   I vote Yes.

lalxu [ 2020-01-30T12:06:23Z ]

   I vote Yes to the LLRC.

and.rosta [ 2020-01-30T19:06:25Z ]

   I vote Yes.

lojbab [ 2020-01-30T21:10:36Z ]

   While the membership is in theory superior to the Board, membership meetings are nominally single events once a year, whereas the Board has day-to-day responsibility and authority.  Thus while the membership could authorize a financial transaction if the need was timed to match the meeting. the Board can addresses the matter as needed.  Note however that the President and/or the Secretary/Treasurer both have authority to spend LLG money on their own discretion, they are accountable to the Board for such actions.  If the Board okayed spending for a website, the actual payment would probably be by one of those officers. (As a comparable situation, the Board authorized using Lightning Source for CLL publishing, but all the account setup/management and occasional fees have been handled since then by the S/T with no Board involvement.

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T21:12:45Z ]

   Okay, if correct that fits with my understanding of how it worked. So in this case the board's approval would not be strictly required, given that the member's meeting is ongoing and we can collectively approve the expenditure?

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T21:15:19Z ]

   Also, it would likely be beneficial to clarify that, because Karis rightly pointed out that the bylaws could currently be read to suggest that the membership doesn't have power to approve things directly, but needs to go through the board. That is quite a confusing state of affairs, given that the general point of having a board is to represent the membership and make decisions on behalf of the members when a meeting is not in session.

lojbab [ 2020-01-30T21:20:49Z ]

   I will abstain on the proposal since I haven't been following the discussion, or considered it thoroughly, though I am sympathetic in general to establishing a chartered committee accountable to the Board, which the proposal appears to do.  I will note that the inclusion of broad support for logical languages in the Bylaws was NOT because we had the intention to support multiple languages.  Rather, LLG was being established as an independent organization supporting Lojban as an alternative form of Loglan.  At that time we had no idea whether and how the dispute between LLG and The Loglan Institute would play out, and the Bylaw was thus worded to support logical languages rather than naming a specific language, when the name(s) to be used for promoting the language was being disputed, as well as whether one language or more than one would be the result.

lojbab [ 2020-01-30T21:26:31Z ]

   As it happened "Lojban" caught on as the name for LLG's version of Loglan, and there was no formal rapprochement between us and TLI, so TLI's version of Loglan still exists.  No thought was ever given to supporting any other form of logical language other than Lojban, but at one time the proposal for an alternate language called "PlanB" was on the LLG-run website (it might still be there somewhere, for all I know)

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T21:27:48Z ]

   I abstain on the LLRC proposal. I have no objection to the formation the committee, but neither is it something I would personally be interested in, so I don't care that much one way or the other.

lojbab [ 2020-01-30T21:30:03Z ]

   The Board has generally deferred to the membership for any issue that needs to be decided during the annual meeting, in part because running two meetings at once was impossible when members met face-to-face.  But even when we first went online IRC members meetings were over and done within one or two sessions.

karis [ 2020-01-30T22:13:57Z ]

   Currently, though, they do technically happen at the the same time. 

xorxes [ 2020-01-30T22:16:04Z ]

   I vote yes

bookofportals [ 2020-01-30T22:31:04Z ]

   Apologies to Karis for making the vote counting more complicated, but I change my vote to yes. I'm still personally indifferent, but I've decided that the substantial interest that's been shown means that this is wanted by the community as whole. 

karis [ 2020-01-30T22:32:06Z ]

   That's fine. 

karis [ 2020-01-30T22:33:36Z ]

   We have six votes so far. I would really like to get a couple more, though. 

ilmen [ 2020-01-30T23:30:31Z ]

   I hereby vote yes to the LLRC proposal.

phma [ 2020-01-31T08:44:08Z ]

   I vote yes.

karis [ 2020-01-31T11:54:42Z ]

   I was specifically addressing business, including financial decisions and my recollection of how this line was interpreted when I first attended meetings. At that time the Members Meeting was generally immediately preceding the Board Meeting. 

karis [ 2020-01-31T11:57:46Z ]

   I am obstaining as I believe the committee isn't a bad idea, but the basis for it is not in line with what was intended in the Bylaws as @lojbab explained. 

karis [ 2020-02-01T09:41:10Z ]

   I gave extended time for this vote because of its importance, however it seems everyone wanting to vote may have done so.
   Does anyone else want to cast a vote? 

karis [ 2020-02-04T22:20:06Z ]

   The vote to form the Logical Language Research Committee as a part of the LLG has passed. The tally is as follows:
   For - 7
   Against - 1
   Abstain - 2
   Thank you to everyone who participated. 

maik [ 2020-02-04T22:24:08Z ]

   @karis, I believe it's 2 abstain (Lojbab, yourself) and 1against (Gleki).  (7-for seems correct)

karis [ 2020-02-04T22:25:08Z ]

   Thank you for correcting me. I entered the counts in the wrong places and will correct the post. 

karis [ 2020-02-04T22:34:04Z ]

   The next item on the agenda is @lagleki's proposal to, "Accept and promote as a new language Classical Lojban described in CLL 1.1." 
   Before starting discussion on this I would appreciate @lagleki explaining why it is important, in his opinion, that we officially separate lojban into Classical Lojban and what I guess would be termed currently used lojban. 

gleki [ 2020-02-05T05:25:44Z ]

   It's a proposal officializing the de facto situation that has been happening in the last 22 years.
   People come to learn Lojban and need materials to learn from. Good or bad but the main source to learn from is the reference grammar book (the CLL) even if it wasn't designed as a tutorial.
   Such people often read lojban.org or soon learn from the community that Lojban has gotten some reforms and have to try to understand what those reforms mean often without first reading the CLL, a task that is doomed to fail.
   Therefore, they lose time to figure out what is going on or ask questions (th last one I saw was on Facebook) like "ll the materials are outdated" instead of learning something useful.
   Officializing one version of the CLL as a source for learning some language (e.g. called "Classical Lojban") would allow to get more speakers of this "Classical Lojban" language and more speakers of related languages (like those endorsed by the LLG, one of them called "Lojban").
   Officializing one version of the CLL as a safe place to learn from would imo lead to more fluent speakers (both in Lojban and Classical Lojban), thus complete goals of Lojban for more people, bring more devoted Lojbanists and in the end increase the LLG activity.
   This proposal doesn't touch the topic of whether some reforms in Lojban are good or bad, whether they lead to a more perfect language or not.
   This proposal doesn't exclude the possibility of officializing other versions of the CLL now or in future. In fact, iirc the CLL version 1.1 from 2016 was published by Robin Lee Powell without getting approval from the members in a legal way (during the meeting) so officializing some version of the CLL is necessary.
   The main difference between Classical Lojban and Lojban is that Classical Lojban is strictly based on a book and everything that is not in the book is not official.

karis [ 2020-02-05T07:55:23Z ]

   One point. The version of the CLL from 2016 is "legal" in the sense you are using the word. Board decisions, such as approving this, do not need additional approval of the Membership. If they did the organization would come to a standstill between Members Meetings. 

gleki [ 2020-02-05T07:57:08Z ]

   Oh thank you. LLG authorised Robin to publish new versions, right?

karis [ 2020-02-05T08:06:50Z ]

   Yes. That is what I remember happening. You can check if you want. I'm currently busy with this meeting and the LFK. 

gleki [ 2020-02-05T08:07:59Z ]

   Ok, that's an important correction.

and.rosta [ 2020-02-05T18:20:07Z ]

   Re promoting Classical Lojban: the Let Usage Decide school of Lojban wanted it to be defined by how it is used,  rather than by how it is specified, so would LUD Lojban be a variety of Contemporary Lojban rather than Classical Lojban?

gleki [ 2020-02-05T18:58:06Z ]

   Classical Lojban is a documented thing. LUD language is by definition hard to follow. So they take different values on the scale of documentability.
   People who prefer to study alone or those who like written documentation would prefer Classical Lojban.
   Those who like to learn by immersion would go to LUDostan.

maik [ 2020-02-05T19:14:07Z ]

   For reference find And's earlier remarks on bifurcation, which resemble the current proposal under discussion, which is by Gleki, here: https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/wrj45qpurjrf5e94xgcgmk9ujh
   > [And] My suggestion would be to bifurcate Lojban into two versions (reflecting the two priorities) rather than wrangle pointlessly over these two equally reasonable but entirely incompatible positions. However, as I am no longer an active Lojban supporter, I shrink from formally proposing the bifurcation. But think how many years of tedious contention could have been avoided had such a bifurcation occurred twenty years ago!

and.rosta [ 2020-02-05T19:35:28Z ]

   I discern a trifurcation of if not official versions of Lojban then at least priorities:
   1. Prioritize documentedness
   2. Prioritize logical coherence
   3. Prioritize usage (i.e. Lojban as it is used)
   I suppose the LLG could vote to trifurcate or to endorse only one of these. Rather than simply voting Yea or Nay on Gleki's motion, might it make sense to discuss which of 1,2,3 LLG should endorse (recognizing that there are at least 7 candidate answers)? Again, I don't formally propose this, because I think the decision should be taken by those invested in the Lojban side of LLG activity (so not by those who, like me, are invested only in the loglang sure).

bookofportals [ 2020-02-05T19:37:16Z ]

   I mean, the answer has been for a long time that we should update the documentation to be in accordance with some combination of coherence and usage. That's what LFK is currently working on.

gleki [ 2020-02-05T19:37:16Z ]

   I'm fine with trifurcation too although it s been bifurcation over the last 20 years. With logical coherence being present in jbocre (experts) in the form of tinkering.

gleki [ 2020-02-05T19:38:42Z ]

   @bookofportals one has waited for 20 years to complete such a project. There is no reason to believe it will be completed tomorrow unless you officialize reality and allow people to safely learn from the CLL officially.

maik [ 2020-02-05T19:47:15Z ]

   maybe part of the reason why the project never got completed is that the faction that wanted to get it completed was perennially obstructed by the faction that was convinced that it was already completed.

gleki [ 2020-02-05T20:03:50Z ]

   That's beside the point. The project is not complete according to some and won't be complete tomorrow. Let's stick to the proposal.

gleki [ 2020-02-05T20:24:12Z ]

   The text of the proposal might be the following: "the LLG endorses learning of Lojban as it is described in the 'Complete Lojban Language' book published at http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ Among the versions published at the address provided the version currently latest of all is recommended by the LLG for learning."

ilmen [ 2020-02-05T21:06:23Z ]

   Would you prefer Classical Lojban to include Dotside or not?

ilmen [ 2020-02-05T21:07:04Z ]

   Considering that there's a pull request for implementing Dotside in the CLL currently pending review from the LFK.

karis [ 2020-02-06T02:59:57Z ]

   No one is saying that there should never be any change because the language is perfect. The difference, more accurately stated, is between people who think change at all levels of the language is fine if it makes any perceived improvement and much of the language is wide open (ie anyone can create words and put them in jbovlaste), and those who believe the structure and core language is finished and change to it should be very rare, and only if the benefit of making the change out weighs the difficulties (to learners, having to update materials, etc). 

karis [ 2020-02-06T03:22:28Z ]

   Why should lojban, as managed by the LLG, not keep the name and web presence that's we've been developing for it all these years? LLG has managed the lojban.org site, for instance. 

gleki [ 2020-02-06T04:33:39Z ]

   In the proposed definition the only link is to http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ This will prevent the LLG from revoting over and over again.
   If you don't like the name we may call it Book Lojban or Lojban Bokmal or CLL Lojban or Lojban LongTermSupport ( in the latter case updates must be e.g.once a year or more seldom)

gleki [ 2020-02-06T04:35:19Z ]

   My proposal is not about changes to the language but about explicitly telling new learners,: LLG endorses CLL, it's recommended that you learn from the CLL.

maik [ 2020-02-06T04:41:38Z ]

   @karis, sorry, but i am unable to work out what this post is in response to.

karis [ 2020-02-06T05:11:16Z ]

   I was referring to the proposal, and some of the discussion above referencing it.  The proposal calls for what is basically lojban as it's recognized and supported by the LLG to be called something other than just lojban while that which includes this core language and all the various modifications and changes people have made gets to keep the name as it is now. By doing this the lojban which the lojban.org website and the LLG call official is no longer "lojban".

karis [ 2020-02-06T05:13:57Z ]

   It is lojban. If a schism happens, as it did with the creation of lojban, those leaving should come up with a new name for what they now are developing.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:16:49Z ]

   It already happened, Karis. It's been 17 years. People can't learn Lojban effectively because of this xorlo. They ask of documentation. There is no single one unless we officialize the CLL as an okay to learn from.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-06T05:18:09Z ]

   We're talking about recognizing a dialect, not creating a new language. I don't particularly see the point of recognizing this dialect; I think it would create more confusion than it would solve. Still, seeing it as an entirely new language would be a bit extreme. 

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:18:31Z ]

   But the LLG also recognizes xorlo which basically ruins the idea of the CLL as the documentation of Lojban.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:19:30Z ]

   But it's been creating confusion for 17 years.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:20:51Z ]

   That's what I'm trying to solve. People come to learn Lojban and see mentions of some reforms that are not in the documentation. they won't wait for another 20 years. They need documentation here and now.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:22:37Z ]

   If Karis insists on changing the name of the language of the CLL I can accept that. Any proposals on what to call it? 

maik [ 2020-02-06T05:22:55Z ]

   @Karis, I thought according to the proposal, standard Lojban was to be simply called "Lojban", while CLLv1.1-based Lojban was to be called "Classical Lojban.", but perhaps I am missing something.  I don't really blame anyone for being confused since Gleki has totally reworded his proposal from scratch.  Perhaps he can clarify how he intends to identify and name the various varieties of Lojban with respect to this proposal.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:24:31Z ]

   http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ describes Classical Lojban according to my proposal. Im not sure what is standard Lojban.

maik [ 2020-02-06T05:25:26Z ]

   That's a URL.  Shouldn't you be connecting Classical Lojban with the book rather than the URL?

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:31:08Z ]

   You mean I should attach a file to the proposal? In that case it will include mistypes and I afraid few will approve of that. The URL is controlled by who was authorised by the LLG.
   If "classical" is incorrect let's call it "Documentationful Lojban" as opposed to those Lojbans that store their documentation in disparate places that are hard to find or use.

karis [ 2020-02-06T05:36:00Z ]

   My comment was not meant to distract at this point, but to be considered if we get to the point of your idea being an official proposal rather then under discussion. 

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:37:25Z ]

   " I'd this is approved then" <-- are you sure this is meaningful or again T9?

maik [ 2020-02-06T05:37:30Z ]

   Is your proposal to define "Classical Lojban" using CLL v1.1 specifically?  Or do you propose to define it using the latest version worked out by the LFK and approved by the LLG?  
   The original wording of your proposal specifically said 1.1.  But then you completely changed the text so that it references a URL.  

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:39:30Z ]

   If my proposal on Classical Lojban causes too much confusion can we instead vote for the following text: "The LLG endorses http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ as the source to Learn Lojban from" and place it on the front page of mw.lojban.org?

karis [ 2020-02-06T05:39:44Z ]

   What you call standard lojban is what is being splintered or, not the one based on the CLL, assuming this idea is approved. What is based on the CLL would be simply lojban. 

maik [ 2020-02-06T05:42:44Z ]

   @karis as I understand it:
   Classical Lojban = CLL
   Standard Lojban = CLL + Xorlo + dotside and other official decisions.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:42:59Z ]

   @maik http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ lists CLL v.1.1. The difference is insignificant given that the CLL is updated very seldom.
   By the time the next edition of the CLL is published the LLG might change its mind and disapprove of version 1.1 completely under any name.
   But we can make a poll:
   1. I approve of the LLG endorsing http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ as the source to learn from
   2. I approve of the LLG endorsing http://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-no-chunks/ as the source to learn from
   3. I approve neither 1. nor 2.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:45:45Z ]

   "the LLG might change its mind" <-- this is not unimaginable given the history of Lojban and that the group (Lojbab was a member of) initially supported something similar to the the language invented by James Cooke Brown only later reworking the lexicon as we all know.

maik [ 2020-02-06T05:53:45Z ]

   @lageki not that i think that it's likely that any proposal is going to pass anyway, i would very respectfully suggest you decide what your proposal actually is, and then put it on Google Docs so that the LLG membership can actually consider it as a stationary target.

gleki [ 2020-02-06T05:57:17Z ]

   Ok, here is my proposal:
   The Logical Language Group accepts as part of its policy the following statement that is to be placed on the front page of lojban.org (or the page it redirects to):
   "The Logical Language Group endorses http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ as the source to learn Lojban from".

karis [ 2020-02-06T05:58:20Z ]

   I get what he means by the terms. All I was saying is lojban = what LLG says is official. If there were ever to be a schism all else, that you refer to as standard lojban, isn't lojban at that point.
   I was going to say something like @maik did. You got to it first as I was typing, so thank you. 

karis [ 2020-02-06T06:25:06Z ]

   Thank you for this clear statement. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-06T06:26:13Z ]

   Yes, this is much less confusing. 

karis [ 2020-02-06T06:30:51Z ]

   As @lagleki's proposal has changed several times he has restated it as follows:
   The Logical Language Group accepts as part of its policy the following statement that is to be placed on the front page of lojban.org (or the page it redirects to):
   "The Logical Language Group endorses http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ as the source to learn Lojban from".

karis [ 2020-02-06T06:31:39Z ]

   Hopefully this will help anyone caught in the tangle above. 

karis [ 2020-02-08T07:32:26Z ]

   As it has been 48 hours with no comments on this version of @lagleki's  proposal I am now calling for a second. 

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:01:24Z ]

   In software we use branches with version control systems, sometimes it diverges sometimes it converges and the branches are merged. Maybe putting all these things in a repository under version control can improve the readability -> keep a main branch (called master), the one proposed by lagleki and keep a separate branch for other version. It would permit to conpare changes easily

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:02:18Z ]

   inside the repo on a readme file, you can explain the 2 branches

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:09:53Z ]

   also major services providers integrate a wiki with repos (github, gitlab, framagit) so you don't need to self host your own wiki

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:10:43Z ]

   and they integrate automated tools you can trigger event to build the book automatically when you've changed something, of check for grammar...

maik [ 2020-02-08T15:18:12Z ]

   Since the topic comes up a lot, I will mention that it seems to me source control platforms are oriented toward software development.  At least for the new dictionary, I would prefer to use MediaWiki, which is oriented toward content presentation and therefore end users (i.e. dictionary users not editors).  The CLL of course is a different matter.

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:24:51Z ]

   and instead i suggest a graph database.

maik [ 2020-02-08T15:27:28Z ]

   what do you suggest for the presentation layer?

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:32:17Z ]

   the raw admin interface. Like this one ArangoDB-Graph-Viewer.gif (just a showcase, there are many such databases)

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:33:25Z ]

   Honestly I don't know for wiki, I don't use it.

maik [ 2020-02-08T15:35:36Z ]

   that seems a rather exotic interface from a traditional lexicographical viewpoint.  the best i can say is we add something to the database to model the edges and whatever.  then the data can be exported and converted into the graph as needed

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:37:00Z ]

   whatever non admin GUI you use would only hide relations and make queries much harder to run.
   Consider it like switching to English from Lojban because English although not based on relations directly is not out of this world.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:37:07Z ]

   Source control systems are powerfull for plain text documents essentially, for pdf, epub, and pictures the benefit is null. Meanwhile if you have a latex version of the book, it should be possible to generate html, pdf, epub automatically

maik [ 2020-02-08T15:38:37Z ]

   Wikis have these things called links to handle relations.  I am not sure end users should need to understand graph theory in order to navigate a dictionary.  but it's an interesting proposal, admittedly

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:38:41Z ]

   you might not know that but it's in docbook XML + a bunch of scripts to compile indices, glossary, list of examples, the dictionary. The compilation process is straightforward although is very long (~2 hours). it's in git of course

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:41:25Z ]

   Wikis don't and can't have powerful query system once they are based on SQL-like databases. The language is a graph, not an excel sheet.
   You need something like http://www.opencypher.org/ language to query it successfully.
   An by the system I mean not just a list of word but phrases (like in Tatoeba.org), literature and live chats.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:42:16Z ]

   ok the link was http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ so my proposal was to link directly to git repo

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:43:22Z ]

   gitlab use graphql

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:43:51Z ]

   what is that relevant to?

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:44:55Z ]

   Ah ok , my proposal is about newcomers who want to learn the language. Not everyone is a developer. Not everyone wants to know about branches. They mostly want tthe most recommended branch and in a compiled format, i.e. html/epub/pdf.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:45:22Z ]

   related to your graph proposal, on a repo you can ask data throught a graph 

maik [ 2020-02-08T15:45:50Z ]

   I am not sure that WikiLexeme's data schema is classified as SQL-like, but at any rate the data will have to be structured for various purposes, including for generating the body of a printed dictionary.  Keep in mind that the most successful voluntary dictionary project in human history uses a semi-structured approach and does a great job while at it.  I know software design purists find this utterly appalling, but the job doesn't call for a perfect data schema. It calls for good dictionary entry writing and elbow grease.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:46:26Z ]

   that's why you have a release page

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:47:39Z ]

   Yep, so that's why i suggest to link to http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ and if someone needs more information they can search on the website for more information.

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:49:02Z ]

   GraphQL is not a graph database. In short: it's a tool to make the life of frontend developers easier. In its backend part there can be anything as a resolver: postgresql, just a json file, a stream you tell it.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:49:34Z ]

   ok raw directory access looked like complicated to me, that's why I proposed to use a repo but you seems to think it's exclusively reserved to developer

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:50:45Z ]

   also it's not safe to dowload self-hosted files directly like that. 

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:51:22Z ]

   then I guess @lojbab can tell us about his experience without any databases.

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:51:32Z ]

   ~3000 words do not require any database

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:52:18Z ]

   yes a simple frontend in js can do it

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:52:31Z ]

   We can link directly to epub, pdf and html files. Would that suit you better?

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:55:03Z ]

   The partial problem is that that directory may contain several versions of the CLL in future.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:55:07Z ]

   it seems more user friendly, don't you think ? if you want to prevent malware you also provide a hash of the file even if few people will use it, it's dissuasive.

maik [ 2020-02-08T15:56:05Z ]

   We are not recreating MediaWiki's functionality using JS.  We are going to use turnkey solutions.  But if you write a whole multilingual presentation platform in less time than it takes us to configure MW for our purposes, perhaps we'll consider it.

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:56:10Z ]

   @apieum can you present your proposal instead? You want some GUI or what? The front page of lojban.org redirects to mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban. It's a mediawiki (like wikipedia). We can place any html/css/js there.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:56:13Z ]

   yes the repo was adressing the issue of multiple release, but also contributors, and diff of versions

apieum [ 2020-02-08T15:57:52Z ]

   my proposal was simple it was just an enhancement of your proposal, instead of linking to a raw directory, link to a public repo, with a readme that present the content of the files for example or explain the differents versions

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:58:26Z ]

   The problem is simple: a person wants to learn Lojban from some source. They open the website and may find some indications that the source is not in one place, there are some modifications of it not included into the book linked there. The modifications to the language are impossible to understand unlss you learnt the previous state of the language. I.e. the language can't be learnt unless you break these indications, learn from version 1.1 and only after that apply amendments in your head.
   I'd like to simplify this process and say "the book is recommended to learn from"

gleki [ 2020-02-08T15:59:16Z ]

   @apieum the public repo would need some content. README file as your are saying. Such content would require additional approval by the LLG.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T16:01:09Z ]

   readme just explain what are the files, the repo content is the same as your directory otherwise

apieum [ 2020-02-08T16:02:22Z ]

   I don;t see what to debate if it consists in expalning you've a html single file or mutliple and epub, pdf, mobi version

gleki [ 2020-02-08T16:04:49Z ]

   OK, got it.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T16:11:00Z ]

   Thought, I'm biased because it's my daily tool, it's a solution that looks simpler to me with less maintenance tasks, but I totally understand if it's not the case. it's not an issue.

apieum [ 2020-02-08T16:18:00Z ]

   of course the best tool is the one that suit for you to achieve your task

gleki [ 2020-02-08T16:26:00Z ]

   The main feature of the proposal is to make it as short as possible. Adding e.g. another wiki page would require visitors to make extra clicks deteriorating "sales" funnel.

ilmen [ 2020-02-08T16:35:13Z ]

   I would like to highlight that Gleki's motion is currently waiting for a second from some other member:
   > As it has been 48 hours with no comments on this version of @lagleki's  proposal I am now calling for a second.

ilmen [ 2020-02-08T16:36:12Z ]

   The proposal is:
   > The Logical Language Group accepts as part of its policy the following statement that is to be placed on the front page of lojban.org (or the page it redirects to):
   "The Logical Language Group endorses http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ as the source to learn Lojban from".

karis [ 2020-02-08T20:01:59Z ]

   @apium, lojban is not a computer program nor programming language. When a split occurs it tends to continue to widen, discourd results, and it becomes a more confusing mess for newcomers and others who are just lookup for a straightforward way to learn lojban.
   Furthermore, there is only one lojban. Any splits from it that become too different are no longer lojban. A major effort is the LLG from the beginning has been to develop and maintain the language as envisioned by the original team.

gleki [ 2020-02-08T20:06:43Z ]

   Well technically apieum was right in that CLL is being developed using got branches and it's the only reasonable policy imo.
   But it's only technical. The result is always a PDF file (html, epub whatever) or a printed paper book.
   So of course those who learn Lojban from the CLL or approve candidates of the CLL would rely on the compiled file and not on the source code (which is needed only for those who produce the candidates)

john.cowan [ 2020-02-08T20:38:15Z ]

   Of course I have no vote, but I am not very happy with calling any one document *the* source from which to learn Lojban. I would hope that there are many such sources.  

gleki [ 2020-02-08T20:38:50Z ]

   Please name those.

karis [ 2020-02-08T20:47:58Z ]

   What about all the various lessons, anki, etc which include at least one you've created? 

karis [ 2020-02-08T20:50:16Z ]

   I agree, @john.cowan, and even more so in this case as it addresses grammar, but was not out together to address vocabulary or anything else like cultural usage (which lojban now has). 

gleki [ 2020-02-08T20:53:56Z ]

   My proposal doesn't exclude those. Nothing is said that other sources are not recommended.
   It is only said that a certain source is recommended.

karis [ 2020-02-08T21:11:28Z ]

   Anything listed on that main page can easily be construed by readers to be recommended. 

john.cowan [ 2020-02-08T22:13:01Z ]

   "the source" implies "the unique source" unless qualified.  

apieum [ 2020-02-08T23:32:00Z ]

   if you prefer you what is called the trunk or master, you can call it the reference, or standard or classical, and the branches are dialects

apieum [ 2020-02-08T23:33:37Z ]

   I'm sorry to have misread Karis message for the proposal, I understood the opposite that you were asking for comments, sincere apologize

apieum [ 2020-02-08T23:42:03Z ]

   in lisp programming languages split occured quite often, some have specialised in some tasks like racket and influenced other languages. 

apieum [ 2020-02-08T23:46:19Z ]

   I'm not linguist and may be wrong but splits seems wealthy, they can nurture the root language and permit experiments. Some way languages have evolved by people interactions and they've influenced each others. English is 20% of old german and 80% of french for example

apieum [ 2020-02-08T23:52:00Z ]

   But the point was not just for branches, it was also to enhance presentation of the "raw directory" in what I thought was more readable. You use release numbers on your book, repo manage this very well... 

karis [ 2020-02-09T02:56:46Z ]

   It is true that "natural" languages do gradually, over decades or hundreds of years, experience the development of dialects and over a shorter period they do bring in words from other languages. The differences is that dialects are almost exclusively developed when a population is isolated for a long period so what they speak doesn't follow the same development path. They don't form dialects within a group of people in regular contact such as is the case with the vast majority of speakers. Other, natural, languages also aren't primarily spread by concious education. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T02:59:37Z ]

   No problem. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T05:14:52Z ]

   As it has been almost forty eight hours since @lagleki made his proposal in its current form, and longer since his initial idea, without anyone offering to second it and nearly twenty four since I specifically asked for a second I am declaring this proposal to be closed for consideration as of now.
   The next pmitem on the agenda, that has not been transferred to one of the two committees currently active, is the following:
   @la-robotin-daiter is concerned that the decreasing amount of lojban art indicates it is no longer being  used as a language, and asks what efforts have been made to revive it. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-09T05:50:54Z ]

   Not much is being done about it at the moment. The LFK is working to address the inactivity of the language standardization process, which will hopefully be a source of more activity.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-09T05:52:34Z ]

   One suggestion I heard once is that there should be prizes for the best Lojbanic work (over time there might be subcategories and stuff too). I think it would be good to get something like that going, though of course we’d need fairly fluent Lojbanists to run it.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-09T05:55:47Z ]

   If people are interested in working on that (I’m not), we could form a committee to run that and to promote Lojbanic works in general.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-09T05:56:51Z ]

   It would be good for those who come up with works to at least feel like whatever they write is being read. It would encourage the creation of more works,

bookofportals [ 2020-02-09T05:57:51Z ]

   The committee might also consider promoting Lojban as a whole. That might in part be a matter of going over to other similar language communities and saying “you might like Lojban too”.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-09T05:59:20Z ]

   Above all, we need to get activity going. Seeing how little activity there was on the Lojban mailing lists almost made me lose interest in learning the language. I was literally overcome by despair that such a beautiful language appeared so dead. Once there’s activity, it tends to encourage more activity.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T10:56:53Z ]

   As for Gleki's motion, I hadn't really time to comment on it.
   His proposal was:
   > The Logical Language Group accepts as part of its policy the following statement that is to be placed on the front page of lojban.org (or the page it redirects to):
   "The Logical Language Group endorses http://lojban.org/publications/cll/ as the source to learn Lojban from".
   I think that that the least there should be a link to https://mw.lojban.org/papri/How_to_use_xorlo along with the link to the CLL.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T10:59:31Z ]

   And a disclaimed «The only official documentation for learning Lojban is [link to the CLL], although it is currently out of date with regard to a reform called Xorlo, which has been incorporated into Lojban since the publication of the CLL. You can read about Xorlo there [link to How to use Xorlo]. The CLL will eventually be updated to comply with Xorlo.» or such

gleki [ 2020-02-09T10:59:31Z ]

   can you rephrase the proposal then? What should be the step by the step guide for learning Lojban?

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T10:59:52Z ]

   A problem with that is that I don't know whether the page How to use Xorlo is official or not

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T10:59:59Z ]

   it wasn't when it was written

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:00:12Z ]

   Currently the pathway is broken since if start from reading https://mw.lojban.org/papri/How_to_use_xorlo the reader would be immediately confused of what "gadri", {lo} and {le} mean.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:00:17Z ]

   but I don't know what the LLG approved when they approved Xorlo

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:01:02Z ]

   A problem with linking only to the CLL without mentioning Xolro is that learners won't be aware of Xorlo at all

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:01:25Z ]

   The situation is certainly incomfortable

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:02:06Z ]

   At the very least the LLG should produce a short summary of Xorlo which would replace the page "How to use Xorlo?" and be clearly official

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:02:41Z ]

   Until something better is done

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:03:40Z ]

   https://mw.lojban.org/papri/How_to_use_xorlo is not an official page. Is the section "Trivia and technical info" really needed? 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:04:11Z ]

   You don't like something in the page "How to use Xorlo?"?

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:04:20Z ]

   In the current state of affair of the Lojban documentation and my current limited knowledge of how Xorlo was officialized, I can't think of a good immediate solution to the problem

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:04:59Z ]

   "How to use Xorlo?" could be slightly adapted, (e.g. defining what "gadri" is)

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:07:17Z ]

   So you give up? Well, that's imho constructive (xo'onai, no sarcasm) and can be officialized too.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:07:19Z ]

   I've seen that in 2010 Lojbab said that Dotside still wasn't official

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:08:49Z ]

   I don't recall where are located the LLG mailing list archives

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:14:39Z ]

   But then, not mentioning Dotside on the front page could be seen as equivalent of not mentioning Xorlo, i.e. leading beginners to think it doesn't exist, in spit of its de-facto almost-universal usage. :thinking: 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:14:54Z ]

   Can you access this? http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:15:44Z ]

   Yes I can, thank you.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:16:16Z ]

   The earliest archives are from 2011

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:16:51Z ]

   ok will contact rlpowell

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:16:52Z ]

   And I'd like to see those from 2004

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:17:06Z ]


solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:19:14Z ]

   xorlo was added to the interim baseline in 2007

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:19:58Z ]


ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:20:16Z ]


solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:20:35Z ]


ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:23:51Z ]

   «Usage according to the CLL standard will not be
       considered incorrect, but usage according to the ZG will be

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:23:57Z ]


ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:24:35Z ]

   That's rather strange a quote, as Xorlo and CLL Lojban are incompatible in several aspects

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:24:36Z ]

   This is the post by veion.
   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.

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:25:08Z ]

   happens quite often in programming.

solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:25:46Z ]

   They didn't vote on "how to use xorlo", which wasn't even written by xorxes, and which contains some things xorxes doesn't (or didn't) agree with. The only official page would be the gadri page itself (the BPFK page)

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:26:09Z ]


gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:26:31Z ]

   By that time it was called "About xorlo" as you can see.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:27:07Z ]


ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:27:28Z ]

   This is the thread declaring the results of the vote on the Gadri page

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:28:04Z ]

   (we should get back the version of that page dating from that period, i.e. christmas 2004)

solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:28:16Z ]

   Could someone link the tiki version of the gadri page?

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:28:35Z ]

   This is the BPFK page http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:29:07Z ]

   thank you

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:29:43Z ]

   However, I can't fullly agree with that either. Because the page "About xorlo" was signed by BPFK jatna called "Robin Powell". I'm not sure everyone understood for which version of xorlo they voted in 2007.

solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:31:35Z ]

   The official tiki page was changed (in 2011) after it was voted into the interim baseline. 
   The definition "PA broda | PA lo broda" was changed into "PA broda | PA da poi broda "

solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:31:46Z ]

   (Just a fun fact)

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:34:39Z ]

   Oh, Dotside might have been officialized in 2016:

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:34:48Z ]

   Although it's not 100% clear to me

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:36:07Z ]

   We could conduce a new LLG vote on officializing that version of the Gadri page

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:36:23Z ]

   to make everything clear

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:41:47Z ]

   Somebody removed the sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omitted." after Xorlo's officialization; that removal looks appropriate to me.

solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:41:51Z ]

   > Specifically, per the ZG policy adopted at the 2007 LLG meeting, CLL-compliant Lojban is de jure baseline Lojban, and so is any Lojban that fails to comply with the CLL standard only because it adheres to the differences specified in the zasni gafyfantymanri (also called the "interim baseline," specifically to reflect the fact that it's part of a two-standard state of affairs that is not expected to continue). That is, the standard form of the language technically includes both. It is also officially the case that the LLG currently (as of 2007 when xorlo was added to the ZG) expects that xorlo will be part of the "final" baseline once the BPFK work is done, and consequently considers ZG-compliant Lojban to be the preferred form for teaching new speakers - but the wording of that policy is such that if you go strictly by the CLL, you are explicitly still speaking valid, currents-tandard-compliant Lojban until such a time as the baseline is finished.

solpahi [ 2020-02-09T11:42:08Z ]

   This is an old quote I remembered, from teucer.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:47:18Z ]

   Maybe this should be reflected on the lojban.org front page.
   ``There are currently two competing and equally official Lojban standards: the first one, CLL Lojban, is wholly described at [CLL link], but is currently dispreferred as it's expected to be eventually replaced with the second currently official standard called Xorlo Lojban (which should now be preferred), which is is the same thing as CLL Lojban except for the updates/changes listed on the page [Gadri page], as well as these listed at [Dotside page]``

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T11:47:26Z ]

   Or somesuch

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:49:16Z ]

   Competing is a slightly negative word. They may think we have a civil war here, who knows. Better reword ZG and close the issue until a major release of the CLL is prepared.

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:51:10Z ]

   "dispreferred" is an even worse word. Newcomers would search for a preferred documentation only to find that the only way is still through dispreferred one.
   "Eventually" is already 13 years late or more.

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:51:53Z ]

   Sry for mistypes

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:56:00Z ]

   The pathway can be the following:
   1. Read the CLL and you thus get familiar with standard1
   2. After that read [xorlo pages, dotside...] and you get familiar with standard2 on top of standard1

gleki [ 2020-02-09T11:56:22Z ]

   These are not the very words I would wish there ofc.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:44:31Z ]

   Earlier in this meeting, Gleki proposed that we officially recognize a Lojban dialect called Classical Lojban, alongwith Xorlo Lojban. I'm afraid that move was void, as both dialects are apparently already equally official (although not under these names). :)

gleki [ 2020-02-09T12:48:46Z ]

   Well but who knows about that? The front page needs reflect that and any unofficial text is a subject to interpretation by the author of the text.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:49:08Z ]

   lagleki: the adopted ZG motion does say ``Usage according to the CLL standard will not be considered incorrect, but usage according to the ZG will be preferred.``

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:49:22Z ]

   As for "competing", that's probably not the most appropriate word.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:50:26Z ]

   I agree that the front page should reflect the current official situation, no matter how unpleasant it might be to have two simultaneous official standards.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:50:45Z ]

   It's not a situation I propose, it's the situation as it is now.

gleki [ 2020-02-09T12:50:52Z ]

   Ok I'll try to represent solpahi's opinion on what was official and your replies in a way more readily accessible to newcomers.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:52:23Z ]

   I suggest that we return to the topic of Lojban activity and promotion, and in the meantime prepare a motion coming up with a proposed wording for the lojban.org frontpage which explain the current official situation of Lojban and prominently link to the relevant documentation (CLL, Xorlo Gadri, and Dotside).

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:52:43Z ]

   When the Lojban Activity topic is closed, we can put forth our motion.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:53:03Z ]

   In the meantime we could discuss the lojban.org frontpage wording in the LFK channel.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:54:58Z ]

   I'm sorry for having ignored the New Topic item and have carried on discussion on the previous agenda item. I hadn't got enough time to react to that latter in the appropriate time period.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T12:55:05Z ]

   The next pmitem on the agenda, that has not been transferred to one of the two committees currently active, is the following:
   @la-robotin-daiter is concerned that the decreasing amount of lojban art indicates it is no longer being  used as a language, and asks what efforts have been made to revive it. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:26:26Z ]

   There was a long discussion avoid this. Ultimately we decided that awarding recognition would not cause the issue of when an award is given actual productivity drops. I don't have the citation for this but I'm only giving a very brief summary of an extensive discussion. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:36:27Z ]

   @lagleki, considering past issues please present your proposed changes to the Members Meeting, the Board, or the Officers to hopefully any challenges that the changes to the website are not official. Thank you. 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:36:59Z ]


gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:39:16Z ]

   Should I inform these entities of any actual changes  to the pages too?

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:52:05Z ]

   Put the page back, @laglek, to what it was prior to your removal of mention of xorlo.  I understand you are trying to help and be proactive, however you have made unauthorized changes many times over the years causing many issues including the largest argument I have ever seen at an LLG meeting and I've seen some doozys.
   As President I am hereby declaring that @lagleki is no longer welcome to nor allowed to make any changes to lojban.org except to follow  my direction immediately above. This is well within my rights and responsibilities. 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:52:51Z ]

   Please open the front page and check for yourself. The xorlo is present there.

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:53:25Z ]

   The rest of my statement still holds. 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:54:37Z ]

   I won't put it back. I made improvements, not deteriorated it. xorlo is present and the page to me looks better than it was before. Now you can expel me from the LLG 

karis [ 2020-02-09T13:55:53Z ]

   I will allow you to decide if you want to remain and I will take a look and see what my views on the current state of the page are. 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:56:14Z ]

   Oh thank you, dictator.

gleki [ 2020-02-09T13:59:13Z ]

   Returning the page to the previous state would imply the link to the page where one can buy a hardcover copy of the CLL will no longer be present. I consider it a self-destructing policy.

karis [ 2020-02-09T14:08:04Z ]

   View me however you want. I have had enough of allowing your contributions to lojban and lojbanistan to give you a few pass for not listening to clear directions. You have been told on multiple occasions over a period of years to leave the website alone unless doing something you were specifically asked to do without you complying. It is your behavior that has led to this. I didn't think, after the huge fight with @guskant and you being told to leave the website be, then several other occasions when you were told to do one thing to the website, usually dicing something you'd changes, and that was it I expected you would realize it was past time to change your behavior and decisions regarding this, but you have done it again. 

gleki [ 2020-02-09T14:09:35Z ]

   Ok please tell me what exactly I did wrong to the content of the page? That I removed a link to the crash course? Or that I uploaded a new photo of the CLL hardcover book?

gleki [ 2020-02-09T14:13:33Z ]

   Or that I removed a link to the machine translation tool no longer accessible? Or to the Google plus group no longer accessible due to the shutdown of Google plus?

karis [ 2020-02-09T14:29:41Z ]

   We are not going to take up more of this meeting arguing about what I decided. That decision was made over a period of years and multiple conversations with the other officers. I am not going to change it nor explain it further at this time. 

apieum [ 2020-02-09T15:37:53Z ]

   agreed, Dan Pink wrote about what motivates us, and rewards tend to produce bad quality and demotivate people.

apieum [ 2020-02-09T15:42:46Z ]

   if the subject interest someone

apieum [ 2020-02-09T15:42:47Z ]


apieum [ 2020-02-09T15:49:44Z ]

   Personally what motivated me to learn lojban was Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I wanted to experiment, if it can change my way of thinking. I'm curious about what motivated the people here to learn lojban. This may be a starting point to promote the language.

karis [ 2020-02-09T16:49:07Z ]

   A friend came to me one day and said something like, "Some friends and I are getting together this weekend in Fairfax to discuss a really interesting logical language they're developing [our have developed]. Would you like to come and see what it's all about?" I went to my first lojfest and found all the talk about how the language worked fascinating.

suskeyhose [ 2020-02-09T17:01:34Z ]

   I learned because I'd attempted to learn four natural languages prior, but never was able to progress, and I thought learning a simpler language with a community of people with shared interests would work better for me, as well as features of lojban filling in gaps I'd always found frustrating in English.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:03:42Z ]

   Also learning a language like Lojban can help learning othe languages afterwards

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:05:12Z ]

   Arguably these virtues of Esperanto also hold for Lojban (although maybe less so as an introduction specifically for European languages, but rather to languages in general)

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:19:08Z ]

   Each language you learn, regardless of what it is, hellos your ability to learn others. It's apparently related to actively involving more neurons or something like that 

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:20:46Z ]

   What is nice with Esperanto is that it has a simpler grammar, which makes understanding how language work easier, without the obfuscation of the large amounts of irregularities and idioms present in natlangs.
   In these regards, Lojban should fare even better than Esperanto, as it is even more regular.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:23:30Z ]

   As for the drop in Lojban activity:

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:23:51Z ]

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:24:17Z ]

   Here are a couple plots generated from Lojban activity on IRC.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:24:47Z ]

   (The first one was made by PoroCyon, the second was made by Robin Powell, if I remember correctly.)

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:24:48Z ]

   Is there a measure of activity in the various google groups? 

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:26:13Z ]

   There have been an important drop of activity in 2017

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:26:19Z ]

   (up to now)

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:28:10Z ]

   While the number of those speaking in IRC is one measure, not everyone either gets to that level of fluency or is interested in speaking vs writing.
   Also fluency isn't necessary for producing poetry or even short stories. The ckafibarja was thought of by someone who didn't know lojban at all. 

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:28:11Z ]

   I don't have formal statistics for the mailing list, but it's currently highly inactive, and I think this began rougly at the same period as the IRC activity drop

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:29:04Z ]

   I'm not saying there hasn't been a drop, just that we shouldn't rely on only one set of metrics. 

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:29:54Z ]

   The last item added to https://mw.lojban.org/papri/te_gerna_la_lojban is from 2018

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:30:16Z ]

   If the decrease is then clear, does anyone have ideas to change this trend? 

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:30:19Z ]

   That page is used to gather new Lojban productions (texts, songs, poetry…)

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:30:28Z ]

   but it's not a very good indicator

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:30:44Z ]

   as not everybody add their creations there

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:32:33Z ]

   The last year of significant BPFK activity was also 2017, interestingly.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:33:26Z ]

   The reasons for the drop are not very clear to me, but they certainly are multiple

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:34:18Z ]

   Several fluent Lojbanists vanished or diminished their level of activity for reasons not related to Lojban (i.e. being too busy…)

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:39:48Z ]

   Some people might have got weary of dissensions related to the development of Lojban, and/or lose hope for a number of perceived issues with the language to be eventually addressed, maybe.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:41:48Z ]

   (At the very least that was the case for Solpahi)

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:45:27Z ]

   I, as well as a few other Lojbanists, have preferred to focus our attention to the new loglang *Toaq* —published a couple years ago by Solpahi—, and help with its development.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T17:53:18Z ]

   As it follows the development model of the "benevolent dictator" (i.e. only one person has the final say on everything), there's no risk of development blockage due to dissensions

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:55:50Z ]

   We have a benevolent dictator, but it isn't something @lojbab or I have ever wanted to do, as I understand what he's told me. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:56:48Z ]

   Technically, that is. It isn't set up at all the same way so the benevolent dictator there is clear and obvious. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T17:58:03Z ]

   Maybe that's something lojban needs - more linguistic guidance and less a free for all. 

maik [ 2020-02-09T19:15:51Z ]

   Who is the BD?  I know it used to be RLP.  Is it still?

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T19:34:10Z ]

   RLP isn't anymore the BD, for aught I can tell

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T19:36:15Z ]

   At one point, RLP used his BD powers to modify by fiat the definition of the gismu "mabla" and "zanba" (with the benediction of the community, or at least the IRC community)

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T19:37:31Z ]

   I think these two gismu were basically never used the way they were defined in the gimste in the past

maik [ 2020-02-09T19:38:36Z ]

   i recall the redefinition, but i didn't remember that it was done by fiat

maik [ 2020-02-09T19:40:06Z ]

   Lojban could conceivably have a BD again, but i think it's easier for a new language to have one, because any BD of Lojban would need a super amount of Lojban cred.  

apieum [ 2020-02-09T19:43:03Z ]

   the BD take final decision when dissensions but how is organized the community ?

apieum [ 2020-02-09T19:43:28Z ]

   is there group of interests ? workshop... ?

maik [ 2020-02-09T19:45:56Z ]

   formally right now, there is the LFK, which came into existence last year's meeting.  most Lojbanists hang out in chat rooms which Gleki has bridged together.  there are also pockets of non-English-speaking Lojbanists around the world but I don't really know what they're up to

maik [ 2020-02-09T19:46:53Z ]

   I *think* most are in chat rooms. I don't know where else you'd find them.  I suppose Reddit and the mailing list.

apieum [ 2020-02-09T19:47:43Z ]

   ok thx

apieum [ 2020-02-09T19:48:54Z ]

   from the few I know, BD alone is not enough, you have people around to explain choices and make a triage 

apieum [ 2020-02-09T19:53:37Z ]

   it's also  risk, if your BD is not charismatic enough you can split the community

karis [ 2020-02-09T19:54:23Z ]

   I wasn't sure and thought you were asking about Toaq, not lojban. Lojban had one over the BPFK, but they operated under the auspices and control, if the Board or anyone wanted to say something, of the LLG. 

karis [ 2020-02-09T19:56:47Z ]

   That's why xorlo and dotside had to pass the Members Meeting vote of approval, which both did. The jatna was given permission to make smaller decisions themselves with their committee. That last isn't true now. The BPFK and their jatna earned it. 

apieum [ 2020-02-09T19:59:07Z ]

   did something happen in 2016 to make people leave ? what has changed at this period ?

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:40:57Z ]

   Ok I was just checking if it was not a structural problem

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:41:36Z ]

   here is the idea If I try to resume your motivations to learn lojban:  community, interesting talks, democratic organization, help to learn other languages, regular logical language easier to learn than natural languages

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:41:43Z ]

   there's also this page

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:41:45Z ]


ilmen [ 2020-02-09T20:43:09Z ]

   Personally, I like the concept of logical languages, and the interesting discussions of semantics and grammar which are held among lojbanists.

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T20:43:26Z ]

   (including language philosophy)

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:43:43Z ]

   maybe we can make kind of contest to produce an "ad" that all the community will share on their social network at the same time, this way we show WE are a community and we promote it

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:45:39Z ]

   it's just an idea but saying to people we need them is a way to motivate them too, so the ad can link to this for example https://mw.lojban.org/papri/What's_next%3F

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:49:58Z ]

   everybody can participate in finding a message to send oon social networks, it should be short to be published on twitter for example.

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:51:10Z ]

   the "winner" of the contest will see his/her message sent by a crowd of people, I think it's a nice reward

apieum [ 2020-02-09T20:57:50Z ]

   (note the first link in "what's next" go to projects page, which looks like to have technical problem: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/official_LLG_Projects )

karis [ 2020-02-09T21:25:12Z ]

   I like the basic idea, but I'm busy for a few hours so I'll return with specifics afterwards. 

apieum [ 2020-02-09T21:31:06Z ]

   I'm going to sleep .a'o xamgu nicte

ilmen [ 2020-02-09T21:45:38Z ]

   co'o di'ai do

maik [ 2020-02-09T23:53:28Z ]

   Was the ZG laid out as an actual document in a form similar to http://www.lojban.org/old-style/llg/baseline.html?  all I have been able to find, it seems, are indirect references and comments on the ZG.

karis [ 2020-02-09T23:59:36Z ]


maik [ 2020-02-10T00:00:22Z ]

   Lojban abbreviation for {zasni gafyfantymanri} i.e. "Interim Baseline" adopted in 2007 LLG MM.

karis [ 2020-02-10T00:11:44Z ]

   That is a baseline that followed the initial one in which I participated.

karis [ 2020-02-10T00:17:40Z ]

   I find it interesting that this 2007 baseline gives final approval to the Board specifically and states that the BPFK were to air on the side of as few changes as necessary rather than their mandate being wife open. 

karis [ 2020-02-10T00:19:24Z ]

   I'm not sure what the discussion about this baseline has to do with the question of why lojban speaking and apparently creation of artistic materials dropped off. 

maik [ 2020-02-10T00:21:13Z ]

   I apologize for being off topic.  i was reading an earlier conversation in this channel - around here https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/csoj9us4c7gej8f17mzxnmjgxo

la-robotin-daiter [ 2020-02-10T02:06:26Z ]

   u'usai lonu la Guskant cu cliva .i ri cupra so'i jbobau larcu
   I am very saddened about Guskant's leaving. She made many Lojban artworks.

la-robotin-daiter [ 2020-02-10T02:17:33Z ]

   .i ganai zasti fa lo stuzi be lonu lo larpra cu kakne lonu jmaji gi'e arco lo arte ri gi la'acu'i darsygau lo larpra lonu cupra
   If there was a place where artists could gather and present artworks to each other, perhaps they would be encouraged to create.

la-robotin-daiter [ 2020-02-10T02:19:05Z ]

   .i lo "ralju" stuzi cu zabna
   A "main" place would be good.

maik [ 2020-02-10T02:20:29Z ]

   couldn't the Lojban website be pressed into service for that?  I am not sure what the hosting capabilities are, so perhaps some multimedia might have to be stored offsite.  but i can't see why Lojban.org could not be a meeting place, either the Wiki or some other subdomain

maik [ 2020-02-10T02:21:06Z ]

   there could be a chat channel for Lojban artists

maik [ 2020-02-10T02:21:11Z ]

   as well

la-robotin-daiter [ 2020-02-10T02:24:57Z ]

   .i so'e zgike larpra be tai la solpa'i je la guskant cu ca nau na cando .i la solpa'i cupra lo to'an zgike ca nau .iku'i mi viska pa jbobau zgike larpra be bu'u la Youtube ku poi la Rakehell Gardner cu cmene
   Most music artists such as Solpa'i and Guskant are now not active. Solpa'i only makes Toaq music now. However, I saw a Lojban music artist on youtube whose name is Rakehell Gardner.

la-robotin-daiter [ 2020-02-10T02:28:10Z ]

   ie i'e lonu pilno lo jbobau kibystu ku je lonu zbasu lo arte irci
   I agree and am in favor of using the Lojban website and creating an art chat.

maik [ 2020-02-10T02:28:19Z ]

   right.  i don't have a quick solution to make Lojbanic artists materialize. i am just saying the website could be made.

la-robotin-daiter [ 2020-02-10T02:31:55Z ]

   uu u'u mi djica lonu zgana lo jbobau arte .ijeku'i mi na certu so'e se larcu
   It is sad that I wish to consume Lojban art, but I am not skilled in most art forms.

mukti [ 2020-02-10T13:34:49Z ]

   Treasurer's report for year 2019
   At the beginning of 2019, the Balance in LLG's bank account was $16,089.05. At the end of 2019, it was $16,240.83.
   All 2019 deposits in the bank account came from Amazon.com.
   At the beginning of 2019, the Balance in LLG's Paypal account was $3,546.42. At the end of 2019, it was $4,846.45.
   All 2019 deposits in the PayPal account came from Lightning Source.

ilmen [ 2020-02-10T13:52:42Z ]

   Thank you for the report!

karis [ 2020-02-10T16:55:49Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2020-02-10T17:02:46Z ]

   I suspect that if the artist collective (why not make it fancy) were both well publicized and included the option of translations when requested and standard when artists were willing that it could bring in more both interested creators and more people interested in lojban itself thus helping the broader problem and becoming self propagating. What I mean by the last is as people stop or slow their art production others would hopefully start. Some simpler works by newer learners as well as those by fluent people would also make it more accessible and likely to encourage more artists. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-10T17:13:06Z ]

   Thanks! That is decidedly more than I was expecting. 

karis [ 2020-02-11T11:34:48Z ]

   @bookofportals we have some money, though what I'm looking at more is how much we made in sales and interest. I wish I knew how many books we've sold. That's an indication, at least, of newer interest in lojban. 

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:15:55Z ]

   Actually, I (very briefly) tried to go to a database (Dbase, which was the one I had at the time).  It added time and effort, but gave little advantage over a flat file list with fixed record formats (which is what the official gismu list looks like even today).

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:20:55Z ]

   I understand that jvovlaste was set up with some sort of database underlying it, but LLG never felt that jbovlaste could be made official, for the most part because words could be added or changed by just about anyone with no standards or standardization applied.  But it was considered more or less to be "good enough" for experimental purposes until we could manage to create a real dictionary of the gismu and cmavo that could serve as the basis for a standard for adding new words.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:25:21Z ]

   I'll note that at the time, I did manage to produce with John Cowan's help, a pretty good Keyword-in-Context (KWIC) style dictionary based on the gismu list which is probably still out there.  But cmavo stymied me, and BYFY didn't much advance the progress of turning cmavo into a dictionary format (because the people who signed up for BYFY wanted to nail down semantics and usage much more carefully than I did, before doing any dictionary work.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:26:09Z ]

   My KWIC dictionary should be on the website somewhere, but I can probably find it in my own files if no one can locate it.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:26:57Z ]

   The English language side of the KWIC dictionary was a good bit more than 3000 headwords.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:34:11Z ]

   The problem of learning Lojban from a fixed source when CLL does not (yet) have xorlo and perhaps a cpuple of other changes could probably be fixed rather easily.  Have an officially approved appendix co-located with the official CLL version that contains a reasonably good self-contained explanation of xorlo with examples that especially shows how it differs from CLL (and similar for any other officially approved changes we want included), with a preface saying that "these notes described officially approved versions to the language definition that have not yet been incorporated in the CLL book.

ilmen [ 2020-02-11T13:35:10Z ]

   I see reference to semi-edited KWIC files at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/old_Draft_Dictionary

ilmen [ 2020-02-11T13:37:15Z ]

   KWIC is also mentioned at http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9302/msg00031.html

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:46:32Z ]

   I don't think the question should be one of "giving up" but rather that, if the problem has changed from immediately incorporating xorlo into CLL to make a single up-to-date language reference, to updating a known source into being an adequate official reference description of xorlo to be co-located with CLL but not-yet-incorporated - that decision can be assigned to someone or some group which would accomplish it outside of the meeting.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:49:32Z ]

   If it gets done and needs some sort of approval to be made official, the President or the Board can do so, or can possibly pass it to the LFK (if that is the appropriate body) to gain such approval.  But it should be done outside this meeting.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:50:53Z ]

   There is AN archive with the Google Groups interface, but I don't know how far back it goes.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T13:55:59Z ]

   xorxes repeatedly assured me at the time that I could continue using Lojban the way I had already been using it, but it would be understood correctly (but I understood would possibly be seem as somewhat quaint usage).  That would imply that usagewise, the two versions are quite compatible, even if the technical explanation wouldn't be straightforward.  But perhaps I did npt understand xorxes statement %^)

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T14:00:25Z ]

   I suspect that at the time it was written, Robin Powell had been more or less officially granted dictatorial authority as byfy jatna and CLL reviser.  If Robin signed off on something on the website that was in a restricted modification mode, I would assume his approval.  But someone could ask him if this was his intent.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T14:07:56Z ]

   I think if one merely hops over to the jbosnu channel (and perhaps a few other Framateam channels) one can easily see  that Lojban language activity exists there on a frequent if not daily basis.  IRC channel activity may also still exist.  I don't know whether it would be possibly to bridge/mirror the IRC channel into a Framateam channel, but if so that might be a good idea.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T14:09:49Z ]

   There is at least as much Lojban language activity on the various Framateam channels as their ever was while I was the active project leader.  And I cannot read the Japanese and other language channels which may make reference to other fora where non-English-speakers may habituate and use Lojban.

maik [ 2020-02-11T14:12:25Z ]

   @lojbab  Thank you for the historical overview.  I will take a look at the KWIC stuff, which I hadn't really thought about until now.  If it makes sense to do so, perhaps we can update the info and add it into the new dictionary.  
   The new dictionary will have to have a database structure of some sort in order to facilitate a printed version.   In that comment to Apieum, I was simply talking about the importance that I place on considering the presentation layer for the web version of the dictionary.   

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T14:21:00Z ]

   Moreover, Nora and I found that on the occasional times we went to the IRC channel, we never found anyone actually posting.  There were lots of users listed as connected, but rarely even one of them responded in several minutes.  And even then no real conversation resulted.  I didn't know there was much real Lojban activity until people pointed me to IRC logs, and the translation pages and the links to Lojban videos.  New instances of those may have fallen off in the last couple of years, but that may be as much due to changes in focus on the part of leadership coupled with Robin Powell becoming inactive.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T14:22:22Z ]

   That was because that was when selpa'i resigned as jatna and there was no new volunteer.

solpahi [ 2020-02-11T16:23:29Z ]

   I never resigned.

apieum [ 2020-02-11T16:24:02Z ]

   @apieum a quitté le canal.

solpahi [ 2020-02-11T16:33:35Z ]

   The explanation is much simpler than that. Most of the most productive and/or most fluent/knowledgeable community members were gone by that time, and the few that remained reduced their efforts or their interest in Lojban, leaving behind the situation that is still on-going now. I don't see Lojban recovering from this. As I see it, Lojban is long past its prime. It seems some people are still in denial of this, despite the numbers and statistics and the fact that nearly all the experts are gone. 
   One needn't be sad about this, though. Lojban played a very important role in the history of loglanging.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T16:34:05Z ]

   I thought you had and recommended eliminating BYFY, But I can't find that discussion (I have no idea to search for things you posted a couple of years ago)

solpahi [ 2020-02-11T16:35:10Z ]

   Yes, but I was still re-elected. When the LFK replaced the BPFK, I was dissolved alongside with it, without having to resign (though I would have).

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T16:41:36Z ]

   The expert speakers are NOT gone.  They are perhaps less active butmore importantly dispersed to a much larger variety of forums and media that existed 10-15 years ago.  Just looking at the large number of channels here  many of which has new posting every day (as compared to Lojban List which would sometimes go silent for a few days back when it was pretty much the only place Lojbanists congregated.   See the ponjbo list especially - I can't read it but those Japanese Lojbanists are certainly busy) IRC never seemed any more active than Lojban List.  Dozens were logged in, but most of them weren't really there  I rarely found more than 1 or 2 people that even responded over many minutes when I checked in, soI stopped trying.

solpahi [ 2020-02-11T16:44:52Z ]

   You have told that story many times, and maybe you simply got unlucky the few times you joined the IRC channel. But just look at the numbers, or believe the people who were actually there when the IRC was extremely active.
   Also, the mailing lists used to be hard to keep up with ("a full-time job"), and now there's nearly zero activity.
   More chat rooms does not equal more activity. More activity equals more activity, and that's just not the case.

gleki [ 2020-02-11T16:47:06Z ]

   The activity was to some degree related to tinkering with the language, trying to understand what is xorlo and similar things. It's not that that period produced lots of art. Such production if happened was limited to very few people.
   I don't feel the number of newcomers reduced significantly. Yes, much less discussions. I am tired of them myself and feel something more serious could be done. So having less discussions to me means having more time to work on Lojban.

solpahi [ 2020-02-11T16:54:20Z ]

   "The experts are not gone, there are just more different forums now" is just wishful thinking or delusion, I don't know. I know every expert, and I know every relevant "forum", and no, the experts are not there. Where they are, I do not know. But they're not doing Lojban stuff.
   Where is guskant, where is xorxes, where is cirko? Where am I? Ilmen is the only one left, and they spend a lot more time on Toaq nowadays than on Lojban.
   I wouldn't have said any of this, but the fact that the situation keeps being denied by people who simply don't know what's going on in the community made me decide otherwise. It's not possible to make informed decisions if you don't know what the situation is. 

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T17:06:45Z ]

   I don't know.  I presume you are in Germany %^)  guskant asked to join the LFK and/or to be kept aware of its activities on 7 Feb on the LFK channel.  xorxes voted yes on the LLRC proposal on 30 Jan.  So they seem to be around and part of the language community.

lojbab [ 2020-02-11T17:14:30Z ]

   As for why they don't post much, I can't say.  I'm reasonably skilled as a Lojbanist but don't write much in the language because the projects I try to work on are all big efforts that take more time than I can spare.  Nora liked visiting IRC more than I did, but she just noted that she has always been a lurker.  She doesn't start conversations in English, much less in Lojban.  I think you would find that much of the community are introverts, and don't do well at small talk.  The primary thing Lojbanists have in common to talk about is Lojban, and if we are done haggling about definitional issues, there is rather less to say on that subject. (IN my case when talking *about* Lojban, my time has been too valuable to try to do that communication IN Lojban, since I am much slower in language than in English.  That may be less true for non English natives.  In any event, it is probably an American cultural trait to default back to English when it is possible because so few of us are multilingual.

karis [ 2020-02-12T22:33:34Z ]

   @solpahi saying the experts are all gone also discounts anyone who's learned lojban since. @maik, for instance, has offered translations during this meeting and is very involved in the LFK efforts. 

maik [ 2020-02-12T22:54:46Z ]

   thank you, Karis.  I really appreciate the kind words!  for full disclosure, i have to say that to the extent "expert" entails fluency, then I am completely outclassed by the likes of Solpahi and Guskant and others.  However, I am sure I will get better with time, and I like to imagine my studies in logic and language and so forth will help me contribute to the development of the Lojban standard despite not being fluent in Lojban right now.

karis [ 2020-02-12T23:06:36Z ]

   I was thinking of you as someone working towards their level of expert. You are definitely in the capable range now, from what I've seen. 

karis [ 2020-02-16T19:58:12Z ]

   So, discussion seemes to be over. Do any of you have anything to add? 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-16T20:07:01Z ]

   I think it would be beneficial to revisit this subject next year, after the LFK has tried to engage with the community for a year. 

and.rosta [ 2020-02-16T22:31:43Z ]

   12 Lojban-related videos have been uploaded to YouTube in the last year, the penultimate by Guskant in August, so while activity is not burgeoning, it is not wholly moribund either. As someone mentioned, Rachel Gardener is posting songs. And some of Djemynai's magnificent rap is on YouTube -- true, no more of it is being produced in Lojban, but what other conlang has such splendid music?

solpahi [ 2020-02-16T22:56:58Z ]

   Thanks, I appreciate the compliment on my music (which I published under the name Djemynai -- I am adding this somewhat awkward parenthetical because I believe it's still unknown to many that Djemynai is/was me, a confusion which I originally intended for but which I didn't expect would work as well as it did; after all, how likely is it that two rappers with the same voice from the same country would make rap music in Lojban when nobody else has?).

maik [ 2020-02-16T23:19:06Z ]

   Thanks for the clarification.  I thought it might have been your twin brother, given the name.

fagri [ 2020-02-17T00:15:32Z ]

   I was among the confused and would like to clarify that I didn't know what solpahi's voice sounded like at the time :)

maik [ 2020-02-17T00:19:22Z ]

   EXCLUSIVE STORY:  True identity of mysterious Lojban rap artist Djemynai REVEALED.  Find out all the details ONLY on the Lojban Framateam chat server!

karis [ 2020-02-17T07:17:27Z ]

   Is there any objection to returning to this topic at the next Members Meeting? Waiting will give all of us a chance to see if there is more lojban artistic material available than we've discussed and how much new had been made. 

phma [ 2020-02-17T07:37:22Z ]

   Sounds good to me.

ilmen [ 2020-02-17T21:01:08Z ]

   I approve.

ilmen [ 2020-02-17T21:06:15Z ]

   The next item on the agenda is:
   ``Meeting procedure:
   Figure out why the annual meetings take so long and look for ways to make them go more quickly.

karis [ 2020-02-17T22:20:26Z ]

   I'm happy to open @solphi's item. Before anything else is said, and in part as an effort to not bog down the meeting, I'm going to summarize several discussions on this and related issues from recent years so we don't rediscuss and redebate the same old things. If anyone has a new idea or new perspective that would be wonderful. 
   I can easily explain why last year's meeting ran so long and why it won't happen under me again. I was hesitant to simply declare the meeting over, though I did try and propose it end (and checked whether that was acceptable in meetings like this, which it is though not recommended) and ask for someone else to propose we end. 
   It has been proposed in the past that tge solution is for us to meet in real time over, generally, less than a day. That isn't possible for some of us and there is absolutely no way to set a time that works for everyone. All one would need to do is look at the fact we have people around the world participating and posting at all times. For anyone who says, but we used to do that, I'll point out that it's been a very long time since we had in-person meetings. Even then people on other continents rarely participated making the one year we had someone attend in Virginia from overseas a big deal. If we go back to such a short meeting we will certainly lose people and the LLG has worked over up expand lojbanistan to cover the world.
   Discussion has also considered how to speed up the initial part the meeting and the meeting as a whole through various other methods.
   One possibility was to post the agenda a month or two in advance and so much of the discussion could happen in the various ongoing conversations before the meeting. I posted a request for proposals when the last meeting ended, but only one or two at most were added before October. Another challenge to this option is that there won't be the give and take we have where we each get a chance to learn from the others here. Not all of us are active in the other conversations so their views are not addressed until after the majority have made decisions. 
   Another option proposed, if the meetings are going to be really long, was for the when's to be closed early in the meeting and a time line created so people can know when to show up for topics they are interested in. As discussions can run two days or a month and more it would mean either repeatedly modifying the time line or having to move discussions running longer than a fixed amount to the end of the meeting. Again the agenda would need to be closed very early. How this actually shortens meetings is left unsead unless it's because we'd end up with the discussions not continuing.
   These are just the ones I can remember at the moment. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-17T22:46:29Z ]

   For the record, I don't think the meeting can simply be declared over; there has to be a motion to adjourn (or general consent).

bookofportals [ 2020-02-17T22:47:56Z ]

   Beyond that, I think the big problem is how long we leave things open for discussion. I know that time must be permitted for people to discuss things, but I get the feeling (I haven't counted) that discussions often take a week or more. I think that's too long.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-17T22:49:11Z ]

   The obvious solution would be to agree on a standard rule saying how long discussion on one subject could last, how long voting should last, and how those limits can be shortened or extended.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-17T22:51:49Z ]

   Or at least what sorts of situations would warrant shortening or extending them; the motion to limit or extend debate is already in our parliamentary authority.

karis [ 2020-02-17T23:33:20Z ]

   The President of the LLG can do that, though I'll only do it if I can't get the meeting to end in another way. 

maik [ 2020-02-17T23:41:02Z ]

   The short meeting format could work under two conditions: the first is that the agenda has to be finalized a month in advance (as Karis discussed) and you are simply are out of luck if you aren't paying attention to that deadline.  The other condition is that anyone who can't show up for the designated time is allowed to vote in advance and/or designate a proxy to vote in the absentee's place.
   Long meeting format could be held every two-to-four years as necessary which will allow things to be carefully discussed. 

maik [ 2020-02-17T23:43:07Z ]

   If the short format is no good, then I would at least impose a structure so that issues are covered within a week:  New item on sunday, discussion for three days, vote starts on thursday and ends saturday.

karis [ 2020-02-17T23:45:37Z ]

   It would be most helpful to look at the records of how long discussions have taken, and how much was "dead space". The same can be done for the votes. It isn't the actual time in discussion that's the problem. It's whether time is being lost excessively when nothing is happening. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-17T23:51:51Z ]

   If you're speaking of the power to end meetings, I don't see that listed explicitly anywhere in either the bylaws or the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. What I do see in the Standard Code is “After the vote on the motion to adjourn, the meeting is not ended until the chair announces the vote and declares adjournment. The decision on whether to adjourn, however, is made by the assembly, not the presiding officer. The chair cannot arbitrarily declare adjournment except when there is no quorum present.”

and.rosta [ 2020-02-18T01:19:33Z ]

   I would like to see meetings run in at least two parallel strands, with separate agendas, one for purely Lojban-related matters and one for more general LLG business. This would reduce the total duration of the meeting and would allow me to tune out of the probably-more voluminous purely-Lojban-related strand (tuning out = spectating without the obligation to pay attention). 

and.rosta [ 2020-02-18T01:33:13Z ]

   I hope the entirety of Za'o might be published on YouTube.
   In searching for recent Lojban content there I found myself rather regretting its diminution, for I was excited to find a channel called Lojban Socialist songs, and immediately there leapt unbidden to my mind the thrilling idea that there there would be a Lojban El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido & Bella Ciao (doi melbi doi melbi coi coi coi) and heaven knows what other gems. But alas, the channel had only one, rather underwhelming, upload. At any rate, even if I myself am not much concerned whether Lojban sees any regrowth in usage, I do think it would be a noble endeavour to populate YouTube with a genuine corpus of well rendered socialist Lojban songs, though contributing to such an endeavour would be far beyond my nugatory musical abilities and nowadays equally nugatory Lojban abilities.

karis [ 2020-02-18T03:45:53Z ]

   I can't look it up at the moment, but I will ask @lojbab as he explained how Presidential powers work in the LLG. I will also say that the President, the other Officers, and the Board are not as limited in scope and power as your statement here and others you've made indicate you believe. 

karis [ 2020-02-18T03:48:45Z ]

   Having more of a collection of songs would be great. Maybe part of the issue is making more of an effort to collect then. This topic for songs is one I find particularly interesting. 

gleki [ 2020-02-19T17:23:10Z ]

   You are blocking attempts to update the CLL. You destructed BPFK that operated in Lojban only and replaced it with a bunch of people most of whom don't speak fluent Lojban.
   You fail to organize people and fail to produce anything but a bunch of commands or fruitless committees. And now a committee that is supposed to promote(?!) some rival projects.
   You ignore problems of newcomers and make no attempts to organize their education in a regular way. No Lojban proficiency test, no attempts to shift discussions to Lojban.
   You make people leave by dictatorship, you ignore their incentives. And now you are wondering what the heck is going on.
   Oh yeah sure it's all Lojban to blame.
   Commands, punishment, useless discussions and wasting everyone's time. Your motto.

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T17:47:22Z ]

   Several members of the Reauthorized BPFK are simply not there anymore (Durka42, Cirko) or are not active anymore (Xalbo, Xorxes)

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T17:52:12Z ]

   As for why not letting LLG members vote themselves on the candidate CLL release instead of delegating it to the LFK, I'm not sure to see the point except for saving LLG meeting time, as most LFK members are also LLG members.

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T17:52:58Z ]

   But then, at some point the LLG will have to vote on it anyway

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T18:09:32Z ]

   There's already an agenda item for officializing the new CLL version candidate, actually. It's waiting in the queue. I am myself patiently waiting for my items to come into focus, provided they get the chance before the meeting is closed.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-19T18:25:05Z ]

   I was under the impression CLL approvals were now the LFK's job? As in, the LLG has to approve language changes, but the LFK can approve mere documentation updates.

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T21:38:52Z ]

   The CLL version candidate includes implementation of Dotside

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T21:39:04Z ]

   whose officialness status is not 100% clear to me

ilmen [ 2020-02-19T21:39:20Z ]

   (I have an agenda item asking to clarify this in the wait)

karis [ 2020-02-20T01:55:26Z ]

   It's because the LFK charter specifies that they work on the CLL. I am not sure if everyone realized this was there, though. 

karis [ 2020-02-20T01:55:40Z ]

   Hm. That doesn't make sense. You say I fail to organize people, or projects I guess, yet you blame me for the new committees. You claim I am blocking work on the CLL when I didn't block your project last summer to fix some of it and even allowed the vote to stand despite less than a quarter of the Members caring a vote at all. Oh, you mean we should have voted on them now? Ah, but what about the newer committee who's charter lists that responsibility as specifically belonging to it. You blame me for getting rid of the BPFK, which hadn't done anything in years, yet don't like the committee which replaced it which is. ALL of these, but the way, were decisions of the Members and I obstained on at least one. You claim I am forcing people out by being a dictator and yet you, who are the only person I've ever felt the need to restrain, remain. You insist I care nothing for newcomers, yet you were the person who fought having material  on the website labeled as official or not, though doing so made it easier for newcomers to know what to focus on. Well, somehow you are angry that "I've" created a committee to focus on other loglangs. You put a proposal to have the LLG declare support for one of them in this very meeting. Does that mean we should all spend time I on the other loglangs taking attention away from our primary focus on lojban. You claim I'm wondering what's going on when the question wasn't mine. 

karis [ 2020-02-20T02:02:42Z ]

   Dotside was voted as approved by the LLG, as far as I know. I wasn't ascribe then.

bookofportals [ 2020-02-20T06:00:55Z ]

   Gleki, ga'icu'i, you're a member of the LLG. If you disagree with organizational policy, you can always move to change that policy. Most of the decisions you're complaining about are decisions of the LLG collectively, not of the chair. Blaming Karis personally for them doesn't seem particularly fair?

la_melijaubi [ 2020-02-20T13:54:24Z ]

   la_melijaubi a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-02-20T20:00:14Z ]

   Welcome to the 2019-2028 Members Meeting, @la_melijaubi. If you have any questions about the issues, or anything else. The only thing Members (hm elected position) can do that non-Members but is actually vote.
   If you look in #links you will be able to find the 2019 agenda and other possibly interesting things. 

karis [ 2020-02-22T04:53:43Z ]

   That would definitely make it easier for you and others. At one point we (Members Meeting or Board Meeting, I'm not sure) discussed having one channel for only voting and i like this as well. 

karis [ 2020-02-24T13:26:36Z ]

   It seems no one else wants to comment. I would have closed the discussion yesterday, waiting two days as I know not everyone can be on here every day, but I was caring for a friend just or if the hospital most of the day and scrambling to do what I had to at home before and after.
   If anyone would like to sum up the discussion of this topic that would be great. Just post it as a response to this even though we're moving on otherwise.

karis [ 2020-02-24T13:28:20Z ]

   @solpahi has raised the following concern, and it's the next agenda item:
   Point out the lack of transparency in the whole BPFK dissolution affair. The broader community is completely unaware that the BPFK was dissolved and is to be replaced by LFK. 

and.rosta [ 2020-02-24T14:24:31Z ]

   So three channels, one for votes, one for discussion of Lojban-specific items, one for discussion of other items. Can we implement that for the next meeting?

solpahi [ 2020-02-24T14:52:20Z ]

   Since the LFK has now been announced, we can probably skip this topic. But it took something like a year before anyone cared to make an official announcement that the BPFK was dissolved. 
   Since it's a moot point, I'd like to withdraw the topic from the agenda.

karis [ 2020-02-25T00:44:25Z ]

   I can implement it in the next day or two. The issue will be the other channels won't be bridged unless @lagleki sets it up. 

karis [ 2020-02-25T00:49:07Z ]

   That's fine. The main reason it took so long was that we wanted the committee actually set up before announcing it's initiation. @bookofportals and i, and anyone else interested, had a conversation set up to do the initial set up and announcement, but some things came up for him. As he had the clearest picture of what he wanted I waited. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-25T06:01:13Z ]

   I'm under the impression that this channel isn't bridged anyway (I certainly can't see it on the Discord server, though it's remotely possible it's bridged to other fora). At any rate I've never seen anyone post in this channel using the bridge. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-25T06:04:07Z ]

   I apologize again to everyone for the trouble. 

karis [ 2020-02-25T08:15:19Z ]

   Everyone needs time now and again for other things. 

karis [ 2020-02-25T08:17:58Z ]

   Actually I think you're correct. I was distracted at the time I responded.

karis [ 2020-02-25T08:52:19Z ]

   As a result of the recent discussion about how we might improve the Members Meeting format there are now private channels for both non-lojban topics specific to the current meeting and for voting for all Members Meetings on a trial basis. Please only use the latter for voting. This channel will cover lojban and general topics. 
   Currently my plan is to announce topic changes in both you've channels so those mostly reading the other one know when to check in here as well. Final versions of proposals will be presented in the voting channel when voting is announced in the appropriate topics channel. 
    At the end of this Members Meeting we will review the trial period. I know it will be a significant challenge for some, as that's why it wasn't done earlier. As a result this is a trial and we shall see how much it is and how well it improves the meeting for the rest.

karis [ 2020-02-25T08:57:38Z ]

   As there are now quite a number of people in our Mattermost team, please mention if you were not added to the new channels and should have been. I apologize if I skipped you, but it may happen. 

karis [ 2020-02-25T09:17:56Z ]

   @solpahi has withdrawn the topic of the lack of public announcement of the dissolution of the BPFK and beginning of the LFK Committee as this influenza has now been disseminated. 

@lalxu proposes the "creation of a website for the LLG, say logical-language-group.org. At the very least, this website contains: the purpose; the member list; the bylaws; a link to this communication channel; links to various resources the LLG deems useful, including lojban.org. All pages tagged

on the lojban.org wiki should be evaluated for moving to this new website. The lojban.org website is repurposed to focus on Lojban alone."

karis [ 2020-02-25T09:25:22Z ]

   @phma, I moved your post here as it is a general topic.

karis [ 2020-02-25T09:25:46Z ]

   @phma says, "Sounds good to me. Will the new website also include material on or links to other logical languages?" 

karis [ 2020-02-25T09:38:53Z ]

   My understanding is if we do this the LLG website would have links to lojban.org, the LFK site, and the site for the LLRC. 

and.rosta [ 2020-02-26T01:09:51Z ]

   Wouldn't one expect the LFK site to be at Lojban.org, given LFK is all about Lojban?

and.rosta [ 2020-02-26T01:12:36Z ]

   Sounds good. I'm not competent to assess the onerousness of the logistics. Having the task complete would be good, but somebody's got to volunteer the time to do it first...

maik [ 2020-02-26T01:12:39Z ]

   Yes, I believe that the main LFK pages would remain somewhere on lojban.org

karis [ 2020-02-26T01:29:46Z ]

   I think the LLG pages should as well. Regardless of our work with other logical languages, lojban is and had always been the focus. 

maik [ 2020-02-26T01:36:37Z ]

   Without trying to speak for Lynn, I think the answer to @phma 's question, with respect to this proposal (if it were enacted), is that the new LLG website would certainly contain links to its committees, which are the LFK and the LLRC.  However I wouldn't foresee it directly linking any logical language other than Lojban.

maik [ 2020-02-26T01:37:09Z ]

   (Lynn = @lalxu)

maik [ 2020-02-26T01:38:27Z ]

   I suppose it could have a short list of logical languages, but mainly the LLG website would be about the LLG, its meetings, and its two committees and anything else that's relevant in a similar way (I am guessing).

karis [ 2020-02-26T04:41:35Z ]

   If it's about the LLG and the committees then it would contain references to the other languages, or at least that they exist, only in the description of what that committee does. 

maik [ 2020-02-26T04:45:17Z ]

   right, I think other loglangs might be referred to in passing, in the section on the LLRC.  they would not be discussed in any detail.

ilmen [ 2020-02-27T15:20:41Z ]

   Personally I'd favor having the LLRC site be a subdomain of the LLG website, as it would save some hosting money.

ilmen [ 2020-02-27T15:21:29Z ]

   I certainly prefer that over the LLG site be on lojban.org and LLRC having a separate website

lalxu [ 2020-02-27T15:21:50Z ]

   the LLG website (or its LLRC subdomain) _may_ contain references to other loglangs, and I'd certainly like it to. in its most fleshed out form, as I envision it, it certainly has a little history section talking about Loglan and such.  but please, let's first get it done with the obvious necessities in.  “the perfect is the enemy of the good” and all.
   I suppose a bigger question to answer is: how do we decide to add something to the website later — like do we make it freely editable by LLG members on github (this seems OK to me), or do we appoint a “webmaster” or two, or must every change be voted in (I would hate the latter)

ilmen [ 2020-02-27T15:25:19Z ]

   The LLG site should also have a donation section

maik [ 2020-02-27T16:03:56Z ]

   I would prefer that the LLRC had its own domain name -- just as the Language Creation Society has.  This is not some miscellaneous side expense where it makes sense to neglect it or to cut corners.  Everything that the LLG and the LFK does, and the future LLRC will do, ultimately has to be organized and presented on the Internet.  This would amount to an extra $15 per year.   It's a small fee for a core requirement.

maik [ 2020-02-27T16:12:10Z ]

   To get back to the proposal: Since there is clearly a distinction between the LLG and Lojban itself, and each is an important entity in its own right, I am in favor of this proposal for a new website for the LLG.

ilmen [ 2020-02-27T16:31:53Z ]

   I, too, am in favor of the LLG having its own website.

lalxu [ 2020-02-27T22:34:23Z ]

   (I of course am also voting in favor, having proposed the proposal :))

lalxu [ 2020-02-28T00:15:41Z ]

   I drafted a quick idea of what the LLG website could look like. http://foldr.moe/llg-site-test/

karis [ 2020-02-28T00:59:49Z ]

   Is there anything else you would like to say about this before I open voting? In any case we need a second. 

karis [ 2020-02-28T01:06:39Z ]

   Personally I think the committees should be part of the LLG website, should we do this, as they are committes of the LLG rather than stand alone entities. 

karis [ 2020-02-28T03:40:11Z ]

   One question I have for @lalxu, and anyone else who cares to contribute their answer, is why it's important to move from a single web "location" to multiple ones given that I'm assuming it's still possible to have aliases for webpages, and likely other options to make it easier to find the "separate" sections within a single whole. I know you can set up what's basically an alias in some chat programs a group can be reached with a shortened, more accurate name than its official address. 

bookofportals [ 2020-02-28T03:49:16Z ]

   Is this really ready for a second? In particular, I don't see anything written up about who controls which website, and the proposal generally doesn't feel very motionish. 

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T11:04:41Z ]

   Looks good!
   There should be a link "Donate" in the top-right link list.

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T11:05:58Z ]

   If somebody come across LLG's page and desires to request membership, should they go to "Contact us"?

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T11:21:44Z ]

   @lalxu: Is your motion ready for a second or for voting? Should we discuss the location of the LFK pages (or revise the location of the LLRC ones) now, or should this be dealed separately?

maik [ 2020-02-28T12:25:16Z ]

   I also think @lalxu's draft is a good start.  Here is what the Language Construction Society's website looks like.  We could mine some ideas here (I have no qualms about mining other people's ideas): https://conlang.org/

maik [ 2020-02-28T12:27:36Z ]

   Notice the second section on the main page of that website, called "Start here".  This contains a link called "The Conlanger’s Library".   This is a second website that contains all sorts of resources for conlangers.

maik [ 2020-02-28T12:29:34Z ]

   In the case of the LLG webite, if it has a similar "Start Here" section, there would be links to the other two websites, one for Lojban and one fore loglangs generally.  But basic idea of organization would be similar.

lalxu [ 2020-02-28T13:25:32Z ]

   OK, here is my organizational idea: the website can be a GitHub Pages repository, after I (or karis) create a GitHub organization for the LLG. any LLG member can ask to join this organization and modify the HTML. if this doesn't work out -- if it causes too many edit wars or something -- we can hash out something else later, but it needs to be agile for now, and I trust fellow members to handle it with care, just as we have the LLG pages on Lojban wiki until now.

lalxu [ 2020-02-28T13:27:36Z ]

   yes, the committee pages are just going to be at "llrc.logical-language-group.org" or "logical-language-group.org/llrc"

lalxu [ 2020-02-28T13:27:46Z ]

   not separate domain names 

lalxu [ 2020-02-28T13:31:39Z ]

   like others said we might put the LFK homepage on lojban.org rather than llg.org, I have no strong feelings there. whatever's convenient is best, I think

karis [ 2020-02-28T14:49:09Z ]

   There actually have been problems with lojban.org because there wasn't any control over who could change what. I think we need to have a solution built in up front. 

karis [ 2020-02-28T14:50:10Z ]

   The reason I mentioned a second was that people were already attempting to cast votes. 

karis [ 2020-02-28T14:53:27Z ]

   I don't want the LFK on lojban.org because it isn't their website and that makes it seem they are the overriding body. While they can make some language decisions on their own any complex or significant changes have to ultimately go through the LLG as ones from byfy did. 

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T22:17:44Z ]

   I seem to remember that some wiki pages can be locked in such a way that only some select members are allowed to edit it

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T22:18:40Z ]

   I, too, am having no strong feeling on which of the LLG site or lojban.org should host the LFK pages

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T22:19:12Z ]

   Each of the two options makes reasonable sense

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T22:25:41Z ]

   > yes, the committee pages are just going to be at "llrc.logical-language-group.org" or "logical-language-group.org/llrc"
   > not separate domain names
   The text of your motion does not entail that, in any event. Additionally, Maik supports the idea of the LLRC having a dedicated website.

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T22:35:26Z ]

   It would certainly be nicer to have a dedicated domain for the LLRC, but the LLG would end up managing three different domains, and there's no guarantee it won't need to host lojban.org elsewhere with additional fees. If it were to pay 15$ monthly for three sites, it would amount to 45$ a month, which is significant.

ilmen [ 2020-02-28T22:41:00Z ]

   On the other hand, "logical-language-group.org" being long as it is, it'll greatly shadow the names of its subdomains in the urls, compare ``llrc.logical-language-group.org`` with ``llrc.llg.org`` for example. But ``llg.org`` isn't affordable, as it's in the claws of speculators selling it to an eye-popping price.

karis [ 2020-02-29T00:40:59Z ]

   Long names also mean people will often not do the search to find them since it isn't at all clear what to search for. If they know what they want that's still a very long name to type correctly if you're ever where you don't have it bookmarked. 

dersaidin [ 2020-02-29T08:42:59Z ]

   logicallanguage.group available for ~$11/year

dersaidin [ 2020-02-29T08:43:32Z ]

   I'd agree llg.org is not worth the price

dersaidin [ 2020-02-29T08:44:10Z ]

   And imo logical-language-group.org is a bit too long

maik [ 2020-02-29T12:22:53Z ]

   ^I really like the idea of using a .group TLD for the LLG!  Plus it's cheap!
   I think the name length is a tradeoff that would have to be decided.  Long, explicit names are better for SEO (at least reputedly) and short names for convenience (if they're memorable).  It's common for institutions to have both.  Hypothetically the LLG _could_ have both loglang.group and logicallanguage.group, with the short URL redirecting to the long URL.  But that's probably overkill.  
   Honestly, what I find to be an attractive URL for the LLG is simply _logicallanguage.group_

lalxu [ 2020-02-29T15:24:20Z ]

   I like that one too :).

lalxu [ 2020-02-29T15:52:36Z ]

   ok, does this look more ready to vote on?
   # Idea
   * A website is created for the LLG.
   * At the very least, this website contains: a purpose/mission statement; the member list; the bylaws; a link to this communication channel; links to various resources the LLG deems useful, including lojban.org.

* All pages tagged

on the lojban.org wiki should be evaluated for moving to this new website. (I, lalxu, will do this)

   * The lojban.org website is then repurposed to focus on Lojban alone.
   # Technical organization
   * GitHub Pages is used to host the website. (It's free) https://pages.github.com/
   * To this end, a GitHub "organization" called `loglang` for the LLG is created, and LLG members can ask its administrator(s) to be invited to the organization.
   * Repositories are created for the organization and committee websites:
     * The `loglang.github.io` repository houses https://loglang.github.io/, the official main LLG website.
     * The `lfk` repository houses https://loglang.github.io/lfk, the official LFK website.
     * The `llrc` repository houses https://loglang.github.io/llrc, the official LLRC website.
   * **No decisions will be made yet regarding domain names.** At a later point we may decide to register and pay for a domain name and then add it to GitHub Pages like so: https://help.github.com/en/github/working-with-github-pages/managing-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site#configuring-an-apex-domain But that is beyond the scope of this motion.
   # Responsibilities
   * Initially, the `loglang` organization will have lalxu and karis as administrators.
   * Initially, the `loglang.github.io` repository/website can be edited only by the administrators.
   * Initially, the `lfk` repository/website can be edited by the administrators and all LFK members. (That is: any LFK member may ask an administrator to join the GitHub org _and_ the `lfk` repo contributors list.)
   * Initially, the `llrc` repository/website can be edited by the administrators and all LLRC members.
   * We (the LLG) may vote as usual to modify these responsibilities, or make any other change to the website as established in this motion.

lalxu [ 2020-02-29T16:11:27Z ]

   actually, it merits asking: would people feel better voting on this motion if there was a finished website to go with it?

lalxu [ 2020-02-29T16:14:30Z ]

   we could punt it down the agenda a little while I finish the draft, and then not just the spirit but the _contents_ of our "official website" will have been voted on; maybe that's better.  (actually I can try to finish it tomorrow, it's not a huge or complicated website)

lalxu [ 2020-02-29T16:16:25Z ]

   but OTOH I want to keep the proposal simple and not codify too many small details to stumble/disagree over

maik [ 2020-02-29T16:30:22Z ]

   I don't have any problem with these suggestions, including (eventually) unifying the codebases/project resources on Github, but for simplicity I think the current proposal should remain focused on the idea of the LLG Website. 

maik [ 2020-02-29T16:33:17Z ]

   As far as making the LLG Website, I think your offer to create it is very kind, but I don't see why you should have to do that much work in order to have a vote.  I don't see what's unclear about the mockup you've already put together.

dersaidin [ 2020-02-29T22:19:41Z ]

   I hope a LLG website would contain an archive of decisions/discussion. (No need to include any internal financial stuff, just stuff like BPFK replaced by LFK, ratified new lojban version from LFK)

phma [ 2020-02-29T23:39:37Z ]

   Are you thinking of hosting three domains on three different servers? I see no reason why we couldn't host three domains on one server.

lalxu [ 2020-03-01T13:23:54Z ]

   they would all be hosted on GitHub Pages

tsani [ 2020-03-02T15:01:08Z ]

   tsani a rejoint le canal.

ilmen [ 2020-03-03T14:53:55Z ]

   I'm not sure whether Lalxu's proposal is currently deemed as a motion, but if it is, then I second it.

karis [ 2020-03-04T06:40:35Z ]

   I have hardly worked on web pages in about 25-30 years. @lalxu (and anyone else who wants to speak), how would the editing of pages, and capabilities for creating whatever layout and structure of connected pages be the same as lojban.org and how would they be different? 

lalxu [ 2020-03-04T23:00:41Z ]

   I'll try to explain, though I don't know what level of technical detail is appropriate, so I'm sorry if this is either way too jargon-y _or_ completely obvious:
   lojban.org is a Wiki, so pages are edited by users in a Wiki syntax, and they are turned into HTML to be rendered by the browser by some wiki software. The wiki software runs on someone's (rlpowell's I think) server, and contains all kinds of logic and is hooked up to a database and stuff.
   GitHub Pages is a service run by GitHub, which basically says: “hey, if you have your own static HTML files, simple-as-can-be, upload them to GitHub, and we will host them on our web servers at yourname.github.io.” So, this means no logic, no databases, no login, no users — that is the price you pay for free hosting — but we don't need anything fancy like that, we just want some official organized hypertext, we aren't making an app or anything.
   (Actually, it even offers something slightly fancier: it also has support for Jekyll, which is something called a “static site generator”, which basically saves us copying the same bits of HTML over many different pages, but I won't get into that here.)
   To expand/modify the webpage, an authorized LLG member would simply create/edit a file at `some/path/index.html` in the GitHub repository — you can do this from your broswer.
   The good news is our pages would be interconnected the same way they were 25–30 years ago :). Simply `<a href="members/index.html">Members</a>` to link to another page.

maik [ 2020-03-04T23:21:44Z ]

   That was a good explanation.
   I don't have much of a preference on the platform for the LLG site, but it could also be a wiki.  (I could look into it, actually, if a wiki is preferred, assuming lojban.org allows me to export its data).

maik [ 2020-03-05T00:16:11Z ]


maik [ 2020-03-05T00:17:19Z ]

   :) It took me about 20 minutes minutes to create an LLG wiki and import all the old pages

maik [ 2020-03-05T00:19:00Z ]

   another 15 minutes making that rather badly designed graphic

ilmen [ 2020-03-05T09:45:28Z ]

   Can a money donation form be incorporated into a mediawiki? I suppose it is, as the Wikimedia fundation has one:

maik [ 2020-03-05T12:13:58Z ]

   Mediawiki is highly configurable, if not totally easy and intuitive.  anything can be done, if you're willing to take the time to figure out how to do it.

karis [ 2020-03-05T12:19:30Z ]

   Thank you for the explanation, @lalxu. I want to make sure that everyone understands the benefits and issues with keeping everything at lojban.org, and the benefits and issues with these other options before we vote. 
   There are two related decisions we are facing. One is whether the LLG continues to occupy space alongside lojban at lojban.org or not. The second is, if we decide to move it what is the best format. 
   The main reasons I've heard so far for changing anything are to separate out lojban from the LLG possibly on the assumption that then the LFK would take over lojban.org, and  m to control who can edit the webpages for the new site.  Nothing has been said about changing lojban.org so only a small subset of the Membership can make changes, therefore  it seems like this latter point doesn't really matter for many expressing the  concern.  I am personally much more concerned about this issue for lojban.org. Some have said they don't want lojban.org to continue to be hosted where it is, but that doesn't explain why to spread our material in this Controlling who can make changes also may be more of an issue for the dictionary project that the LFK is starting. Moving the LLG material also doesn't address the concern a few people have raised over the last several years (and maybe more) that with the lojban.org site being hosted by a single individual, no matter how dedicated, on a single server means an unaccepable level of risk regarding possible lose of access later, and not having a backup. 
   It seems more to these questioning as far as labeling things as official or not, and controlled the site and particularly the opening page are laid out that has caused problems, not managing the LLG organizational pages.  is important, however I see no important reason the LLG shouldn't use a subset of lojban.org as lojban was created by and functions under the auspices of the LLG. 
   As I understand it the benefits of github over wiki are price, controlling who can make changes, and not relying on Robin and his computer. The main negatives of github over a wiki are we'd have no control over whether the system continued to be available or continued to be free as it wouldn't be in-house like lojban.org, and the website name would be more complex. Have I missed anything? 

maik [ 2020-03-05T13:31:10Z ]

   Some points:
   > There are two related decisions we are facing. One is whether the LLG continues to occupy space alongside lojban at lojban.org or not. The second is, if we decide to move it what is the best format. 
   .ie (= I agree)
   > The main reasons I've heard so far for changing anything are to separate out lojban from the LLG possibly on the assumption that then the LFK would take over lojban.org, and  m to control who can edit the webpages for the new site. 
   As I see it, the main reason is to simply separate the two entities and their functions and their information.  The LLG is not the same as Lojban, and deserves its own branding and therefore its own home on the Internet. 
   > Nothing has been said about changing lojban.org so only a small subset of the Membership can make changes, therefore  it seems like this latter point doesn't really matter for many expressing the  concern.  I am personally much more concerned about this issue for lojban.org.
   There is an idea floating around of somehow separating the pages of Lojban.org into "official" and "community" sections.  The first section WOULD be under the control of the LFK, and would be used for promoting standard Lojban and official materials, such as the CLL, that are developed by the LFK and approved by the LLG.  The second section would continue to provide the free-for-all that Lojban.org has always provided to its community (all opinions, and hopefully some actual Lojban translations and compositions, would be welcome).
   Lalxu's proposal does not address this putative general restructuring of Lojban.org, but getting the LLG pages off the server and onto their own site can be viewed as a first stage in that direction.

maik [ 2020-03-05T13:34:29Z ]

   > As I understand it the benefits of github over wiki are price
   MediaWiki and GitHub are both free.  The difference is that MediaWiki requires a web server (such as Robin's machine) with PHP and a database server installed, whereas a website developed at Github could be deployed online from Github itself.  However, to your point: If Robin weren't already providing a free web server, then Github would indeed provide a (relatively small) advantage in cost.
   > controlling who can make changes
   On either platform, permissions can be set up as needed, if it's needed.
   > and not relying on Robin and his computer.
   The latter is easier to replace than the former.  The webserver is worth $10-20/mo, tops.  But the commitment and expertise is not so easy to replace.
   Robin has been pretty reliable, but yes moving to Github would remove Robin's computer from the mix, but only for that one Web site.  Regardless of what happens with the current proposal, the LLG and its committees are going to continue to need an in-house web server for the foreseeable future.
   > The main negatives of github over a wiki are we'd have no control over whether the system continued to be available or continued to be free as it wouldn't be in-house like lojban.org, and the website name would be more complex. Have I missed anything? 
   The main negative of Github is that we can't use Github to maintain a wiki or similarly complicated platforms.  Lojban.org has always been a wiki, and no one is really suggesting anything different. 

lalxu [ 2020-03-05T17:09:29Z ]

   > As I see it, the main reason is to simply separate the two entities and their functions and their information.  
   Yes, this is my main motivation: Lojban is not the LLG; the LLG is its own entity and its bylaws claim a more grand purpose than merely Lojban. I think it is just “hierarchically backwards” for the LLG's “official internet home” to be some wiki pages in a category on lojban.org. To me, that's like Apple's official homepage being `iphone.com/wiki/apple` or something, instead of `apple.com` :). So I wanted to change it

lalxu [ 2020-03-05T17:15:39Z ]

   Plus, I think it deserves a visually official-looking home than a wiki page. A lojban.org wiki page feels less serious/official than a dedicated, clean website.
   I liked @maik 's comparison to https://conlang.org/ . That website is not a wiki and it also doesn't need to be. It's just a well-designed, separate website for the LCS. I want us to have the same
   > we'd have no control over whether the system continued to be available or continued to be free
   This is true, but we also do not have this control over Robin.
   There are a lot of stakeholders in the high uptime and continued gratis availability of GitHub Pages.
   I don't have realistic concerns that the service would become unavailable or non-free as that would just economically be a profoundly bad move from GitHub.
   I suppose it's a choice between depending on the continued goodwill of one person, vs. depending on the continued “goodwill” of a huge company (that has a lot more to gain from offering this service)

lalxu [ 2020-03-05T17:19:10Z ]

   > the website name would be more complex
   in my revised proposal, I wrote:
   > At a later point we may decide to register and pay for a domain name and then add it to GitHub Pages like so: https://help.github.com/en/github/working-with-github-pages/managing-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site#configuring-an-apex-domain But that is beyond the scope of this motion.

lalxu [ 2020-03-05T17:19:29Z ]

   or do you mean that “logicallanguage.group” is more complex than “lojban.org” ?

lalxu [ 2020-03-05T17:20:17Z ]

   also, remember that the honest comparison is between `logicallanguage.group` (or, for now, `loglang.github.io`) and `mw.lojban.org/papri/Logical_Language_Group`.

phma [ 2020-03-05T23:52:27Z ]

   A site can consist of a static site and a wiki. I can think of a few examples.

phma [ 2020-03-05T23:56:16Z ]

   As to Robin's computer, I'd prefer that the sites be on a VPS or the like, which Robin can administer, but which someone else also has root access to in case he dies.

bookofportals [ 2020-03-06T00:19:11Z ]

   I'd be for the LLG moving everything possible off Robin's computer and onto professionally maintained servers, of course with him still maintaining them if possible. We most certainly have the money, and it would allow us better uptime without resorting to cache trickery. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-06T00:20:01Z ]

   And you're right about the redundancy advantages. 

karis [ 2020-03-06T12:26:20Z ]

   @ channel,
   I want to make sure how the Board feels about this and talk to Robin before making this sort of change. It's important that Robin not feel this is something against him, and since much of the Board hasn't participated in this discussion I believe they should all have an opportunity to comment.
   If no one objects I would like to discuss something else then come back to give time for me to reach out and to get replies. 

maik [ 2020-03-06T13:09:19Z ]

   I am not objecting to anyone talking to whoever in side conversations, but I am totally nonplussed at the notion that [the Board] " should all have an opportunity to comment"  Aren't they all LLG members?  Aren't they all supposedly HERE?

maik [ 2020-03-06T13:10:20Z ]

   Isn't RLP also a member?  Wouldn't it be more efficient for everyone if the conversation occurred here?

karis [ 2020-03-06T13:20:10Z ]

   At least two of the Board members are caught up in personal situations so are only checking in here intermittently, and another has problems with the Mattermost notifications and has to turn them off. @rlpowell is on Mattermost and in this conversation, but hasn't been active in conversations recently.
   I wasn't planning on having the conversations privately and, if done by email or text, I would post the emails and texts here as I have done in the past. My hope, though, is that by reaching out through other means they will be able to find the time to participate.
   An additional reason I want their participation is to bring in more perspectives from people who've been involved in the LLG for many years. Almost all who've been posting are relatively new and their perspectives are different. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-06T21:19:52Z ]

   I seem to recall that rlpowell is no longer an LLG member.

ilmen [ 2020-03-06T21:22:19Z ]

   We could extend the duration of the discussion on the current topic before doing a vote

ilmen [ 2020-03-06T21:24:42Z ]

   The next agenda item is a related topic, namely determining who shall be in charge of the front page of lojban.org among other sensitive pages

karis [ 2020-03-08T03:25:17Z ]

   My records show he is still a Member. 

karis [ 2020-03-08T03:43:19Z ]

   Currently you reach the LLG specific page by either typing in that long address or, much more simply you go to lojban.org and search "LLG" or "Logical Language Group" in the website search. If we move LLG out wouldn't this latter method no longer work? 

karis [ 2020-03-08T04:16:34Z ]

   I'm asking the Board to take up the question of who should manage lojban.org based on the following I just received from @lojbab. This will allow us to proceed to a new topic while allowing a bit more time for comments on the proposal to move LLG materials off lojban.org. Please clearly indicate on which topic your posts are made. 
   Lojbab's response to the question of who should manage lojban.org...
   "The community elects the Board, but in between Board elections has limited say in the management of the organization and the website, which is in fact owned by LLG. Anything can be passed to the Board, and should be, if it involves actually managing how something is done. The members do NOT have day to day management of the organization." 
   I consider him the authority about the bylaws since he wrote them. 
   Therefore the Board should address who should manage lojban.org, not the Membership. Members and others can, of course, offer their comments to the Board. If you would like to feel free to make comments directly to me or the other Board members.

karis [ 2020-03-08T04:20:40Z ]

   The next topic on the agenda was added by @ilmen, who says, "• https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/56rdupntpbf4jbzm7ejiqe94bo → It is not clear whether Dotside has been officialized during that previous meeting. A parlementarian has to look into the issue (see more at that link)." 

karis [ 2020-03-08T04:24:23Z ]

   Since it's always been possible for proposals to be passed because the President stated that if no objections are made in xx amount of time the proposal is considered passed, then announcing it was after that time has passed with no objections I'm not sure what the issue is. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:41:57Z ]

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

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:42:29Z ]

   Is what I asked in the part of the logs pointed to by the above link

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:43:33Z ]

   Riley said ``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.``

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:44:22Z ]

   Can the LLG President's stating «that if no objections are made in xx amount of time the proposal is considered passed» override that BPFK chart rule?

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:45:14Z ]

   If so, then my last point, namely that no announcement was made of the official adoption of Dotside, should be addressed.

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:45:40Z ]

   I.e. it should be stated somewhere, including the Lojban.org frontpage, that Dotside is now official.

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T14:48:20Z ]

   As I understand it, after some time (when enough Board members are aware of the proposal of new LLG website), the topic will return to that website proposal, right?

and.rosta [ 2020-03-08T15:35:05Z ]

   I am not confident that I have adequately apprehended all of the issues, so here are my initial but not necessarily final thoughts.
   LLG info should be at not lojban.org but rather at logicallanguage.group. The info should be of a general sort, with by-laws and links to lojban.org and the LLRC site. These fairly static pages should be hosted for free at Github or else wherever the LLRC wiki is hosted (see below). Permission to edit them rests with anyone authorized by the LLG membership during meetings or by the board outside meetings.
   Lojban.org is for Lojban only. It needs to be a wiki, of course, but as for its hosting, I have no view. Permission to edit areas that are not freely editable should be granted by a designated subcommittee, possibly LFK, but at any rate a subcommittee of LLG that deals with Lojban-specific matters.
   LLRC needs a wiki hosted in a way that multiple members of the LLRC can manage, so not on Robin's machine. Permission to edit areas that are not freely editable should be granted by a designated subcommittee of the LLRC. The LLRC wiki web address should either be independent (of the logicallanguages.org sort -- anything suitable and inexpensive) or a subdomain of logicallanguage.group.
   All things considered, and do bear in mind my very very rudimentary understanding of the technical issues, it might be best to rent a virtual server to host both LLRC wiki and the Lojban wiki. Lojban.org could point to the Lojban wiki. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-08T15:48:50Z ]

   My apologies for not having digested this message properly when I first read it.
   What we need is a channel for general (i.e. not Lojban-specific) topics and one for Lojban-specific topics. The general meeting channel should obviously be devoted to the general topics. The discussion of websites that we've been having belongs in the forum for general issues. The discussion of dotside should move to a further channel for Lojban-specific matters. Announcement of the item and of the voting should be made on the general meeting channel but discussion should move to the Lojban-specific channel.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-08T15:49:40Z ]

   I can see no reason why any of these channels should be private.

maik [ 2020-03-08T16:51:31Z ]

   I would hold off on these changes until the 2020 annual meeting.  
   Sidenote: Karen, BTW I would be willing to help you rename the meeting channels since you were having trouble (after this meeting is over so we don't lose anyone).

maik [ 2020-03-08T17:06:38Z ]

   These comments come as a breath of fresh air.  I want to say I agree with every point here.  
   Although I didn't want to say it in this meeting (it's beyond the scope of Lynn's LLG website proposal), I do agree that setting up a virtual machine makes eminent sense to me and is probably in fact going to be a practical necessity.  

maik [ 2020-03-08T17:09:06Z ]

   The Lojban dictionary configuration that I am currently developing is another wiki -- I am hoping on vlacku.lojban.org.   
   It is easy to install multiple wikis on the same server.  I have become well-versed with MediaWiki software in the last month, and would be able and willing to assist in setup.

maik [ 2020-03-08T17:09:58Z ]

   For the LLRC, "loglangs.org" is wieldy and has a nice ring , but I could live with research.logicallanguages.group, which has the virtue of being completely composed of unclipped English words.

karis [ 2020-03-08T18:31:14Z ]

   Thank you for the offer. 

karis [ 2020-03-08T18:36:10Z ]

   According to @lojbab, yes. I'm assuming it would only work for decisions that need a super majority when there are sufficient Members attending to pass such. 

karis [ 2020-03-08T18:38:47Z ]

   The only meetings that are "private" are Board Meetings, though I have welcomed others attending if they asked. Anyone can h join this meeting and the way to do was to was posted as part of the meeting announcement, as well as at other times. 

maik [ 2020-03-08T19:05:47Z ]

   Perhaps you did not notice, but the two new channels that you created for the 2019 MM, including the one you just cross-posted in, are private channels.

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:12:04Z ]

   They're private only so they don't get spammed. When someone joins coi the only question asked are if the person was here for the meeting, then they're added to all the meeting channels. That's different than the Board Meeting as those have always been invite only. 

maik [ 2020-03-08T19:17:54Z ]

   It's difficult for me to know how to respond to this logic.  You just said a moment ago: 'The only meetings that are "private" are Board Meetings'.  

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:25:59Z ]

   I was explaining that by private I mean limited access. Yes, they are technically all private, but these are open to anyone who indicates interest. 

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:27:12Z ]

   Since anyone can join the Members Meeting it certainly isn't secret, limited access, or otherwise restricted. 

maik [ 2020-03-08T19:30:48Z ]

   You realize that no one who's new to the server can see those channels in the list, right?  If they read this channel, then yes if they see a mention about the extra channels and then they can ask to be added -- if they feel bold enough to do so (they may not know they're welcome to ask).

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:34:09Z ]

   Yes, and that is why every time I see a new person has joined coi, our gateway, I ask them if they're looking for the meeting. In the past one had to join the mailing list, and I don't see this being much different as access needed to be granted then too. 

maik [ 2020-03-08T19:48:10Z ]

   BTW, the main meeting channel (i.e. this one) has 53 people while of the new channels one has 36 and the other 38 people.  

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:50:50Z ]

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:51:29Z ]

   Feel free to add anyone you want. I added all the people who've participated this year or that I recognized to the non-lojban topics. Which other one are you referring to? 

maik [ 2020-03-08T19:52:45Z ]

   #2019 Non Lojban Topics-LLG MM - 36
   #Voting Only - LLG Members Meetings -38 members

karis [ 2020-03-08T19:57:35Z ]

   @channel as someone's raised the concern that not everyone has access to all the meeting channels, if you are not in either the non-lojban topics group or the voting channel (anyone can join, but only Members may vote), please tell me directly or announce it here. 

maik [ 2020-03-08T20:02:05Z ]

   Are there any other LLG meeting channels?

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T22:16:48Z ]

   Shouldn't there be a "2019 Lojban Topics - LLG MM" channel as well?

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T22:18:41Z ]

   OK. I assume nobody would disagree that an announcement of Dotside's officialization is desirable? I suppose we should however first figure out who should make the appropriate changes on lojban.org; but in the meantime a mailing list anouncement could be sent.

maik [ 2020-03-08T22:21:31Z ]

   I am not aware of anyone who opposes the dotside reform, though it would not surprise me.

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:17:52Z ]

   > I'm asking the Board to take up the question of who should manage lojban.org based on the following I just received from @lojbab. This will allow us to proceed to a new topic while allowing a bit more time for comments on the proposal to move LLG materials off lojban.org. Please clearly indicate on which topic your posts are made.
   @karis: Wait, will the proposal of the new LLG website be returned to the membership and subject to its vote, or are you saying that the power of deciding on that proposal is transferred to the board, so the membership can henceforth only discuss the topic, issue recommentations to the board but not exert decisional power on the matter?

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:26:07Z ]

   ``I'm asking the Board to take up the question of who should manage lojban.org based on the following I just received from @lojbab. This will allow us to proceed to a new topic while allowing a bit more time for comments on the proposal to move LLG materials off lojban.org.``
   I'm not certain I understand how the question of who manages lojban.org relates to the unfinished item of creating an LLG website.

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:31:27Z ]

   Is the board going to determinate who is *currently* in charge of lojban.org, or who shall be in the future? Shouldn't the membership be allowed to decide by vote (if it desires to conduct such a vote) whether to transfer management of lojban.org to the LFK?

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:35:46Z ]

   (I think such a hypothetical transfer makes mostly sense if it is first decided to create an independent LLG website, however)

karis [ 2020-03-08T23:39:10Z ]

   The Membership may make suggestions, but the Board is responsible for the day to day operations. The Board will decide if they will continue to manage the website(s) after this Members Meeting ends.
   My I believe the LFK should at the very least show they have significant longevity of active participants before even asking to manage lojban.org. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:42:13Z ]

   How about the LLG website proposal? Any vote of the membership would at best have the value of a survey, as the actual decision would be wholly in the hands of the board?

karis [ 2020-03-08T23:42:20Z ]

   @lojbad's comment was in response to my asking him how he felt about moving LLG to a separate site and the possibility of the LFK managing lojban.org. He has so far only answered one of them. 

karis [ 2020-03-08T23:45:09Z ]

   I didn't say that. What I said was I wanted their feedback on the idea. Most of those posting on this set of topics haven't been Members long, or have never been. It only seems fair to include some of those with the longest involvement as well. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:50:11Z ]

   In any case, if the LFK were to manage lojban.org, this would be as a proxy for the LLG, and the latter could decide to take back the reins if the LFK were to fail at its mission.

karis [ 2020-03-08T23:58:04Z ]

   Yes, and the LFK is currently working on several major projects already. The dictionary and finishing the xorlo documentation are both large projects that the lojban community has waited on for many, many years because we could never get volunteers to stick with it and finish them. Both are also clearly within their job description. Since lojban.org already has people to look after it why is so urgent to put the LFK in charge? That's why we can wait for the Board to discuss this issue. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-08T23:59:09Z ]

   (I didn't say it would be urgent to do so, but asked who would hypothetically make such a decision)

karis [ 2020-03-09T00:01:23Z ]

   No, you didn't say it was, but that's certainly the overall impression given by this Members Meeting. 

karis [ 2020-03-09T00:02:45Z ]

   Does the reasons why a lojban topics channel wasn't created for the current trial make more sense now? 

karis [ 2020-03-09T00:23:33Z ]

   Also, one reason for moving topics to LFK and the Board, where appropriate, is to shorten the meeting while still having everything considered by one or another of the committees, the Membership, and the Board.

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T08:58:53Z ]

   I acknowledge the need to shorten the meeting.
   In my agenda item quoted below:
   ``If it is decided to give the LLG a dedicated website, then shouldn't the LFK be in charge of editing/maintaining lojban.org? Who have the rights to edit the lojban.org front page? Is there a way to ensure that only these people have the possibility to edit important pages such as the front page?``
   The two last questions were about the current state of affairs, and I'm okay if the boards takes care of providing the answers to these. However, with the first question, I think I had in mind that after making a decision on whether to create an LLG website, iff such a website is actually created then the membership would have deliberated on whether to hand lojban.org to the LFK.
   However my wording wasn't so clear I suppose. As such a hypothetical transfer of management of lojban.org is not an urgent issue _insofar as lojban.org is actually actively controlled by somebody empowered to do so by the LLG_ (e.g. the board), I'm willing to delay the question to the next meeting. But as it was part of the topic of that agenda item, I'd prefer to hear the opinions on the other members on said delaying. But in any case, I'd prefer the question of handing lojban.org to the LFK to be addressed by the greater membership (be it during this meeting or the next one, as it's not urgent) than by the smaller board.

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T09:08:53Z ]

   @karis: Could you please add to the board agenda my request of issuing an announcement of the officialization of Dotside to the mailing list, as well as editing appropriately the front page of lojban.org to reflect that officialization?

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T09:09:28Z ]

   (This can wait until the end of the meeting, as long as it's not forgotten)

and.rosta [ 2020-03-09T10:23:02Z ]

   Since the board meeting is in session but has seen no activity since February 11, I think the members meeting can resolve this stuff, rather than punting it to a future board meeting.

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T12:47:15Z ]

   The two next items on the Agenda (which have been submitted by myself) are related:
   • ``Officialize the BPFK Gadri page
   Request officialization of the BPFK Gadri page. This will allow us to link to this page from the lojban.org front page as a officially endorsed summary of the currently officialized Xorlo reform. If this page is successfully officialized, an announcement in the mailing lists shall be made. Furthermore, provisions should be taken so that only Board members (or any other officially empowered people) can edit the Gadri page, as well as the Dotside summary at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla which has been officialized in 2016 by the LLG.``
   • ``Clarifying what are the officially endorsed documentations of the Lojban language on the lojban.org front page
   Put on the front page of lojban.org a prominent link to the CLL, the official Xorlo documentation (if there's still none, then notify on that page the acknowledgment that Xorlo has no official documentation) and a link to https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla (Dotside), stating that these have been officially endorsed by the LLG.``

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T13:16:13Z ]

   (I've just edited them a little)

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T13:19:41Z ]

   @karis: The current agenda item is completed and requires no further action, except maybe waiting a little in case somebody wants to raise an objection to the assessed officiality of Dotside.

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T13:38:23Z ]

   Then, depending on whether board members have shown up, I suppose we'll either return to the LLG website item or continue to delay it and address my two next items (which I have copied above) in the meantime. Is that correct?

karis [ 2020-03-09T14:38:45Z ]

    The Board rarely does anything at its meetings when a Members Meeting is in session, which is why it isn't very active right now. That doesn't mean it couldn't be active, though, as the Board  is available to act whenever needed. This would not be "punting it to a future Board meeting" as the Board meets year round as issues arise. It would simply wait until this Members meeting ended so the Board can focus on one meeting at a time. 
   If an issue regards the day to day operations it is the Board's responsibility. As per @lojbab managing the website is such so it isn't part of the Membership's responsibilities regardless of whether the Board has said anything in their meeting,
   At the sane time, I've already said the Membership is free to discuss this issue and present the results to the Board, so how about we do that instead of debating over who's turf it is on? 

karis [ 2020-03-09T14:45:48Z ]

   Before we go on, to the next topic on the agenda, as I stated the Membership is free to discuss the issue of who should manage lojban.org, and its main page. Does anyone want to say anything about this? I mean about who you think should be managing it and why. If you want to make sure the Board hears and you're on record with it now is also a good time to explain why you think it should or should not be a decision the Board makes. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-09T15:38:41Z ]

   It seems obvious to me that the sorts of decisions under discussion are properly ones for the membership and could be actioned immediately, though preferably with debate on Lojban-specific matters moved to a forum away from the main meeting. Having said that, my policy both as an LLG member and as a Board Member is to avoid interfering in Lojban-specific matters, so I will not myself object to Lojban-specific matters being left to Board decisions.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-09T15:42:22Z ]

   Assuming that Lojban.org is for Lojban-specific information, and that LLG and LLRC information is at a different site then I will try to refrain from commenting.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-09T15:47:06Z ]

   Independently of the current agenda items, I'd like to hereby ask someone more competent than me (Maik?) to set up a public Logical Language Research Committee group on Mattermost, so that we can crack on with LLRC work.

maik [ 2020-03-09T16:01:43Z ]

   @and.rosta I am willing to set up a Mattermost channel if there are no objections.  I could also create a new wiki within a few minutes, which would be hosted on my home computer ( for the interim -- I might move it later). 
   I have been ready to do these things, but I have been holding off because Karen indicated to me that she wanted to get through the current membership meeting before choosing the initial members of the LLRC. 

maik [ 2020-03-09T16:06:01Z ]

   For the benefit of those on the LFK, I would also like to assure people that I am totally committed to completing, as soon as possible, the software for the Lojban dictionary which I have undertaken.  I will not allow LLRC business to interfere with that.  I will simply do a few things to get the ball rolling for the LLRC.

maik [ 2020-03-09T16:08:56Z ]

   (In case anyone is curious about the dictionary. an earlier version of it can be seen here -- http://vlacku.ddns.net/   I will be rolling out an improved version and announcing the dictionary project in earnest I hope within a few days)

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T16:55:48Z ]

   > Before we go on, to the next topic on the agenda, as I stated the Membership is free to discuss the issue of who should manage lojban.org, and in lojban its main page. Does anyone want to say anything about this? I mean about who you think should be managing it and why. If you want to make sure the Board hears and you're on record with it now is also a good time to explain why you think it should or should not be a decision the Board makes.
   I'm glad that you ask the question. Although I'd prefer it to be addressed after it is decided whether the LLG should get a separate website.
   The LFK will need a place under its own control for storing its pages and the result of its work; but if the LLG has no other website than lojban.org then we'll need to decide how to share it between the LFK and the LLG.

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T16:58:44Z ]

   Presumably there could be three sections, ``llg.lojban.org``~``lojban.org/llg``, ``lfk.lojban.org``~``lojban.org/llg``, and ``cecmu.lojban.org``~``lojban.org/cecmu`` (that latter being for storing the unofficial community content)

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T17:00:39Z ]

   Under that scheme, I suppose it makes most sense for the front page to be under the control of the board, and display links to all of the three sections (LLG section, LFK section, community section)

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T17:01:06Z ]

   But again, I think it makes most sense to first decide whether the LLG content stays on lojban.org or is moved to a dedicated website.

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T17:02:13Z ]

   Could we delay this topic until the LLG website proposal is voted upon?

karis [ 2020-03-09T20:15:22Z ]

   We can. 

karis [ 2020-03-09T20:17:45Z ]

   Would you think this should be a channel open to all to join freely or one that requires someone to ask to be added? 

ilmen [ 2020-03-09T20:23:58Z ]

   It should probably be the same way as the LFK channel.

maik [ 2020-03-09T20:26:06Z ]

   I would think it should be a public channel, like this one, and #LFK 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-09T23:08:46Z ]

   Thanks Mike. If the LLRC group is done yet, it's not showing up for me. I would hope that LLRC membership is open to everyone desirous of membership (I can't think of any argument against that), but even without prejudging the question of membership there surely can be no objection to mere discussion in the group being open. Needless to say, we'd like in due course to draw to the LLRC, or at least its forums, everyone with an interest in loglangs.
   I may seem somewhat impatient, but I've been trying to get this set up for two years now (and the present efforts were foreshadowed in 2015).

dersaidin [ 2020-03-10T16:43:40Z ]

   I just created #LLRC in this framateam

ilmen [ 2020-03-10T17:05:15Z ]

   Cool. I'm not seeing it though.

ilmen [ 2020-03-10T17:15:33Z ]

   Found it.

karis [ 2020-03-10T21:22:28Z ]

   For anyone else looking for the LLRC, at least in the app you go to the menu and click the plus next to "Public Channels". Scroll down the list until you reach LLRC and select it. 

karis [ 2020-03-12T03:34:52Z ]

   @mukti just told me he'll be checking in here about the website questions, and after that we can proceed as he's the only other person who's responded to me. 

karis [ 2020-03-12T06:14:39Z ]

   @ channel, 
   In the mean time, the next agenda item is @ilmen's proposal to
   "Request officialization of the BPFK Gadri page. This will allow us to link to this page from the lojban.org front page as a officially endorsed summary of the currently officialized Xorlo reform. If this page is successfully officialized, an announcement in the mailing lists shall be made. Furthermore, provisions should be taken so that only Board members (or any other officially empowered people) can edit the Gadri page, as well as the Dotside summary at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla which has been officialized in 2016 by the LLG."
   Discussion is now open. 

karis [ 2020-03-12T06:20:57Z ]

   @channel, in the non-lojban channel I'm also starting discussion on @lagleki's suggestion that we should "assign a person who would teach others how to  maintain the services. " Unless he corrects me I assume he means Mattermost, but I'm not sure what else. 

karis [ 2020-03-12T06:43:47Z ]

   @lagleki has withdrawn his suggestion. 

karis [ 2020-03-12T07:57:03Z ]

   In order to begin to address improving the visibility of where to find explanations for xorlo and dotside, since both are official, I have moved the link to the xorlo explanation to just below the CLL on the English opening page of lojban.org. I will leave it to someone with more experience with editing wikis to add a link to the dotside explanation, and to make whatever further edits are needed following the current discussion about the gadri page. I am still learning the editing system. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-12T18:05:55Z ]

   As you know, in the 2007 LLG meeting, as per Robin Powell's request, the Xorlo reform has been officialized through a vote of the membership. However, the text of the motion was extremely succint:
   «I move that we add xorlo to the interim baseline.» (Robin Powell, 2007-11-01)
   Notoriously, this means that there doesn't exist any officially endorsed definition of "Xorlo"; officially, all there is to know is that some reform called "Xorlo" has been officialized.
   However, seeing how succintly worded Robin's motion was, and given that nobody complained about it and everybody casted their votes as if they exactly knew what Xorlo was, it's likely they used some written documentation of Xorlo as the basis of their understanding of it, even though that documentation was not mentioned in the Xorlo motion.
   I have asked several people who take part in the Xorlo officialization vote, and it appears that the BPFK Gadri page of that time ( http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75 ) was most likely used as the basis for the vote.
   Here are the responses I got from asking whether the BPFK Gadri page was used as the documentation for the Xorlo officialization vote:
   • John Cowan: «I don't know what was or was not voted on.» @ https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/objfuqcpmfbczeft77phygjs8h
   • Phma: «I don't remember» @ https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/ar5dwrj7wig9ix68e8ax3ufsgw
   • Lojbab: «So the vote was probably to approve the gadri section or some other chunk» @ https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/zcc9srydfpykbqbkbdapsjq35a
   • Xorxes: «That's what I recall, yes. Definitely not "How to use xorlo".»
   • Broca = Arnt Johansen: «I think so too.» @ https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/a4kt3k5sxbrruefqkhmta95znr
   • rlpowell: «A mixture of that i.e. the BPFK Gadri page and how to use xorlo sounds correct, yes.» @ https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/zqkinndtoiyppfyqtb1goow3pe
   The memories of the involved people are not unequivocal; however, if it was indeed used as the implicit basis for the Xorlo officialized by the LLG in 2007, then we could consider that that page was "implicitly officialized".
   Considering that there's currently no explicitly officialized definition or documentation of Xorlo, and that the BPFK Gadri page is the best documentation currently available, and that it was most likely the implicit basis for the Xorlo officialization, I hereby move that the LLG officialize explicitly the BPFK Gadri page.
   This will allow us to put a link to that page on the lojban.org front page as a complement to the CLL, as the official documentation for the Xorlo reform until Xorlo is incorporated into the CLL.

ilmen [ 2020-03-12T18:06:47Z ]

   However, there's a small issue:
   The BPFK Gadri page's content has seen a few minor modifications since the officialization of Xorlo; the version of the page dating from when the vote was conducted is http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75.
   However, since then, apart from a few minor changes in example sentences, notes and keyword lists, there has been only one actual change to the definition of Xorlo (albeit a minor one), which has been made by Xorxes and Mukti:
   They changed ``PA broda | PA lo broda`` to ``PA broda | PA da poi broda``, and they removed the sentence ``When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omitted.``.
   I personally approve this minor modification, and would recommend incorporating it in the documentation of Xorlo we will officialize.

ilmen [ 2020-03-12T18:09:45Z ]

   Here is what Xorxes told me when I asked him about this minor modification via e-mail (I also attached the whole e-mail for the refence):

ilmen [ 2020-03-12T18:10:43Z ]

   I hereby move to ask the membership to cast their vote from the following options:
   1a. Make official the Xorlo documentation at http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75 (version of 2007), without officializing the content of any pages linked from that page, of course.
   1b. Make official the Xorlo documentation at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri (current version, having seen a few minor edits), without officializing the content of any pages linked from that page, of course.
   2. Do not officialize any of these. Xorlo will remain without official documentation.
   As there are two choices for officializing the Gadri page (1a and 1b) and only one for not officializing it, the latter would be positively biased if all the three options were weighted equally; therefore, at the end of the vote, we will first evaluate whether the vote count for 1a and 1b taken together is over that of choice 2 ("do not officialize any"); if it is the case, it will mean that the membership desires that the Gadri page be officialized, so we will evaluate which of the two proposed versions of the page (1a vs 1b) has been favored in the vote.
   Feel free to suggest alternative Xorlo documentation if you can think of any better one. Also, don't forget to second that motion if you approve it.

maik [ 2020-03-12T18:41:03Z ]

   Thanks, @ilmen.  Very thorough work.  As an observer, I support ~~`PA broda | lo PA broda`~~, uh, I mean 1b.

karis [ 2020-03-12T19:41:58Z ]

   My suggestion is that the vote be first for making the gadri description official, regardless of version, then if that's approved vote on the version. That would likely be less confusing than doing a1a vs 1b, vs 2 all at once. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-12T21:08:36Z ]

   If you prefere it that way, why not.
   By the way, maybe we should add something at the top of the page, of the following sort:
   «This page serves as the official documentation for Xorlo at least until the CLL is updated for Xorlo; until then, whenever there's a contradiction between the content of that page and the content of the CLL, the former shall have precedence and overrid the latter.»

ilmen [ 2020-03-12T21:10:53Z ]

   Does that wording seem appropriate to you?

karis [ 2020-03-13T02:18:30Z ]

   robertbaruch a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-03-13T02:18:30Z ]

   rdentato a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-03-13T02:20:24Z ]

   I'd add something to the effect that not using xorlo is also acceptable, though it may lead to the need for clarification at times. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T14:01:54Z ]

   How about:
   «This page serves as the official documentation for the Xorlo reform at least until the CLL is updated for Xorlo; until then, whenever there's a contradiction between the content of that page and the content of the CLL, the former shall have precedence and overrid the latter. Please note that the version of the language described in the current version of the CLL is not considered incorrect, but merely dispreferred in favor of Xorlo Lojban.»

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T14:02:17Z ]

   I used a similar wording to that in https://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG_2007_Annual_Meeting_Minutes#The_xorlo_Discussion

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T14:02:45Z ]

   > Voting something into the ZG has the following effects:
   > 1. The proposal will be considered correct Lojban until such a
   time the complete new baseline is established and approved by
   the membership. Usage according to the CLL standard will not be
   considered incorrect, but usage according to the ZG will be

maik [ 2020-03-13T14:08:09Z ]

   Correct me if I am wrong, but pragmatically speaking, no one who intends a CLL-style distributive interpretation of a given sumti is being cooperative or speaking clearly if they use bare {lo} or bare {le} EDIT: _or bare {KOhA}_.  At least not in 2020

maik [ 2020-03-13T14:09:04Z ]

   Therefore, I would not complexify the statement.  The BPFK page definitions override the CLL definitions.  Full stop/end of story.

maik [ 2020-03-13T14:10:14Z ]

   That's just my humble opinion, but for the good of Lojban, I think we need to make a decision about what these gadri mean and state that as clearly as possible

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T18:12:53Z ]

   The disclaimer "CLL Lojban is not incorrect but Xorlo Lojban should be preferred" should probably be put on the lojban.org front page and not in the Gadri page.
   Here's how I'd envision the lojban.org front page after we officialize the BPFK Gadri page:
   ``=== Official Publications ===
     The grammar reference, «The Complete Lojban Language» (aka The CLL)
     [links to the different formats]
     The Complete Lojban Language is a bit outdated, as it doesn't incorporate yet the two following official reforms:
     • Xorlo [link to the Gadri page]
     • Dotside [link to the Dotside page]
     Whenever the content of these two pages contradicts the CLL, these should be considered as having precedence over the CLL.
     The Lojban language as described in the CLL alone can still be used, but it is strongly recommended to use the Xorlo and Dotside reforms. The CLL will eventually be updated to incorporate them.``

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T18:14:49Z ]

   @karis: What do you think?

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T18:16:17Z ]

   The "``it is strongly recommended to use the Xorlo and Dotside reforms``" part is mostly addressed to beginners coming across lojban.org; if we just tell them "there's CLL Lojban and Xorlo Lojban, pick the one you like best" they will be confused

ilmen [ 2020-03-13T18:16:34Z ]

   and anyway the CLL will enventually be updated for Xorlo and Dotside

karis [ 2020-03-13T20:42:37Z ]

   I think saying "It is recommended for new learners to use the xorlo and dotside reforms in order to learn the most up to date version of lojban" " is sufficient and clearer as it says why. 

karis [ 2020-03-13T20:52:40Z ]

   This isn't accurate. Whether others would understand my lojban, or those others who learned it when I did as clearly as they would other people's, I don't know. I am personally aware of three people using old style lojban without even thinking hard. I suspect this is true of more isolated populations when the origin person learned that version as well. As one of the specific reasons why the documentation for xorlo that we do have says that CLL lojban is acceptable to to not require people to relearn the language. I was even reassured when I became involved again that the version of been learning was still fine and I just needed to know I might have to explain what I meant or ask the other person if I get confused sometimes.
   If language users and learners believe the language isn't stable enough to be able to use what you learned in the future then we again face the reason we set up the original baseline. Stability is vital. 

karis [ 2020-03-13T20:53:44Z ]

   The rest of what you have looks great. 

maik [ 2020-03-13T23:05:48Z ]

   If you want language users and learners to believe the language is stable enough to be used, then the best thing would be to settle on the new standard and deprecate the old standard, just as in a software development cycle.

maik [ 2020-03-13T23:19:35Z ]

   As far as the old timers, assuming they're out there and actually did internalize the implicit quantification on every lo/le-sumti and ko'a (which I doubt, by the way, because CLL semantics are a mental strain for non-trivial examples), it's basically true that they can still talk the way they want and still be understood.  They are just jumping pointlessly through complicated hoops and managing cumbersome scope rules that the Xorlo reform has repealed.  It's like paying extra fees for no reason.

karis [ 2020-03-14T06:06:04Z ]

   It's the grammar of lojban that stuck with me rather than the vocabulary 

gleki [ 2020-03-14T09:24:27Z ]

   Who is pinning the last message all the time?

karis [ 2020-03-14T11:13:20Z ]

   I don't know. Maybe someone found a setting to do it automatically. I know I didn't pin my last one (or this one) and it sounds like you didn't either. 

vecusku [ 2020-03-14T11:13:52Z ]

   **gleki**: might be an abuser but we shall see

and.rosta [ 2020-03-14T14:04:51Z ]

   The LLRC can crack on with developing a website (discussion in the LLRC channel), but the LLG meeting should be deliberating plans for web hosting and domain names. In the absence of argument to the contrary, i take it that there is consensus that there should be an appropriately-domain-named LLG site that (1) links to the LLRC site, either with its own appropriate domain-name or named as a subdomain of LLG's, and (2) links to the Lojban site, which the Lojban.org name would naturally point to and which I assume would be administered by the LFK. Since a decision on the domain name for the LLRC site is potentially contingent on what the domain name for the LLG is, we should be considering the question of slecting and acquiring the domain name of the LLG. I recall that we had a number of credible suggestions, along with prices, one, very attractively, being logicallanguage.group. Is that one a reasonable price, and are there any other candidates that approach the excellence of that name?

maik [ 2020-03-14T14:21:47Z ]

    logicallanguage.group was relatively cheap, $12/y I believe.  

maik [ 2020-03-14T14:22:37Z ]

   I agree it's nearly ideal and should probably be seized immediately, just to ensure the LLG's ownership.

ilmen [ 2020-03-14T22:14:44Z ]

   I hereby revise my motion stated at https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/axgu9jimnf8kjyb3r15pikqx4h ; I will split it into several steps, as proposed by Karis. I will first ask the membership to state which version of the BPFK Gadri page they would prefer as candidate for official endorsement from the LLG; secondly, I will ask to vote on whether to make the favored version official or not.
   As per the first step, I hereby move that the membership vote on which of the two following versions of the BPFK Gadri page they would favor for being subject to a vote of officialization subsequent to this one vote:
   1. http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75
   2. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
   The top/first version is the version of the page dating from when the vote which led to the official endorsement of Xorlo was conducted;
   The bottom/second version is more recent and has seen several minor modifications (addition of keywords, links, minor alteration of example sentences…), but also one non-negligible alteration of the definition of Xorlo (albeit it's no very significant change either), made by Xorxes and Mukti:
   They changed ``PA broda = PA lo broda`` to ``PA broda = PA da poi broda`` in the list of formal equivalences, and they removed the sentence ``When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omitted.``. (Read https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/armxafjzeidyfg7e1aybqty3fo for more about it).

ilmen [ 2020-03-14T22:17:00Z ]

   If you approve of this motion, please consider seconding it.

ilmen [ 2020-03-14T22:18:49Z ]

   If and once the motion is seconded, the votes should be cast in the #voting-only-llg-members-meetings channel.
   ( i.e. https://framateam.org/lojban/channels/voting-only-llg-members-meetings )

bookofportals [ 2020-03-15T02:42:34Z ]

   @ilmen @karis I second the motion.

karis [ 2020-03-15T16:26:29Z ]

   There is no consensus as at least three Board members disagree. 

karis [ 2020-03-15T16:31:28Z ]

   @Ilmen says, I hereby move that the membership vote on which of the two following versions of the BPFK Gadri page they would favor for being subject to a vote of officialization subsequent to this one vote:
   1. http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75
   2. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
   The top/first version is the version of the page dating from when the vote which led to the official endorsement of Xorlo was conducted;
   The bottom/second version is more recent and has seen several minor modifications (addition of keywords, links, minor alteration of example sentences…), but also one non-negligible alteration of the definition of Xorlo (albeit it's no very significant change either), made by Xorxes and Mukti:
   They changed ``PA broda = PA lo broda`` to ``PA broda = PA da poi broda`` in the list of formal equivalences, and they removed the sentence ``When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omitted.``. (Read https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/armxafjzeidyfg7e1aybqty3fo for more about it).
   @bookofportals as seconded the motion. 
   Discussion is now open. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-15T18:01:06Z ]

   Why haven't they voiced their opinion publicly?

ilmen [ 2020-03-15T18:01:41Z ]

   They disapprove the creation of an independent website for the LLG?

karis [ 2020-03-15T18:03:17Z ]

   Yes, two of them and me as well. I said something a while ago about why I disagree, even. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-15T18:11:59Z ]

   Presumably Gleki and Lojbab are the two other ones who disapprove of an independent LLG website.

ilmen [ 2020-03-15T18:27:03Z ]

   I think you're mainly referring to the post at https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/e96eugh6m3nhmruxnngja8tjsr

karis [ 2020-03-15T18:39:43Z ]

   Mukti plans on posting his response here himself, though it was he and lojbab I was referring to. @lagleki hasn't spoken to me about what he thinks and he has been active on here recently, though I expect you are right. 

karis [ 2020-03-15T18:42:22Z ]

   Mainly. I also said that lojban has always been the major focus of the LLG and that I see no reason to move the LLG of lojban.org. That is where most people expect to find it as well. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-15T21:34:38Z ]

   I do not recall having seen any disagreement from board members, and silent disagreement is irresponsible and unacceptable.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-15T22:14:16Z ]

   I think it's irrelevant that a dissenting LLG member is a Board Member, but the dissent of any LLG member, in this case you (Karis), is enough to prove that there does not exist a perfect consensus. Regarding the relationship between LLG's purpose and Lojban, I cite firstly the name of the organization, secondly its bylaws that are very explicit about the purpose of the LLG being broader than Lojban and thirdly the LLG's reaffirmation, at a recent meeting, of its commitment to the broader purpose, in preference to explicitly narrowing the purpose to supporting just Lojban. Just because this was the will of the LLG when it last formally considered the matter does not necessarily mean you must unquestioningly accept it now, though. If we can think of alternatives that might command consensus then we should look to them. But my sense is that my proposal is likely to come closest to commanding consensus, though I can think of alternatives that might also work.

karis [ 2020-03-16T02:36:48Z ]

   As our organization's name and the way the Bylaws are written, you have only to refer to @lojbab's explanation during an earlier discussion. The LLG was formed at a time when those doing so were unsure how the legality of the name of lojban or even lojban itself would work out. They did intend the focus to mainly, though not exclusively, be lojban. The explanation he gave for the Bylaws was similar and equally clear and he wrote them so knows their intent. As for the LLG'S "Commitment to a greater purpose," at that same meeting it was made clear that lojban remained the primary focus. What we decided was that we could address other logical languages in addition to, but not as much as lojban. The organization has also focused primarily on lojban for decades since its founding, so history also supports what I am saying. 

karis [ 2020-03-16T02:53:46Z ]

   There was no "Silent disagreement" as I provided the information they provided to me. If my word is not sufficient to state their disagreement, as apparently it isn't, here is what they have said to me. These are their most recent comments on this matter... 
   " lojban.org is the LLG repository, not limited at all to the sorts of things LFK has authority over and furthermore carries whatever goodwill LLG has earned over the years, and is the result of years of hard work by dozens of Lojbanists.  LFK has so far earned *nothing* in the way of reputation,  and I have little reason to believe that it can sustain productivity anymore than selpa'i 's version of byfy did."
   "LLG has been and should be associated with Lojban.org. we're committed to using it for our mission, which had been tested in court. Who knows what some other group of people would do with it?"
   It isn't for me to discuss their private reasons for not being active participants in this meeting. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-16T10:56:17Z ]

   So what system of domain names do you find more reasonable and more likely to achieve consensus?

and.rosta [ 2020-03-16T11:17:53Z ]

   Even in the ordinary course of things, quotations (on contentious matters) from members not participating in the meeting are probably objectionable. But these two particular quotes are all the more dismaying because they seem not to bear on the proposal; they seem to address some imaginary Fox News style perversion of the proposal. The fact is, taking into account not only what LLG members have said at the meeting but even, somewhat improperly, what LLG members have been quoted as having said outside the meeting, you are the only person objecting to the proposal. I framed the proposal as something unlikely to elicit objection -- if you can explain better your objection then maybe we can find some better proposal or at least a range of alternatives that could be discussed or voted on. (But how arduous it is to overcome resistance to the LLG honouring its name and bylaws even before the intrinsically valuable work begins!)

maik [ 2020-03-16T12:06:44Z ]

   I am trying to refrain from adding redundantly to the discussion, but there is something important that I believe might have been forgotten.  Pierre Abbott (who reports feeling too ill at the current moment to participate in the meeting) commented as follows about the LLG website proposal.
   > "Sounds good to me. Will the new website also include material on or links to other logical languages?"
   Board member Pierre did NOT object to the idea being discussed by LLG members, nor did he adopt the windmill-tilting interpretation that the proposal is some sort of strategem by the grasping LFK to take over lojban.org as Lojbab has been (somehow, apparently and unfortunately, though perhaps inadvertently) misled to believe.  By the way, the LLG member who made the proposal to create a LLG website is not on the LFK.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T13:17:50Z ]

   The messages from Lojbab and Mukti seem to miss the point of the LLG website motion. The motion does not mention at all the LFK or LLG waiving control of lojban.org. In the agenda, I had added a different item asking who is and who should be in charge of the main pages of lojban.org (mainly the front page), leaving the possibility of discussing whether the LFK should take its management over if the LLG were to have its own website. It was a different possible subject of discussion, not directly related to the question of whether the LLG should have its own website. The motion to give the LLG an independent website does NOT mean that the LLG would cease to own or manage lojban.org. Lojbab and Mukti objected to the LLG delegating management of lojban.org to the LFK, which is not at all what the LLG website motion is about.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T13:18:35Z ]

   It seems to me that different topics of discussions have been mixed up.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T13:20:08Z ]

   As for me, I don't really care who of the Board or the LFK manages lojban.org's front page, as long as it is managed by trusted and responsive people, under the auspices of the LLG.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T13:36:22Z ]

   (The LFK will eventually have to have its own section on lojban.org, if not on LLG's hypothetical website, even if the Board keeps the duty of managing the front page (and presumably moderating the community content), as the LFK must be able to publish the result of its work somewhere. But again this question is not under the scope of the LLG website proposal.)

karis [ 2020-03-16T19:19:39Z ]

   Look, they are both trying to get on here to speak for themselves. Mukti hoped to get on last night, and I haven't yet heard why he did not. Bob is also planning on speaking when he can.

karis [ 2020-03-16T19:27:36Z ]

   Both @lojbab and @mukti are speaking to the idea of LLG not being on lojban.org, not just who should control it. The part that Bob includes about the LFK is because I mentioned both issues in my email to him as it was during the discussion of both.

karis [ 2020-03-16T19:54:17Z ]

   I am not interested in moving the LLG material off of lojban.org at all. There isn't really a compromise position available in the dicotomy of move the LLG or don't. 
   What I suggest is that the LLG takes a section of lojban.org which is clearly for the LLG materials, such as those mentioned earlier. A link to that section would be on the front page. The two committees would be welcome to create their own sections as well, or to use other locations and they would each set up a lead page of their choice to which there would be a link on, preferably, the LLG page, but I'm willing to put these on the main page of lojban.org as well.
   Since LLG created lojban out of loglan, and LLG set up and has run lojban.org as long as the website has existed I want LLG to continue being on the website where people have looked for it all these years. As @lojbab said, LLG has also built up decades of good will through this exact website. All of these are reasons to leave the LLG on the website.
   For anyone concerned the lojban isn't LLG, that is true, however there is a very close relationship between the two. By having the LLG pages a subset of the lojban website makes it clear that the language is more important to the wide world. One final point is that with so much use of lojban.org in connection to LLG, many searches for LLG will lead people to lojban.org even if it moves to an alternate site. This will lead to confusion and people may not follow further links to ultimately find the LLG. More confusion should certainly not be something we want. 
   LLG need not be on a separate website to also provide support for other logical languages and research about them. That's what the LLRC focuses on and I have no problem with them taking another site with links connecting it to the LLG and to lojban in specific. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T20:01:07Z ]

   Thank you for your detailed argumentation.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T20:01:16Z ]

   If it is decided to leave the LLG pages on lojban.org, having three subsections (e.g. ``lojban.org/llg/`` for LLG pages, ``lojban.org/lfk/`` for LFK pages, ``lojban.org/cecmu/`` for community content) with the front page linking to all of these would make the most sense; as for the LLRC, it'd likely need a different website, as it sounds off to me to have the LLRC site subordinated to lojban.org.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T20:02:30Z ]

   But then it makes also sense to put forth the counterargument that linking to the LLG section from the lojban.org front page is no different from linking instead to the (yet imaginary) LLG website from the same front page.

karis [ 2020-03-16T20:56:36Z ]

   I am alright with this, having LLRC there or not. Links to it from and links back to the LLG section and the main page from the LLRC makes sense, to LLG as it's a committee of it, and to lojban.org main page as lojban is one of the languages I see it discussing. The LLRC and LFK main pages should both indicate clearly they are committees of the Logical Language Group. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T21:19:33Z ]

   Not having been on for much of the last month, I just saw the posting by karis on 2/17 on meeting length.  1) it is possible for the President to rule any topic that was not posted to the original agenda as being out-of-order, since a lot of members are like myself not paying attention to what is being discussed day-to-day  It would be nice if this were otherwise, but it isn't.  As such we are risking that the subset of members actually paying attention to the meeting is so small that decisions are being made by a tiny fraction of the actual membership.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T21:22:03Z ]

   There can be a motion to adjourn, which I believe is always in order.  A secondary approach which possibly should be considered is to make a new call for quorum, since it can reasonably be claimed that not all those who indicated their presence at the start of the meeting are still actually present.  If there is no quorum, then no business can be conducted.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T21:25:57Z ]

   We used to have extensive use of proxies in LLG meetings, but the members decided that they did not like this, because in general  one or two people usually held enough proxies to constitute a majority in themselves.  I recall times when I had as many as a half dozen proxies in addition to my own vote, and two or three others also had several proxies.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T21:44:07Z ]

   Lojban is not the LLG, but the LLG is fundamentally responsible for and "in charge of" Lojban, to the extent that anyone can have control of a human language.  The creation of the LFC does not fundamentally change this - all LFC decisions are subject to review by the  LLG Board and/or membership, as is the very existence of the LFC as a committee created by the LLG.  Furthermore, the domain "lojban.org" has been owned by LLG as an organization since the domain was created, and whatever goodwill and authority that the material on that website has, reflects upon LLG as an organization and entity.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T21:46:56Z ]

   The ownership of lojban.org is fundamentally a business issue, and should therefore be decided by the officers and or the Board of Directors of LLG.  This is not really an issue for the members to decide, even if a large fraction of the membershsip was actually participating in this discussion.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T21:57:09Z ]

   No, not all of the Board members are here I haven't had more than an hour of spare time to look at this site since around mid-February (today is 16 Mar), and that doesn't give me time to read even a fraction of what has been posted, much less respond to it.  And I can't easily figure out what is even talked about.  For example, I have not yet seen an actual motion on this setting up new websites, but rather what appears to be a long and too detailed proposal by lalxu posted on 2/29, asking whether it is ready for a vote yet.  I doubt that most members, even if they were reading the site, will have read and considered all those details.  Rather, traditionally. most member motions have been simple, broad expressions, leaving the details to be worked out by the Officers and the Board.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T22:03:37Z ]

   The small fraction of the membership having been taking part in the discussions is rather disheartening to be honest.

karis [ 2020-03-16T22:53:36Z ]

   For anyone who's gotten lost, here's the proposal under discussion...
   @Ilmen says, I hereby move that the membership vote on which of the two following versions of the BPFK Gadri page they would favor for being subject to a vote of officialization subsequent to this one vote:
   1. http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75
   2. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
   The top/first version is the version of the page dating from when the vote which led to the official endorsement of Xorlo was conducted;
   The bottom/second version is more recent and has seen several minor modifications (addition of keywords, links, minor alteration of example sentences…), but also one non-negligible alteration of the definition of Xorlo (albeit it's no very significant change either), made by Xorxes and Mukti:
   They changed ``PA broda = PA lo broda`` to ``PA broda = PA da poi broda`` in the list of formal equivalences, and they removed the sentence ``When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omitted.``. (Read https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/armxafjzeidyfg7e1aybqty3fo for more about it).
   @bookofportals as seconded the motion. 

karis [ 2020-03-16T22:56:49Z ]

   I held a proxy for part of this meeting for @bookofportals. We or the Board might need to set a limit on the number a person can hold at some point. 

karis [ 2020-03-16T22:58:24Z ]

   This has been a serious issue for a while, but got particularly bad towards the end last year. This is why I don't plan on letting this one go so far. 

karis [ 2020-03-16T23:02:06Z ]

   We were also discussing whether to set LLG up on a separate website. The overlap is because the topic of whether or not to set LLG up on its own website was allowed to lull so we could hear from more people who haven't been active recently. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T23:17:31Z ]

   These two topics (LLG website and Gadri page officialization) are basically the two last items on the agenda.

ilmen [ 2020-03-16T23:18:58Z ]

   It'd be really nice to be able to have an official Xorlo documentation before the end of the meeting, but I'm not sure if other members will show up and take part in the vote.

karis [ 2020-03-16T23:36:31Z ]

   Writing up xorlo is something the LFK took on earlier in this meeting. For now the main page links to https://mw.lojban.org/papri/How_to_use_xorlo. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T23:45:28Z ]

   LLG's bylaws ALLOW a larger purpose than promulgation of Lojban, but does not require it, as evidenced by 33 years wherein our support has been solely for Lojban which LLG explicitly voted to claim *IS* "Loglan" supplanting the language version promulgated by founder JCB and The Loglan Institute under that name.  LLG has never officially recognized any other proposal for a "logical language", and I for one have no interest in LLG doing so, though I have no problem with Lojbanists who want to play around with such ideas.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T23:48:14Z ]

   LLG's official Internet home is lojban.org - ALL of it, not just some wiki pages of it. There is in fact nothing that requires that lojban.org be wiki pages at all - the use of a wiki was a decision by Robin on how to spread the maintenance of the website to more people. 

karis [ 2020-03-16T23:49:47Z ]

   This is why it was fine to give those who wanted a committee to do research on logical languages in general, but that doesn't change our primary focus. The discussion several years ago affirmed that we could work with other log langs, but it did nothing to put them equal to lojban. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T23:52:06Z ]

   As to where the hosted, I would contend that this is a decision for the Board, possibly devolved to some committee, because it clear is a matter of day-to-day operations, and not a decision to be made by a largish membership, most of whom don't have any particular understanding of the details involved in such a decision Fundamentally, though, it is a business decision.

karis [ 2020-03-16T23:52:41Z ]

   I wasn't meaning to say it wasn't all related to LLG or able to hold LLG information. I think it would be great to make it easier to find all the stuff related to the organization's operation like Members Lists and the Bylaws. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T23:57:26Z ]

   All Board members are currently members, but most are not necessarily paying attention to this meeting.  Indeed, I think if Karen  held a quorum call open for even a full week, we would not find a quorum of members would see and respond to that call.  We might get a majority of the this year's Board (which doesn't actually take office until this meeting ends).  I'm tempted to formally ask for such a quorum call, as a lack of a quorum might finally allow the meeting to end after 6 or so months.

lojbab [ 2020-03-16T23:58:46Z ]

   rlpowell did in fact resign from the membership at about the time he resigned as byfy chair, but retains his position as webmaster.

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:00:15Z ]

   karis says he is still listed as a member I would have to defer to her and to mukti (who is the official reporter of such things as Secretary).

karis [ 2020-03-17T00:02:51Z ]

   My understanding was @rlpowell  resigned, then said he wanted to be a member soon after. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T00:06:47Z ]

   As he has not answered a direct message I sent him in late January yet, he's apparently not playing attention to the meeting. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T00:09:05Z ]

   For r calling for quorum, I'm just curious how many people are just reading this. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T00:09:35Z ]

   I also doubt we'd have a quorum. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:15:45Z ]

   I would not support allowing the membership to decide whether to transfer the management of lojban.org to the LFK.  I think that is a business management decision and hence up to the Board.  Furthermore, LFK is a new committee which is part of LLG, and is entirely under LLG.  Since LFK has as of yet produced nothing at all in the way of results, like most other LLG committees, I would not favor giving that committee exclusive control of much of anything until we see and evaluate such results.  I view LFK as an experiment at best, and being that its leadership has no significant history of involvement in the language or its management, I am far from being willing to trust lojban.org to them in addition to their already very full plate of responsibilities.  RLP gained his control of lojban.org after a couple of years of major accomplishment of things that hadn't gotten done, including time as a Board member and Officer himself.  I don't even know the real names of the people who are involved with LFK, since they are only known by handles used on this site.

karis [ 2020-03-17T00:17:07Z ]

   @maik, I personally knew two Board members were having situations in their lives that made being here a big challenge. If I knew the same about other Boards members or Members and we faced such a momentous decision I would put the topic aside and reach out to them too. I would then send them a message as I did these two advising them of the topic under consideration as I did in this case. It wasn't specifically that they were Board members that mastered. In this case their involvement was even more important as they are the other two officers, and with questions about the meaning of the Bylaws raised again it was important as one wrote them. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:22:23Z ]

   Robin Powell ultimately decides who can edit which pages of lojban.org  Legally, mukti as Secretary/Treasurer and thus in charge of communications has the authority to make that decision, and could thus in theory override Robin, but probably only in theory since Robin controls the hardware.  (Only mukti and Robin actually know the specific arrangement that they've made on this matter)

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:25:38Z ]

   The Board isn't really in session, because the newly elected members don't actually take office until the meeting ends  And then the first item of business is electing officers for the coming "year".  The President and other Officers can act without the Board if need be, but karis consults with the Board as if the Board were in continuous session.

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:39:40Z ]

   I just reread the bylaws to see if I remembered things correctly.  The Bylaws don't say much of anything about what members can decide during meetings (arguably limited in some way by the stated purposes of the organization.  Rather the agenda is prescribed to include reports of committees and old and new business without specifying which committees and what kind of business can be considered.  By intent and practice, the membership has indicated the direction it wished the organization to move  Most decisions have been general policy direction, except for bylaw amendments.  The Board has sometimes brought specific proposals to the membership for consideration when those proposals were particularly fundamental to the direction that the organization would move (such as the creation of BPFK, and the approval of various baselines for the language) .

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:41:12Z ]

   The board, on the other hand is specifically charged with "Section 4. Duties of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have the control and general management of the affairs and business of this Corporation. Such Board of Directors shall in all cases act as a Board, regularly convened, by a majority, and it may adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and the management of the Corporation as it may deem proper, not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these By-Laws, and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia"

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:46:52Z ]

   The membership could request the Board to take certain actions, and should the Board refuse or simply not act, could vote to elect different directors at the following meeting.  I would hope that the latter would never happen, because it might lead to the effective death of LLG and the website.  The Bylaws do state that the Board convenes a new meeting at the end of the annual meeting, although it doesn't say that the old meeting necessarily ends when the annual meeting starts.  So technically, we are still running under last year's Board.

lojbab [ 2020-03-17T00:48:10Z ]

   I'm up to March 9, and I'll try to be back tomorrow to catch up, but no promises.

karis [ 2020-03-17T01:54:53Z ]

   When I first became President I was told that Board meetings tended to run year-round. I also knew the Bylaws didn't specify that they should or needed to end at some point, so when the Members change the makeup of the Board it is at that time the changeover is made.

bookofportals [ 2020-03-17T02:15:10Z ]

   I respectfully opine that under the standard rules that generally govern organizations such as this one, the membership's powers are a superset of those of the board. The bylaws are very specific on a few types of decision that can only be made with board approval, but otherwise I think the most sensible reading is that the board is answerable to the membership. If the bylaws departed so much from the rules governing voluntary associations as to make some matters beyond the control of the membership, I would have expected them to do so explicitly, rather than through a general grant of authority to manage the affairs of the corporation to the board. Of course, if the membership wanted to refer some matter to the board, on the basis that it was more in their area of responsibility or expertise, the membership would be empowered to make that decision. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-17T02:20:21Z ]

   If notice was provided in the manner required by the bylaws, then there is no quorum and can be no quorum call. If notice was not in fact given, then we have a rather serious problem. A motion to adjourn is always in order.

karis [ 2020-03-17T11:13:17Z ]

   Quorum calls to see who's still present are generally not made at in person meetings as it's obvious, but they are a part of the rules under which we operate. Nothing in those rules say you cannot make this Call regardless of whether quorum existed at the beginning of the meeting.

karis [ 2020-03-17T11:16:20Z ]

   The Bylaws are quite clear about this. As @lojban quoted from the LLG Bylaws:
    "Section 4. Duties of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have the control and general management of the affairs and business of this Corporation. Such Board of Directors shall in all cases act as a Board, regularly convened, by a majority, and it may adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and the management of the Corporation as it may deem proper, not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these By-Laws, and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia"
   In summary, the Board, not the Membrane, has specific responsibility for, "The control and general management of the affairs and business of this Corporation. Such Board of Directors... 
   may adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and the management of the Corporation as it may deem proper" None of this is subject to change without  Bylaw Amendment as Robert's Rules of Order say that what is specified in the Bylaws eeds

karis [ 2020-03-17T11:27:33Z ]

   With regards to whether the LLG is supposed to put its main emphasis on any and all logical languages or on lojban, the following is from our Bylaws as well. It's from the end of the "Purpose" from. 
   "The Logical Language Group, Inc. shall place priority on support of the community of persons learning, using, experimenting with, and promoting the language known as "Lojban - A Realization of Loglan" or alternatively "Lojban". [16]"

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:15:04Z ]

   I appreciate Karen's efforts to include me, and I'm sorry if this has had the effect of burdening her with relaying my opinions: That wasn't at all my intention! So thank you, Karen, and I will now join this conversation properly.

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:20:01Z ]

   Here are some possible ways the different body/sections could be distributed:
   • (1a) LLG: ``lojban.org/llg``, LFK: ``lojban.org/lfk``, community: ``lojban.org/cecmu``, LLRC: ``loglang-research.org``
   • (1b) LLG: ``llg.lojban.org``, LFK: ``lfk.lojban.org``, community: ``cecmu.lojban.org``, LLRC: ``loglang-research.org``
   • (2) LFK: ``lfk.lojban.org``, community: ``cecmu.lojban.org``, LLG: ``logicallanguage.group``, LLRC: ``llrc.logicallanguage.group``
   • (3) community: ``lojban.org``, LLG: ``logicallanguage.group``, LFK: ``lfk.logicallanguage.group``, LLRC: ``llrc.logicallanguage.group``

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:20:35Z ]

   I've long been frustrated about the state of the web site, but my frustration hasn't been fruitful for a long time. For a while, I was updating the home page, but contention about the content – and in particular the place of LLG on the home page – eventually drove me to throw up my hands. I believe now, as then, that lojban.org is the traditional and historical home of LLG on the internet, and that there is value in maintaining that tradition.

karis [ 2020-03-17T18:20:42Z ]

   I was happy to help, and I'm glad you've joined us. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:21:03Z ]

   (I used the dummy domain name ``loglang-research.org`` for the LLRC but it could be something else of course)

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:22:29Z ]

   I think an important point to take in consideration is that the LLRC will anyway need a place to host its page, and it makes little sense for them to be at lojban.org

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:23:02Z ]

   That said, there is a long tradition of contention over the content of the site, and in particular of the issue of "official" versus "community" content. I'd like to see us take steps as a body to address that issue, and I appreciate the proposal being discussed in so far as it is relevant – even if the particular remedies it proposes are not the ones that I would prefer.

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:23:06Z ]

   (it's technically *possible* but would be very inelegant I think)

karis [ 2020-03-17T18:26:01Z ]

   The LLRC doesn't need to be, but should link to the appropriate pages. The LFK should have at least an introductory page there and I see no reason why everything of there's except the projects themselves when they need a different set up and possibly the page people go to so they can submit issues and language suggestions. 

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:26:29Z ]

   My preferred solution would be the inverse of the proposal: That lojban.org is reserved for LLG content, and that we designate a new domain for community content and feature it prominently. This would have the advantage of allowing the organization to maintain continuity – we have, after all URLs in print – and avoiding the confusing appearance of the lojban.org site, long identified with LLG, suddenly hosting content that may or may not reflect LLG's values.

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:27:12Z ]

   A couple of years ago, I registered the domain "loj.bo", but I've been slow to do anything with it. I'd like to offer to donate it to the LLG for use with the community site.

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:27:21Z ]

   I don't think a different website for the community content is worth the money; "cecmu.lojban.org" would do the job

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:27:39Z ]

   (cecmu = community)

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:27:52Z ]

   I'd be okay with that, too.

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:28:48Z ]

   (a totally different subject of discussion, not on the agenda of this meeting, but could be talked about in another meeting, is that someday we might want to move the hosting of lojban.org to elsewhere than Robin's server)

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:29:26Z ]

   I'd support taking that issue up, hopefully with Robin's participation.

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:31:06Z ]

   (as for URL in prints, there could be redirections set up, in the worst case)

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:32:22Z ]

   And there are some of those currently configured, if I'm not mistaken. The thing is: The LLG cares that those continue to work. I wouldn't want them turned over to another entity that may or may not have a stake in caring whether they continue to work.

karis [ 2020-03-17T18:34:10Z ]

   That's fine with me as well. It would clearly demarcate who's responsible for what.
   At one time the Board or Members, I can't remember which, discussed having a section where people producing lojban materials could each have a page to either use to link to what they've done on YouTube and elsewhere or to actually post what they've done and we'd have an index of the pages where each person could put a brief description so the material was ready to find. That could be part of what is found at cecmu.lojban.org or loj.bo, and if the latter it would be linked with the main page at lojban.org the same way cecmu.lojban.org would be.  

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:34:36Z ]

   That's similar to why I'd like to see LLG remain on lojban.org: LLG can be counted on to care about linking to a lojban community driven site. My experience inclines me to believe that the opposite is not the case. I had a hard time keeping LLG's name on the home page, let alone above the fold.

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:35:26Z ]

   I eventually gave up, hoping that this question would some day be formally settled. I'm glad we're getting to it now.

karis [ 2020-03-17T18:37:01Z ]

   We've tried before, but that was caught up in the problems which developed between @guskant and @lagleki over who could change the website and how it should be done. 

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T18:39:26Z ]

   The current lojban.org is more than 90% community content, maybe even 99%. A tiny portion is official and/or LLG content. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:40:21Z ]

   Yeah, saying LLG = lojban.org is excessive to me, especially since most things on lojban.org are unofficial opinions or discussions

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:41:07Z ]

   That's an important point. And I would expect that to continue to be the case: The community should be more productive than the organization. I wouldn't want it otherwise.

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T18:41:16Z ]

   And the LLG was never a main contributor. It was individual people from the community.

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T18:41:29Z ]

   And a major concern expressed these last years was to clearly demarcate what is official and what isn't

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:42:33Z ]

   Agreed, and I would like to see productive individuals continue to be supported in creating a web site. But while I would never suggest LLG = lojban, I do think it's fair to maintain the identification between the legal organization and the legally registered domain. It's a property relationship.

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:45:08Z ]

   The organization is not good for a lot of things, but this has a lot to do with what it was founded for: To keep lojban free. It's got a legal commitment to do that, and lojban.org is a significant part of how it does its job.

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:47:30Z ]

   If lojban.org were otherwise managed, who's to say how it would be managed?

mukti [ 2020-03-17T18:49:29Z ]

   I would enthusiastically support provisioning a separate or subdomain exclusively for community content and featuring it prominently. But I don't think LLG can responsibly abdicate its identity with lojban.org.

maik [ 2020-03-17T18:55:45Z ]

   greetings, Mukti

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T19:02:55Z ]

   As I said though, Lalxu's proposal says nothing about the management of lojban.org

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T19:03:25Z ]

   So it would remain under LLG's control

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T19:03:44Z ]

   (even if the LLG would get an independent website to put its official pages on)

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:08:35Z ]

   I still haven't heard anything that came close to convincing me the two should be on separate websites. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:09:33Z ]

   As for the question of control, that is on the agenda as well and it's closely related. 

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T19:17:20Z ]

   > If lojban.org were otherwise managed, who's to say how it would be managed?
   This seems like a strawman, because the website has already not been "managed" by the LLG. It's been in the hands of anyone who wanted to contribute. And I don't see why this would change. The website still belongs to the LLG, but some parts of it would be handled by a committee to make sure the content reflects official Lojban. 

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T19:19:38Z ]

   I think the iPhone analogy is a good one.

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T19:20:36Z ]

   (quoting Lynn: "that's like Apple's official homepage being iphone.com/wiki/apple or something, instead of apple.com")

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:21:49Z ]

   I was working with a couple of people to redesign the website. That can be done without moving the LLG. Having a small group of people maintain it under the direction of the Board would satisfy wanting it under the control of people specially chosen to do it without adding additional responsibilities to the LFK which has only effectively existed for two months. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:27:28Z ]

   We are talking about a very different situation than Apple being on a website dedicated to iPhone. Apple has multiple and diverse products, and LLG has one. Apple also hasn't had all its official material on the iPhone site for decades. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:28:00Z ]

   LLG has. 

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T19:34:46Z ]

   "We should do X, because that's how it's always been" is not a good reason.
   And the situation is not *that* different from Apple. The LLG bylaws state a number of other purposes besides Lojban, and there is a significant portion of the membership that is interested in those purposes. The motion to create the LLRC got way more yes votes than the one creating the LFK, for example.

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:41:47Z ]

   Yes, we have other purposes, but as I quoted earlier lojban is still our primary purpose. As for we've always done it so we should continue question, there are many reasons contained within our statements that are quite clear. I'm sure you've seen @lojbab's posts regarding this from yesterday. Do I need to repost them? 

solpahi [ 2020-03-17T19:43:07Z ]

   No, thank you. 

karis [ 2020-03-17T19:44:13Z ]

   Besides, he made it clear that by precedent and the Bylaws this is a decision for the Board. 

lalxu [ 2020-03-17T22:29:12Z ]

   > a long and too detailed proposal by lalxu
   I added those details because people asked for them; the original proposal was very simple

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T23:11:14Z ]

   I suppose the same can be said of my Gadri page motion…

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T23:11:44Z ]

   Which is meant to fix the fact that the Xorlo officialization motion was too succint and "simple"

ilmen [ 2020-03-17T23:12:00Z ]

   (i.e. without documentation)

karis [ 2020-03-18T02:03:53Z ]

   Yes, and I suspect part of why he gave you that response is that traditionally Members often made less detailed proposals and the details were either handled by the Board or an appropriate committee. The proposals from the last year or two have had many more details to the point that some were difficult to follow as there was so much minutiae. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T02:07:27Z ]

   I'm under the impression that the BPFK rechartering was undertaken at the 2014 member's meeting, so it's been going on for a fair while now (presuming I'm correct about that). 

karis [ 2020-03-18T02:10:28Z ]

   If there had been followup to actually produce a writeup of xorlo following its approval there would never have been any issue with xorlo now. That was, from what I've heard and I wasn't active during the whole xorlo and dotside decision, the responsibility was byfy's. Now you appear to be saying that because there was a problem before with producing writups before the proposal needs to colbert all the details, @ilmen. 

karis [ 2020-03-18T02:13:36Z ]

   I was not involved again until 2015, so I have no personal knowledge of this and I'm unable to read the emails from Members meetings that far back on Google groups. Someone could check the listing of emails on lojban.org, but I'm unable to do this for a while due to family issues related to Covid-19. 

karis [ 2020-03-18T02:14:20Z ]

   Someone who was there may also be able to clarify this. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T02:15:15Z ]

   I'm sorry to hear that the virus is causing issues for you, and hope those issues are sorted out as favorably as they can be under the circumstances. 

karis [ 2020-03-18T02:26:58Z ]

   Thank you. There's A LOT going on, as I'm sure there is for many others.
    I'm recovering from what was likely this virus back in February and am having lung problems still. I'm also dealing with having finally gotten my eldest, who has ADHD and is on the Autism Spectrum, home from college and helping them do their schoolwork, and keeping on top of the college's process for deciding what to do. I'm home schooling my younger son who has ADHD and Down syndrome, being support for. I'm concerned about my parents in their 80's who both have serious chronic conditions and who live 10+ road hours away, and I'm helping keep up shopping and taking care of things at home. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T11:30:12Z ]

   > The ownership of lojban.org is fundamentally a business issue, and should therefore be decided by the officers and or the Board of Directors of LLG.  This is not really an issue for the members to decide, even if a large fraction of the membershsip was actually participating in this discussion.
   > As to where the hosted, I would contend that this is a decision for the Board, possibly devolved to some committee, because it clear is a matter of day-to-day operations, and not a decision to be made by a largish membership, most of whom don't have any particular understanding of the details involved in such a decision Fundamentally, though, it is a business decision.
   Is the majority of the Board more experienced than the Membership in these kinds of technical details, though?

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T11:33:32Z ]

   > I just reread the bylaws to see if I remembered things correctly.  The Bylaws don't say much of anything about what members can decide during meetings (arguably limited in some way by the stated purposes of the organization.  Rather the agenda is prescribed to include reports of committees and old and new business without specifying which committees and what kind of business can be considered.  By intent and practice, the membership has indicated the direction it wished the organization to move  Most decisions have been general policy direction, except for bylaw amendments.  The Board has sometimes brought specific proposals to the membership for consideration when those proposals were particularly fundamental to the direction that the organization would move (such as the creation of BPFK, and the approval of various baselines for the language) .
   > The membership could request the Board to take certain actions, and should the Board refuse or simply not act, could vote to elect different directors at the following meeting.  I would hope that the latter would never happen, because it might lead to the effective death of LLG and the website. 
   This interpretation of the bylaws gives the impression that the deliberations of the Membership have mostly a consultatory value, and not actual decisional power, that latter being apparently mostly in the hands of the Board, except for Board elections and Bylaws amendments.

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T11:36:09Z ]

   If true, that would reduce the usefulness of being an LLG member

karis [ 2020-03-18T12:59:07Z ]

   This doesn't reduce the usefulness because what @lojbab is saying isn't new, but rather has been true since the organization started. What it may reduce is the perception of some about their usefulness.
   Participation in the two committees is one way Members can be particularly useful. Members also are useful by providing direction to the LLG and for voting on language changes that come out of the BPFK in the same way xorlo and dotside required Member before becoming official. Members are who was behind the creation of the LFK and LLRC, and it will be Members who provide the structure and guidance to both, as they already are. 

karis [ 2020-03-18T13:04:06Z ]

   Members are who offer proposals for Bylaw Amendments, such as the one stating that lojban is our primary focus, and it's Members who vote on whether to ratify them.

karis [ 2020-03-18T13:14:01Z ]

   You can ask @lojbab or one of the other LLG founders why the organizational structure is what it is. He already said why the Board is responsible for what it is - the Board is active year round and they are expecting to be callrd on if questions or issues arise.
   Look at how participation in this meeting has waned both last year and this. That is certainly one problem with switching this responsibility. If Members Meetings went to one of the many formats that have been sufferers for shortening the Members Meeting then the situation becomes more of a challenge. Most people don't want to get a phone call, text, or email every time management issues crop up. Some years the Board has been very active dealing with these. 

karis [ 2020-03-18T13:15:02Z ]

   What did you want to say, @maik? Isaw you were typing.

maik [ 2020-03-18T13:26:49Z ]

   Even though I am not yet a member, I am extremely angry and I am finding it hard to express my position without coming across as extremely rude.  I've spent six months of my life witnessing this chat room, which makes a big ostentatious display of being parliamentarian.  But it's a charade: as soon as the membership tries to do anything interesting, like creating a new website the truth comes out immediately:  this is nothing but an autocracy in disguise, and if you want the LLG to move forward, you had better make plans to vote out the Board.   Otherwise, go suck on it.
   I do not believe you or Lojbab for one minute.  Have you forgotten you are ELECTED by the membership?  Why should you and Lojbab make all the decisions?  I am tired of having my intelligence insulted by you and Lojbab.  What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.  If you want to be on the Board, then you should be TRIPPING over yourselves to do what the membership wants, not talking down to them like they're small children.  And if it's really true that it's a tradition that the Board runs everything autocratically, then that's tradition worth destroying, not a tradition worth honoring.  The LLG should be a group for loglangers and Lojbanists not a group for Lojbab ass-kissers.

karis [ 2020-03-18T14:05:41Z ]

   @maik, it's clear you are furious. I do really appreciate you expressing your feelings too. Without understanding how someone else feels it is much harder to address their concerns and to see what they may be. I will respond as best I can quickly as I have several doctors appointments, but I promise I will come back to this. 

karis [ 2020-03-18T14:59:01Z ]

   What isn't clear to me is how @lojbab and I are running the LLG as an Autocracy. We are not the only officers, though @mukti agrees with us in this case and we don't always all agree. When we don't we've been able to discuss the issue and find a way foreward we are all comfortable with. As for the Board, even, the three of us only make up half. @lojbab and I are only a third of that group. Nowhere do I see how the two of us could take control, and we don't always agree either. We were known for the intensity of our disagreements at Members Meetings in the early days of the LLG. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T20:23:54Z ]

   I have to say I very strongly disagree with the idea that the board should have powers lacked by the membership. While I believe we have an honest disagreement about what the bylaws say, that doesn't decrease my frustration about all of this. In short, I believe that if the bylaws remove operational decisions from the membership, that is a core design error of the highest degree and is immediately in need of correction. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T20:25:46Z ]

   I think the optimal solution would be to amend the bylaws to make it very explicit that the board is subordinate to the membership. Unfortunately, a bylaw amendment requires a majority of the entire membership voting in favor, and given what we've seen at these meetings, I don't think that we can get a majority of the entire membership to vote for anything. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:27:20Z ]

   Well, I was counting how many members have voiced their opinion on the LLG website proposal

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:27:36Z ]

   9 members out of 20 said something, which is more than I expected

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T20:28:24Z ]

   Note that I think that if I could get a majority of the entire membership to vote, they would agree. I just don't think I can get them to vote. And that leaves us in this terrible situation where the bylaws are ambiguous, and the board seems to think it has reserved powers that many members don't seem to think it has.

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:28:45Z ]

   ``In favor: lalxu and.rosta ilmen solpahi (+ non-member: maik)
   In disfavor: karis lojbab mukti
   Uncertain: phma bookofportals (+ non-member: dersaidin)``

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:29:18Z ]

   (I added Solpahi to "in favor" as they expressed approval to the idea elsewhere, but apparently not in this very meeting however)

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:29:34Z ]

   (unless I missed it)

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:30:28Z ]

   I don't know how disagreement on interpretation of the bylaws can be resolved

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T20:32:10Z ]

   I've been trying to figure out a way to resolve this problem with a minimum of strife. I think the simplest way is to vote on which interpretation of the bylaws is correct. They definitely do not *explicitly* say that the membership cannot vote on operational decisions. If they say it at all, they say it through an implication of the section granting powers to the board. 

ilmen [ 2020-03-18T20:34:37Z ]

   I don't think that the fact the membership meeting isn't in activity all the year is a sufficient reason to claim that it cannot (in theory at least) handle business issues; I could imagine a system under which, when in meeting, the membership has full decisional power, and when not in meeting, the Board elected by the membership is entitled to handle daily operations and management.

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T20:34:52Z ]

   I think the simplest method would be for me to raise a point of order about the correct interpretation of the bylaws, which the chair would presumably rule against, and then for me to appeal from the decision of the chair. Under the rules of parliamentary procedure, such an appeal is then voted upon by the meeting. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-18T20:39:57Z ]

   What I really really don't want is a huge fight that would tear this organization apart. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-18T22:34:33Z ]

   I acknowledge your travails, with sympathy, and I must say you've participated in the meeting with admirable assiduity and good grace, considering how much you have on your plate. My LLG-external situation too is stressful and consternating (including elderly mother hospitalized hundreds of miles away at a time of plague), but not nearly as much as yours.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-18T22:36:52Z ]

   [This, contra Mattermost, is a comment on Karis's message about her family and domestic circumstances, not a comment on Lalxu's message.]

and.rosta [ 2020-03-18T22:52:35Z ]

   Regarding the role of the Board, I would see it as involving conducting basic legal and admin business in accordance with policies determined by the membership. All the stuff under discussion in the meeting is policy stuff, not basic legal and admin business. I believe that the view I express here is consistent with the history of the LLG, at least over the last twenty years.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-18T23:11:17Z ]

   Regarding the domain names issue, i.e. whether LLG should be, and present itself as, an umbrella organization embracing both LLRC and Lojban: I can see three ways forward (not all acceptable to everyone).
   A. LLG is an umbrella organization, embracing LLRC and Lojban equally. (Relying on memory rather than rereading the acts of previous meetings, I think this is current LLG policy -- the two goals are coequal.)
   B. Something other than A that otherwise preserves the status quo -- Lojban.org as the official home of LLG, LLG still claiming to be the "Logical Language Group" and having bylaws that asseverate a commitment to logical language research.
   C. LLG renames itself "Lojban Language Group" and revises its bylaws so as to contain only the commitment to Lojban and deleting the claim to support logical language research.
   My preference is for C. It would mean that those with in an interest in loglangs but not Lojban would not have to waste excessive portions of our finite lifespans on LLG meetings, and would end the eternal friction between loglangers and anti-loglangers.
   But I would also accept A -- I had been actively supporting A because I had supposed it to be more politically acceptable than C.
   What I absolutely cannot accept, and am vehemently opposed to, is B. I will not accept a Lojban-centric organization squatting the territory of loglang research.

karis [ 2020-03-19T03:24:33Z ]

   You are somewhat mistaken about the Bylaws. I quoted the end of the section on the purpose of the LLG, which clearly states that the LLG has multiple purposes including research on logical languages, but lojban is our primary focus. This is in the most recent bylaws found at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Bylaws_of_The_Logical_Language_Group,_Inc._(2014). 

karis [ 2020-03-19T03:32:01Z ]

   LLG is obviously an umbrella organization over the LLRC as that is a committee formed by the LLG. If the LLRC would rather not be a part of the LLG those interested will need to strike out on their own as a completely separate organization, develop their own bylaws after determining where to incorporate remembering to follow all applicable laws, go through the process for becoming tax exempt if available there, maintain all their own paperwork and file all the applicable documents with the appropriate governmental agencies, and do everything else yourselves. Otherwise you need to accept that you are a part of the LLG and subject to its Bylaws, and to the Membership, the Board, and the Officers.

karis [ 2020-03-19T03:37:29Z ]

   Nothing says that there cannot be both the Logical Language Group with a primary focus on lojban and our Bylaws exactly as they are and a completely separate group that may define itself however it wants. I can see the two working together on occasion and interacting at their overlapping interests. In such a case I would expect some people would be Members of both and that whatever the new organization is would treat lojban exactly as it does other loglangs. 

karis [ 2020-03-19T03:38:46Z ]

   If this happens the LFK then will be the only current standing committee of the LLG. 

karis [ 2020-03-19T03:41:02Z ]

   Thank you, and I wish you and your mother my best, particularly through this trying time. 

karis [ 2020-03-19T03:48:18Z ]

   I don't want that either, but by insisting that an organization of decades with Bylaws as old must meet your interpretation when you've been a Member just over a year without even researching through many old meetings and listening at least to a person who's been involved since before the organization was formed (lojbab) seems very presumptuous. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T04:56:31Z ]

   I don't insist that it must meet my interpretation, I'd just like to have a chance to have the organization as a whole choose which interpretation to adopt. I would like to persuade them to go with my interpretation, but if the other interpretation is chosen I would accept that decision. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:03:47Z ]

   In my ideal world, I'd bring forward two bylaw amendments, one to clarify the issue one way, one to clarify it the other way, one to clarify it the other. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:07:28Z ]

   One would get a majority of the entire membership, and that would resolve the matter. Unfortunately, I simply don't think we can get a majority of the entire membership voting on either side, given current levels of apathy. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:20:01Z ]

   Also, I respect everyone who's spoken, and I've listened to everything they have to say. I simply do not find myself convinced. (Or, rather, I find the arguments in favor of giving more power to the membership more convincing than the other side.)

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:20:28Z ]

   And I'm not the only one on this side of the argument, and some of them are clearly more upset about it all than I am. 

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:35:01Z ]

   It's a design feature of our system of governance that people are *supposed* to disagree about things. Each side is supposed to try to get the solution they think is right adopted. The disagreement can intense, but it isn't supposed to be personalized. Then we're supposed to vote and everyone is supposed to respect the outcome.

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:39:15Z ]

   Apologies if that sounds patronizing, it isn't intended to. I just worry because I'm seeing people become personally upset with each other, and that really isn't a good thing. We're supposed to disagree and then we're supposed to vote to resolve it, not start getting mad at each other.

mukti [ 2020-03-19T05:50:37Z ]

   And, I appreciate the way that you unpacked the issues, and I note a concern that I didn't previously perceive: That LLG's mission focuses too narrowly on Lojban. While it's true that the community at one time amended its bylaws to affirm a priority to "support of the community of persons learning, using, experimenting with, and promoting the language known as Lojban", it's also true that its declared purpose includes investigating "the nature of language" and research which bears upon "problems of artificial language development".
   I think that proposal C may overlook the fact that the name of the organization in lojban is in fact, "la lojbangirz", and it could be argued that "The Logical Language Group" is a not entirely faithful translation. Irony. I'd like to synthesize an alternative between proposals A and C.
   For many years there have been attempts to distinguish "official" and "unofficial" content within that lojban.org. The fact that we're having this discussion points to the fact that those attempts have not been terribly successful. The wiki approach to content generation isn't really designed for such a thing. You can bolt it on with a lot of process, but I don't hear anybody clamoring for more of that. What if we were to do the following:
   1. Allocate a new domain for organization business. Move official content which is not immediately related to the lojban language there.
   2. Allocate a new domain for community content about any topic that fits within the purposes spelled out in our bylaws. We could move the wiki as it currently exists there.
   3. Re-dedicate lojban.org to focus on the description (not prescription) of lojban which LLG continues to facilitate. The community site would be linked and promoted in the spirit of supporting "the community of persons learning, using, experimenting with, and promoting" lojban.
   I believe that a compromise like this, while it might not satisfy anybody entirely, would be a step forward, and one that we could amend in the future as needed.

bookofportals [ 2020-03-19T05:54:27Z ]

   Where would LFK stuff go?

mukti [ 2020-03-19T05:56:56Z ]

   Since LFK is authorized by LLG to describe the language, it would go on lojban.org.

maik [ 2020-03-19T11:22:40Z ]

   > [@lojbab, Mar. 16]  The membership could request the Board to take certain actions, and should the Board refuse or simply not act, could vote to elect different directors at the following meeting.  I would hope that the latter would never happen, because **it might lead to the effective death of LLG and the website**.
   Could you please clarify why you believe electing different directors might lead to the death of the LLG and the website?

and.rosta [ 2020-03-19T21:08:29Z ]

   Assuming that Part 2 of your proposal does not entail that jbocecmu and LLRC share a domain, I think your proposal is equivalent to Option A, which commands wide support (in the narrow ranks of those participating in the meeting) but not Lojbab & Karis's.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-19T21:20:35Z ]

   You're saying that nothing rules out Option B, but nevertheless I -- somewhat pettily in the grand scheme of things, I admit -- do object to it, as I said. I object to LLG claiming the loglang turf yet subordinating it to Lojban. 

karis [ 2020-03-20T01:33:46Z ]

   I suspect it's not electing some other people to the Board, but rather if the Board were replaced that concerns him. It concerns me as well. For instance, few people seem to think that knowing the reasoning for the name, wording or the Bylaws, historic decisions, etc is important. 
   I'll send him a ping that a question has been directed to him. 

karis [ 2020-03-20T02:39:02Z ]

   I know this was mentioned several days ago, but I wasn't too make a point now. Someone said the Board was supposed to manage the website and hadn't, so shouldn't it be turned over to someone else. It actually was being managed for quite a while mainly by @lagleki who is and was on the Board. This should lay to rest that argument. 

maik [ 2020-03-20T02:48:50Z ]

   Gleki hasn't been managing the website in his capacity as a member of the Board.  He's been managing the site in his capacity as a person who earned the trust of Robin L Powell.

karis [ 2020-03-20T02:58:58Z ]

   The rest of the Board knew he was managing it, and presumably (since it started while I was gone, expected or realized  he had the best interests of the LLG and lojban, as viewed by the Board, in mind. 

maik [ 2020-03-20T03:01:11Z ]

   "They knew he was managing it" does not mean "The Board authorized it"

karis [ 2020-03-20T03:12:52Z ]

   The Board can know something is happening, ie managing the website, so no one else needs to do it without officially authorizing it. 

maik [ 2020-03-20T03:15:28Z ]

   you are really asking me to believe that gleki's work is coming from the board

maik [ 2020-03-20T03:16:39Z ]

   i think Gleki is simply a friend of RLP, who happens to be on the board

bookofportals [ 2020-03-20T04:32:26Z ]

   I'm not sure the distinction is really relevant. 

mukti [ 2020-03-20T05:46:38Z ]

   I believe that Gleki's role has always been that of an energetic volunteer: He doesn't hold a formal role relating to the web site, but he took the initiative to set up mediawiki, and helped to port content to it from the old tiki wiki, and has done a lot of work to keep it running because he cares about it. I have had differences with him about the front page content, but I really appreciate how much work he has put into the site.

mukti [ 2020-03-20T05:51:22Z ]

   Robin's role, on the other hand, is formal: He was appointed as the web master in 2003, and continues to host the domain on his personal servers out of the goodness of his heart.

dersaidin [ 2020-03-20T06:48:13Z ]

   Option C would also include terminate LLRC.

mukti [ 2020-03-20T07:19:18Z ]

   I definitely intended it as a riff on Option A, but without shading the standing of lojban relative to other interests of the organization. 

mukti [ 2020-03-20T08:27:30Z ]

   The bylaws take the position that lojban is a priority for the organization. I'm glad for that: I'm interested in lojban, and there are no other organizations with a serious commitment to it. The bylaws also make room for broader interests. I'm glad for that, too, and encouraged to see those interests being taken up vigorously.
   If people don't find that, given the place of priority which LLG gives to lojban, that this organization meets their needs, I personally would hope that they find what they want elsewhere and/or found a new organization which reflects their priorities. I don't see any reason why LLG should regard the use and development of loglangs other than lojban with anything other than encouragement and appreciation.

gleki [ 2020-03-20T16:39:08Z ]

   I edited the wiki just as an ordinary editor. No one stopped anyone else from editing it. I simply edited it more than others.

gleki [ 2020-03-20T16:41:38Z ]

   The situation is clearly going into hijacking lojban.org and using it for purposes other than Lojban to promote irrelevant projects. The goal is obvious: to abuse fame of Lojban and the traffic at Lojban.org for irrelevant projects.
   With this sad state of affairs with the LLG I just began the process of creating new content elsewhere.
   https://lojban.pw is one example.

gleki [ 2020-03-20T16:42:39Z ]

   I highly recommend every aspiring learner of Lojban to do the same.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-20T18:25:07Z ]

   A debate could be had about what exactly "priority" entails; must the priority activity subsume the other activities? But it is an unprofitable debate; what is to be gained from having it, rather than splitting, as you suggest. From my point of view, splitting under the terms of Option C would mean an amiable split and splitting under the terms of Option B would mean a somewhat antagonistic split. I am familiar with the historical rationale for the name of the LLG and its bylaws, but, in a world where there actually is a logical language community, it is clearly offensive for the strictly Lojban-centric organization to call itself "Logical Language Group". Imagine, as an analogy, that we were living in a world with just one Philosophy Society, but it insisted that all its activities be subordinated to proselytizing the work of Ayn Rand. Even though one could perfectly well set up another philosophical society to actually study philosophy, the name of the Philosophy Society would still stick in the craw.

karis [ 2020-03-21T15:28:26Z ]

   This just spreads the lojban content too much and makes it very hard to find what is out there. In our discussion earlier about what's being done in lojban we discussed the importance of having as much as possible collected, not disbursed as @lagleki suggests. Besides, aspiring learners who produce websites of their work before they know much lojban will likely misdirect new learners away from official learning material and works collected in a single community site which will garner comments so the work can be improved rather the things put together in issolation. The latter is likely to turn off new learners or confuse them as to how lojban really works. People like @lagleki know lojban well enough, but you're stuff will get many more views if it is collected even so. 

karis [ 2020-03-21T15:32:51Z ]

   Has there ever been any evidence of this? Does the possibility of it override our history with the name and the respect in and out of groups interested in logical languages we have earned? 

karis [ 2020-03-21T15:38:12Z ]

   Give priority definitions:
   Merriam Webster -
   To give priority: to deal with or do (something) first. 
   These problems are important and should be given priority (over others). —often + toGive priority to the people who have been waiting the longest.
   Free Collins Dictionary - 
   If you give priority to something or someone, you treat them as more important than anything or anyone else. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-21T18:21:55Z ]

   [Karis is replying to Gleki in saying "This just spreads the lojban content too much"]

and.rosta [ 2020-03-21T18:24:40Z ]

   "Has there ever been any evidence of this?" -- I'm not sure what "this" is, or how it is the sort of statement that requires evidence; but my testimony is evidence. "Does the possibility of it override our history with the name and the respect in and out of groups interested in logical languages we have earned? " Yes it overrides history. LLg has not really earned respect: yes, it published, largely thanks to John Cowan, CLL, which commands huge respect, but almost everyone who is in the least familiar with LLG views it with contempt -- my opinion of LLG is comparatively benign to the prevailing view (which is manifest by the sane disengagement from it by most of its members).

and.rosta [ 2020-03-21T18:40:51Z ]

   "Give priority definitions" -- come on, we are supposed to be a group with a commitment to linguistics, i.e. we should know better than to treat quoting popular dictionary definitions as a useful contribution to a discussion. In saying "debate could be had about what exactly "priority" entails" , I was obviously not suddenly declaring my ignorance of the meaning of certain everyday English words; rather I was wondering whether priority entails, say, focusing the LLG's financial expenditure on Lojban (which is what I would expect priority to entail)) or whether it entails rejecting a domain name structure that treats loglang research and Lojban as separate branches of the LLG (which is what you think priority entails).

and.rosta [ 2020-03-21T18:44:30Z ]

   I'm moved to write this last response by annoyance rather than by intent to persuade. The experience of this meeting has convinced me that LLG should become the Lojban Language Group, dedicated only to Lojban.

karis [ 2020-03-21T20:25:56Z ]

   It was not clear to me what you meant by "debate what exactly priority entails". I posted the definitions to give us a common starting point for discussing what the Bylaws mean by it. It wasn't meant to be rude. 

karis [ 2020-03-21T20:35:32Z ]

   If there is a group who want to start their own group I see no reason they should be able to vote on, or even propose for vote that the LLG changes its name. Our Bylaws would not change and neither would we then not be interested in supporting research on other logical languages. What would change would be we lose the involvement of some of our active Members while others would likely want to be part of both groups.
   If those of you only interested in logical languages in general or only languages other than lojban decide to stay and work within the structure set by the Bylaws and by the founding proposal that formed the LLRC then we need to find a way to work together that doesn't discount lojban nor the LLG's history and involvement in lojban. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-22T17:07:10Z ]

   Re "If those of you only interested in logical languages in general or only languages other than lojban decide to stay and work within the structure set by the Bylaws and by the founding proposal that formed the LLRC then we need to find a way to work together that doesn't discount lojban nor the LLG's history and involvement in lojban." -- Absolutely nobody has proposed anything that discounts Lojban or the LLG's history and involvement in Lojban. I don't know if there are any LLG members or meeting attendees, other than me, who are interested in logical languages in general or only languages other than Lojban, but for my part I currently intend to remain in the LLG in pursuit of having it change its name. I don't think we can work together more broadly: the zero-sum thinking that the few anti-loglangers evidence means that trying to work on logical languages through the Logical Language Group is needlessly arduous and painful. (Trying to work on Lojban through the LLG seems equally arduous and painful, but thankfully I do not intend to work on Lojban.)

and.rosta [ 2020-03-22T17:11:52Z ]

   "If there is a group who want to start their own group I see no reason they should be able to vote on, or even propose for vote that the LLG changes its name." If a group of LLG members want to start another group, then you think they should be disqualified from voting on some matters in the LLG? Or have I misunderstood you? That is, I would have thought that LLG members can vote on any seconded motion, regardless of whether they want to set up another group, and I would have thought that you would think the same.

karis [ 2020-03-22T21:15:39Z ]

   Speaking personally, not as an officer, I feel it isn't appropriate to continue being a Member if you  know you're leaving as soon as the meeting is over,or sooner. If you are planning on being part of both organizations then of course it's fine to vote. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-22T22:53:04Z ]

   That seems a much more reasonable position to take, yes.

karis [ 2020-03-23T16:06:04Z ]

   It is what I was trying to express before. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-23T16:16:54Z ]

   Yes, okay; so we're on the same page. Since afaik I'm the only LLG member without an active interest in Lojban, I think that any departures from LLG would be motivated not by a lack of interest in Lojban but rather from nausea at the perceived dysfunctionality of the LLG. (I appreciate that every participant in the meeting is acting in what they believe to be the best interests of LLG or Lojban.)

karis [ 2020-03-23T16:41:59Z ]

   Before we vote on a possible name change one of the officers needs to consult with a lawyer specializing in corporate law in Virginia as that's where we are incorporated. We certainly cannot make the change if it has significant cost or amount of effort, and particularly not if it would require anything like reincorporating or losing our tax status. A large amount of time, effort, and money went into setting up this organization and most of it came from @lojbab and @noras. I don't know if the money was paid back or if they expected it to be. I do know the time and effort of setting the LLG up was significant. I have no desire for any of us or the Membership as a whole to appear ungreatful either. To me changing something so basic as the organization is showing a lack of respect for what they and others have done. 
   This is some of why I don't want to do it. I also still see no reason why having a focus mainly on one logical language makes the name inaccurate. Logical Language Group says nothing about how many logical languages, and we are doing things for other logical languages as well. Besides, pushing that the LLG isn't doing any work for other logical languages has never been accurate and is even more so now. Finishing loglan, supporting lojban for so many years, and doing probably more to show people around the world that logical languages can be used creatively, and as a true spoken language was never fully done before lojban. Through our efforts to build a global community of users we have helped lead the movement. That is not something to set aside because we haven't done more. Whether there are people that no longer respect, or never did respect the LLG says nothing about the respect we have gained or what we have accomplished. How many people world have even tried to create a logical language is they hadn't seen it done first. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-23T18:27:43Z ]

   "I also still see no reason why having a focus mainly on one logical language makes the name inaccurate." Did you appreciate the force of the Philosophy Society/Ayn Rand analogy?

and.rosta [ 2020-03-23T18:34:00Z ]

   "How many people world have even tried to create a logical language is they hadn't seen it done first. " -- that's not really the right question. I certainly would have tried to create a logical language even if Loglan had never existed; I was trying to before I'd ever heard of Loglan or Lojban. However, because Lojban and the LLG did exist, I and others gravitated thither and it played an important role in developing our collective loglinguistic thought. That's why for the last couple of years and up to a certain point in the current meeting (before U-turning) I had been trying to make LLG a functioning hub of loglang work.

maik [ 2020-03-23T18:51:37Z ]

   If the predominant focus of the LLG is going to be Lojban, and if other logical languages are going to viewed by LLG bigwigs as competitors in a zero-sum game, then it follows pretty logically and naturally that  -- for the sake of clarity if not honesty -- the word **"Lojban"** or **"Lojbanist"** should be in the name of that group.  
   For a illustrative comparison, take a look at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Esperanto_organizations>
   Very few Esperanto groups' names omit "Esperanto" or "Esperantist" and NONE of these groups' names contain vague and misleading verbiage like "International Language", even though of course Esperanto is a kind of international language.  Why? Because they are ESPERANTO groups, and they are not afraid to be clear about that.  
   Say what you like about Esperantists and their ideology, but at least they have the good manners not to allow people to be so grossly misled about what their groups are about and what they stand for.

karis [ 2020-03-24T05:58:20Z ]

   Somehow I'm being misunderstood. I wanted to postpone adding people to the LLRC so that their attention and energy would remain on the meeting so we could get through the sometimes boring issues here rather than three attention and energy of the people joining it be on the excitement of getting the committee going and on its initial work on whatever projects they choose to start on. This was not a competion between the languages themselves nor one I believe would be an issue in the future. My point of reference was that such a burst of excitement occurred when the LFK got its first members not long before, and it did seem this meeting held the attention of those involved with both less afterwards. It certainly wasn't the language that I saw causing the issue with that.
   Despite whether some here form a separate logical language research organization the LLG won't change its Bylaws to remove other loglangs from the purpose statement. This isn't a matter of the Bylaws becoming more honest if we did. In practice we have been and will continue to be interested in researching logical languages and possibly supporting one or more in other ways. The LLG is not only a lojban organization so changing the Bylaws and /or name is not going to improve the honesty or clarity of the result or organization as a whole.
   As @maik points out there are some Esperanto groups without a form of the language's name in the group name. No matter how few, this illustrates that were lojban our sole focus we would be in the company of some Esperanto groups, and Esperanto is a respected and long-lived created language. 

mukti [ 2020-03-24T07:31:29Z ]

   It's hard to know where to start with the idea that the LLG's name, which has not changed in the more than **three decades** that the organization has been in existence, is offensive or somehow detracts from the generic pursuit of logical language. When did this start being true?
   English lacks a particle like «la» which lets you distinguish a name from a description, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who is familiar with the conventions for naming organizations would take them for literal descriptors. It's facile to find examples of organizations which do not conform to the standard being proposed for LLG.
   But seriously: Arguing about this is a poor use of meeting time. This is not the kind of thing that can be passed as a simple motion in new business. This requires amending the bylaws, and as such, needs to be advertised before the meeting and/or requires the attention of the full body of members.

mukti [ 2020-03-24T07:38:10Z ]

   Is there something actionable we can be discussing instead? Do we even have a quorum at this point?

karis [ 2020-03-24T11:21:25Z ]

   I don't know how many people are playing any attention now. Let's see... 
   @channel, please announce your presence at this meeting by posting a comment to that effect between now and  23:59:59, virtually midnight, UT on the 26th of March, 2020.

ueslis [ 2020-03-24T11:51:33Z ]


and.rosta [ 2020-03-24T12:24:38Z ]

   "It's hard to know where to start with the idea that the LLG's name, which has not changed in the more than three decades that the organization has been in existence, is offensive or somehow detracts from the generic pursuit of logical language. When did this start being true?" It started being true during the course of the present meeting.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-24T12:26:29Z ]

   "English lacks a particle like "la" which lets you distinguish a name from a description, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who is familiar with the conventions for naming organizations would take them for literal descriptors. It's easy to find examples of organizations which do not conform to the standard being proposed for LLG." Your view of onomastics strikes me as naive, simplistic and mistaken. But nevertheless this may not be the right time and place to have that discussion.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-24T12:27:24Z ]

   "But seriously: Arguing about this is a poor use of meeting time. This is not the kind of thing that can be passed as a simple motion in new business. This requires amending the bylaws, and as such, needs to be advertised before the meeting and / or requires the attention of the full body of members." I accept this, and would be content to confine discussion now to the question of how we deliberate the question of the name and bylaws.

lalxu [ 2020-03-24T13:19:14Z ]

   mi jundi

ilmen [ 2020-03-24T13:29:43Z ]

   I'm present.

vecusku [ 2020-03-24T15:26:19Z ]

   **gleki**: I'm present

ponse [ 2020-03-24T18:19:48Z ]

   ponse a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-03-24T18:42:18Z ]

   Welcome to the meeting, @ponse. 

phma [ 2020-03-24T22:47:16Z ]

   I'm here.

solpahi [ 2020-03-24T23:24:37Z ]


mukti [ 2020-03-25T02:07:23Z ]

   The process for amending the by-laws is described in Article 10: Proposed changes to the by-laws must be finalized and advertised 15 days before the meeting begins, except in the case in which all members are present and grant unanimous consent. In any case, by-laws changes require a majority of all members.

mukti [ 2020-03-25T02:07:40Z ]

   And I am here.

mukti [ 2020-03-25T02:18:34Z ]

   If you're earnest about raising that as a bylaw change, and really, in any case, I recommend we vote on any remaining business and conclude the 2019 meeting.

dersaidin [ 2020-03-25T05:48:45Z ]

   I'm still an observer.

greg_g [ 2020-03-25T06:38:15Z ]

   Present as observer.

veion [ 2020-03-25T08:51:53Z ]


fatci [ 2020-03-25T10:11:25Z ]

   I'm observing too.

la_melijaubi [ 2020-03-25T13:00:11Z ]

   I'm observing as well.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T15:10:31Z ]

   In answer to BoP, most non-profits are not run by Boards and NOT by the members, who may or may not have any significant powers at all. I believe that ordinary members in VA non-profit corporations are akin to common stockholders in for-profit corporations (LLG also has the capability to create a class of "sustaining members" with no voting rights, but hasn't done so), and the sorts of things that common stockholders in corporations can vote on at annual meetings is normally extremely limited.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T15:12:53Z ]

   Our voting membership was, however, patterned on that of JCB's Loglan Institute (which is incorporated in FL, BTW), and was given more power over the organization than normal as a reform measure.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T15:20:45Z ]

   I'm not sure what this means.  It isn't clear to me that there is any such thing as "LLG content" other than what was created by individual people from the community.  We don't have any corporate employees, so any content by necessity has to be submitted by individuals.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T15:28:34Z ]

   To use a recent comparison, is the majority of the Board of Apple, Inc. more experienced in technical details than the stockholders (I doubt that most Boards of Directors of corporations have any particular *technical* experience in anything.)

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T15:39:16Z ]

   Legally, I think the consultatory nature of the voting membership is in fact the case.  The Board has, however, historically given issues regarding the broad direction of the organization over to the membership as being somewhat more representative of the community that we (in theory) serve.  I'm not sure that the membership actually participating in meetings nowadays is quite as representative.  The usefulness of being a member is that the Board does consult with and listen to the membership.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T16:08:16Z ]

   maik, I don't in fact know "what the membership wants".  Of late, the membership meeting isn't necessarily representative of the membership, since most of the membership has said absolutely nothing and likely isn't paying attention to the meeting (while members of the community but not the organization, like yourself, have effectively had as much ability to participate in the meeting as voting members.  (and this organization hasn't been particularly noted as being a group of Lojbab ass-kissers for a very long time; I was "deposed" as primary leader some 20 years ago - by the membership).  That the Board runs some things autocratically is a legal issue as much as it is a "tradition".  The Board is legally responsible; the members aren't.  I also want to note that the meeting is in the form of a "chat room", but it isn't a casual chat.  That it may seem to be is largely karis's style of running the meeting.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T16:51:39Z ]

   RLP is not on the Board, and hasn't been for several years.  gleki's work isn't "coming from the Board", nor do I think it comes from RLP; gleki is on the opposite side of the globe from RLP.  Rather like most things done within LLG, gleki gets his "authority" more or less by just going out there and doing things; his activities became an issue when some changes he made seemed to suggest that he was deciding personally on language matters.  If LFK prepares a set of pages and wants them on the site, probably no one would argue.  It is the explicit assignment of primary authority that results in this topic being an issue.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T16:57:40Z ]

   And, is there really a "logical languages" community?  I know that you are interested in that topic, and maybe there are others, but I've seen little sign that such interest was sufficiently interactive to call it a "community".  Maybe there is.  Nothing has stopped you and others from creating pages on the wiki pertaining to such efforts.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T17:06:54Z ]

   maik, as has been noted, Lojban is part of the name of the organization - in lojban, since "lojban" explicitly derives from "logical language" in Lojban, (as does "Loglan", in English).

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T17:15:34Z ]

   In response to karis, I am "present".  But it is quite arguable that I am not paying attention on a daily basis, because I cannot manage the time to keep up with the volume of discussion.  Nora is uncertain whether to state her presence because she most certainly is NOT paying attention, but does read her email (so she saw notification of your call for members to announce their presence).

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T17:40:41Z ]

   answering maik: if the entire Board, or even just the Board members currently serving as officers, were replaced at one time, then there would be essentially no continuity between the how the organization was managed before and after.  The continued legal existence of this organization depends on certain things being done.  If no one in authority knows what to do, that might not happen.  That legal existence is tied to our finances, among other things. (Apart from my Board membership, I remain on the legal hook as the Registered Agent for the corporation, whose official business address is my home address.)  The website registration is the legal property of the corporation.  (I don't know enough about whether the law allows us to transfer it to any old person or group.)  We've generally found that even changing Presidents has involved a lot of learning curve.  Changing Secretaries is even more fraught; we've managed it twice, but both times it was highly cooperative between old and new.

lojbab [ 2020-03-26T17:58:34Z ]

   Perhaps equally important though is that sufficiently hostile "takeovers" creates "enemies" and destroys a sense of community.  I've worked real hard for 30 years to foster a community that will survive me and my role in the group.  I haven't always done this with political astuteness; I'll admit a tendency to talk down to people when I don't know have that sense of the community.  I have the experience that most people who suddenly appear and don't demonstrate a long term commitment tend to disappear quite suddenly as well.  I rather don't think this organization as a legal entity, or the community as a gestalt would survive, if the people who take control suddenly disappeared.  That is why I am hoping to see some product of LFK to prove that they have the ability to accomplish more than the prior BPFK.

karis [ 2020-03-27T02:19:58Z ]

   Thank you, @lojbab, for finding the time to read and respond today. 

maik [ 2020-03-27T05:10:35Z ]

   I'm here.  Barely.  Not a member but I salute members who chimed in.  Time to overthrow the out-of-touch Autocracy.

maik [ 2020-03-27T05:16:49Z ]


maik [ 2020-03-27T05:20:07Z ]


maik [ 2020-03-27T05:21:57Z ]

   I look forward to Gleki Arxokuna presiding in the fall.  This is the only hope for the LLG.

maik [ 2020-03-27T05:27:25Z ]

   DEAR MEMBERS:  YOU HAVE NO POWER EXCEPT TO VOTE IN A NEW BOARD.  BE AWARE OF THAT FACT.   Vote in a new Board that will devolve power to the membership.  Otherwise, Karen and Lojbab will continue their autocratic ways, and both the LLG and Lojban will die.

maik [ 2020-03-27T05:32:29Z ]

   AFTER THE ELECTION OF THE BOARD, FOR GOODNESS SAKE, ADJOURN THE MEETING, UNLESS KAREN IS OVERTHROWN.   Because there is no reason to continue the meeting when Karen has the power to run everything, and she does claim that power. Why should the members' meeting last for months when Karen has the final say?  It's preposterous.

maik [ 2020-03-27T05:37:29Z ]


maik [ 2020-03-27T05:39:34Z ]


maik [ 2020-03-27T05:41:39Z ]


vecusku [ 2020-03-27T05:54:12Z ]

   **gleki**: Who even said I would accept the nomination? I'm interested in lojban as a scientist and to a lesser degree as a coder. 
   Only as a scientist/coder and only in Lojban.
   To be heard drop the organization and make everything unofficially, create new websites ("you" in plural, "websites" in plural).
   Since normal system administration in the imaginary situation of disappearance of Rlpowell would be

vecusku [ 2020-03-27T05:54:12Z ]

   **gleki**:  obviously impossible as shown recently accept that as the only future and don't fight it. Switch to multimaster distributed databases.

vecusku [ 2020-03-27T05:55:45Z ]

   **gleki**: But I of course wouldn't support a bunch of arbitrary people to come and take LLG's money for projects not related to Lojban or not supplementing Lojban.

maik [ 2020-03-27T05:57:12Z ]

   no one wants the money.

mukti [ 2020-03-27T11:24:29Z ]

   Maik, I've been an advocate for making these meetings as transparent as possible. They used to take place on a closed email list, which also had a closed archive, and for many years, the archive also served as the minutes. This was problematic. (In recent years, when the length of the meeting has become unwieldly, we've returned to the state of archive-as-minutes, although it's something I'd like to rectify in the longer run.)
   Moving to the Framasoft forum has made the meetings more accessible in a sense, especially to observers such as yourself, and I'm glad for that. I think it's important that people see what LLG is and is not. When transparency is not in place, people imagine all kinds of things.
   I have to say, I don't see Karen acting at all autocratically. To the contrary. As president, she presides over this meeting, and has the right to set expectations on protocol and to enforce those expectations. She has let the meeting run long because, I assume, she wants to make sure that everybody has a chance to say what they want to say. And she has chosen to relax protocol to the extent that a non-member like yourself is speaking and without being recognized.
   What you're saying about members having no power except to elect the Board just isn't true. But it takes a lot of work to create consensus in the membership. Consensus is easier to achieve in the Board, both because there are fewer people, and because I think the Board is more cautious: To the Board is delegated "the duty and power of acting for the membership in the intervals between meetings," to quote from the manual of parliamentary procedure which governs LLG proceedings. Board members receive their mandate from the membership, and I can't recall an example of when they have exceeded or contradicted this mandate.
   Maik, I'd like to ask you to consider whether your behavior conforms to the standards of civility that we ought to expect both from members and from non-member observers.

mukti [ 2020-03-27T11:31:07Z ]

   To be clear, I don't take issue with you expressing your opinions about who should be elected to the Board, although I don't think the meeting is the best place for that kind of lobbying. I mean typing in all caps and leveling accusations of autocracy, dishonesty, and idiocy.

mukti [ 2020-03-27T11:35:17Z ]

   It's a difficult and thankless task to run this meeting. Karen is one of the few people who have volunteered for that task. As people who care about LLG, she deserves our gratitude for taking on this role. As the presiding officer of this meeting, she deserves respect.

maik [ 2020-03-27T11:36:51Z ]

   > What you're saying about members having no power except to elect the Board just isn't true.
   You're right.  The membership could also vote to change  the bylaws. However there is almost nothing else they can do -- unless the Autocracy happens to approve.  Under the current regime, it's the Board that wields most of the power and influence,  Members are being told and have been told they have no say in "day to day business".  Guess who gets to determine what "day to day" business is?  The Autocracy of course!  

maik [ 2020-03-27T12:23:13Z ]

   > But it takes a lot of work to create consensus in the membership. 
   That's easy to imagine if, like Lojbab, you're absent most of the time.  But it's actually not that hard, if you have good ideas.  For example, the proposal to create the LLRC got seven votes (I'd like to see those who insist that the Board make all the decisions get mores vote than the LLRC proposal got on one of _their_ ideas). 

maik [ 2020-03-27T12:39:44Z ]

   > I've been an advocate for making these meetings as transparent as possible. 
   Members are encouraged to talk openly; that much is true.  But ultimately all that talk is pointless; the current Board expressly reserves power for final decisions, though that was not made clear until about **five months** into the meeting, when the president suddenly declared that the Board is empowered to run all "day-to-day" business.  This was precipitated by LLG members talking about creating an LLG website, which of course would have been a disaster.  Good thing the Board was there to save the LLG from ruin!

maik [ 2020-03-27T12:44:08Z ]

   Aside from dealing with the stuff set down in the bylaws, there is no point in having these lengthy meetings at all if, in the end, the membership has no power, and Karen and Lojbab are going to make all the decisions.  Just have the members email their ideas directly to the Board so that the Board can promptly ignore them.

maik [ 2020-03-27T12:50:33Z ]

   If the membership doesn't want to merely email their ideas to the Board where they can be ignored, then the other option I can see is: Vote out the current Board, and make the structure closer to the unicameral institution that it should be (there are only a dozen active people for crying out loud).  Actually, you could keep Lojbab on the Board to keep the institution registered in Virginia (I think that's necessary).  But make sure to put five other people on the Board who can be trusted to devolve power back to the membership where it belongs.

maik [ 2020-03-27T12:58:16Z ]

   Unfortunately for the membership -- and fortunately for the current regime -- I am doubtful you could find five non-autocrats who would care enough to run for the Board and I am doubtful they would get elected.  But if there are actually enough people to reach quorum at the end of the year, it's maybe worth a shot.

maik [ 2020-03-27T13:13:32Z ]

   Another option is to simply dissolve the institution and stop wasting everyone's valuable time.  The LLG produces nothing, and hasn't produced anything since the CLL.  The BPFK or LFK, or another committee like it, drawn from the Lojbanist community, could just as easily meet and do its work without the LLG's assistance.  In fact, I think such a committee would probably be better off without people like Lojbab attacking it in these useless meetings.  The only important function that the LLG performs, that I can see, is that it safeguards the ownership of lojban.org.  (The website itself is maintained by volunteers, not the self-important "Board".)

karis [ 2020-03-27T19:28:41Z ]

   @mukti, we haven't been operating with Mattermost records as minutes because I wrote them up. I'll make sure to get you copies. 

karis [ 2020-03-27T19:38:35Z ]

   How interesting for you to speak of what the LLG should be, what the Membership and the Board should do and should be like yet apparently you hadn't read our Bylaws when you started telling everyone what to do. What the Board is responsible for is in there. You also apparently aren't even reading what I or @lojbab post. According to you the Board needs to be thrown out because no one not vouched for by me and Bob can be on the Board. NOT TRUE! We each have one vote just like all other Members when the Board is elected which has already happened for this meeting. You, in fact, weren't stopped from asking to be put on the Board. It's extremely rare (I think it's happened once) that someone wanting to be part of it is not then elected to the Board. Apparently the LLG isn't what you wanted or hoped it would be.
   I've enjoyed working with you in the LFK and with all the work you put in to get the LLRC started. I'm sorry that you've decided I don't do anything the Membership asks. Somehow I guess it's unimportant that both of these committees were formed during my presidency because of proposals written by Members (with your suggestions).
   What I do not appreciate is being yelled at, and you didn't even stop when the inappropriateness was pointed out by @mukti. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-28T02:40:41Z ]

   "And, is there really a "logical languages" community?  I know that you are interested in that topic, and maybe there are others, but I've seen little sign that such interest was sufficiently interactive to call it a "community". " There are quite a few people interested in loglangs, but the polity they constitute is characterized less by quantity of members than by quality of members (it deals with stuff it's not easy to get your head around or learn off youtube videos, so the people that arrive at loglangs tend to be quite athletic of mind). I have spent the last three years trying (with the very meagre time and energy I had to spare) to establish a loglangs community within the LLG, and once those efforts became visible to others in the lead-up to this meeting I was surprised by how quickly this community crystallized. Once it has forums, it will grow. I think it's highly significant that all the most accomplished Lojbanists (and erstwhile lojbanologists like me) have had a more general interest in loglangs -- there have been plenty of lojbanists without an interest in loglangs, and some of them have made hugely important contributions to the lojban community (e.g. you and Robin) -- but all the most accomplished users and analysts have been loglangers.  

and.rosta [ 2020-03-28T02:50:11Z ]

   "Nothing has stopped you and others from creating pages on the wiki pertaining to such efforts." This is not really true. What has stopped us is that it is the Lojban wiki at Lojban.org. The study of loglangs is not a branch of Lojban activity. I had thought it would be uncontroversial and innocuous for LLRC and Lojban.org to be sister branches of logical-language.group, but this proposal met with suspicion and resistance, which proved to everybody that everybody would be much better off for the Logical Languages Society (or whatever it would be called) and the Lojban Language Group to be completely separate organizations. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-28T02:58:13Z ]

   "everybody would be much better off for the Logical Languages Society (or whatever it would be called) and the Lojban Language Group to be completely separate organizations" -- in fairness to certain others, they had predicted this all along, but were persuaded by me to try to work within the LLG. They've been proved right and I've been proved wrong. It needn't be an acrimonious split; the split should be a win--win.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:07:41Z ]

   maik  I'm not sure why you think that members can't be heard, or why you think that there is any kind of autocracy, perpetuated or otherwise.  I was not one of the elected officers for some dozen years after I was first voted out as President (though I kept a Board seat ex officio because of my position as VA registered agent), and I've been rather reluctant every time I've been requested back into the leadership.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:09:17Z ]

   karis has gone out of her way to allow members and even non-members like you to speak during the meeting (and she hardly limits her talking to members to meetings).

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:11:03Z ]

   As for gleki, we have tried repeatedly in recent years to draft him for an officer position, and he has refused.  Maybe you should be asking him rather than campaigning for him.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:12:23Z ]

   By the way, the use of all-caps is not a style that wins rational argument.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:12:56Z ]

   Are you accusing me or karis of dishonesty?  Why?

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:18:47Z ]

   The membership has always had as much power as they wanted, and I set up the organization from the start specifically to ensure that, given that my reasons for starting LLG largely were because of JCB's "autocratic ways" that really were autocratic.  But you seem uninterested in why things are the way they are.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:27:31Z ]

   Has it not occurred to you that the meeting hasn't been adjourned because the members don't want it to be?  If a member had made a motion to adjourn, we might already be adjourned.  karis does indeed have a lot of power, as stated in the Bylaws, but it is checked by the rest of the Board (and karis and I are hardly a majority of the Board.  (But of course anyone who replaced Karen as President would have that same power that she has. so I am not sure what you think deposing her (and me, for that matter) would change.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:37:25Z ]

   The bulk of the decisions that the Board makes are business decisions, and not decisions about the language, nor about the activities of committees. Businesses are indeed often run as autocracies to some extent, but I'm not sure there are all that many people who are really interested in LLG business matters at a level above what gets discussed by the members in these meetings (the members being distinct from insurrectionaries who we welcome to these meetings even while they urge the overthrow of the status quo).

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:46:59Z ]

   As for me, I am past retirement age, and have been in less than robust health.  COVID-19 may remove me without any action by the members.  If not, I don't really need to be on the Board if the members really don't want me to be.  Whatever power I have is probably not because of my Board seat, but rather because I did start the Lojban effort, and much of the institutional memory is in my head.

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T04:49:44Z ]

   But enough, I think we have gone far afield from whatever proposal is being debated in this thread. (Suggestion for the future would be to find some way for the chair to pin the current topic or motion so it remains at the top of the screen whatever is being posted.  I have no idea if Mattermost supports this, but we need it to keep meetings on track.

karis [ 2020-03-28T05:01:11Z ]

    The topic under discussion was the suggestion that lojban.org be used only for the language and all LLG business be moved elsewhere.
   As for setting a post up so it is easy to see the topic at all times, the closest Mattermost gets to that seems to be that a post can be flagged as this one is, for demonstration purposes, which makes it easier to see when you scroll, or it can be pinned allowing anyone an way to find the post without scrolling. If a message is pinned you can read it, on my Android phone at least, by selecting the channel name above the posts, then scrolling to where it says pinned posts, then selecting that option. 

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T05:05:31Z ]

   You can create a separate organization if you wish.  But it would be rather simpler to set up a Logical Language Research Committee home page, and ask for a link to be placed on the lojban.org home page with a description as you see fit.  The LLRC would have discretion as to what their web hierarchy linked to, and indeed who could modify pages within that hierarchy, much as Robin had BPFK pages within the Lojban wiki (though admittedly those started out separate from the Lojban pages, although part of lojban.org, but were merged in when the whole site was turned into a wiki).

lojbab [ 2020-03-28T05:06:52Z ]

   (this was actually a comment on and's post, not mukti's)

karis [ 2020-03-29T10:40:23Z ]

   If the LLRC and the LLG were meant to be "sister organizations" then the proposal to create  the LLRC was disingenuous in that sister organizations are quite different from an organization and a committee in that organization. I can now see how the misunderstandings regarding the structure of the relationship could lead to the disagreements which have since occurred. 
   Had the idea been presented for them to actually be sister organizations originally it is likely that the LLG Membership would have been happy to support the creation of a separate organization and to work closely with it. If that is still the actual role envisioned then I am willing to back up the proposal to form the committee and let someone propose this, that the LLG support the creation of the LLRC (or whatever name the founders chose) as a separate, yet allied organization I doubt there is anyone on the Board or otherwise who would vote against such a relationship. To be clear, sister organizations are separate entities with neither setting the rules, guidelines, or structure of the other. The LLG would not control the LLRC, and the LLRC would not control the LLG either in any way except insofar as there could be an overlap of Members. 

and.rosta [ 2020-03-29T17:29:00Z ]

   Come on, nobody has proposed that the LLRC and LLG be sister organizations, and a careful reading of what has been said could not lead to the misapprehension that anybody has proposed that. I appreciate that you are having to juggle participation in this meeting with many other more important demands on your time, and that it is therefore not fair to blame you for not being able to read carefully, but if you're not able to read with sufficient care at the moment then let's adjourn discussion. It is frustrating to read gross mischaracterizations of what has been said, and hard not to react with a twinge of annoyance.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-29T17:31:46Z ]

   For clarity, (1) the proposal was for "LLRC and Lojban.org to be sister branches of logical-language.group", i.e for LLG to have one branch for LLRC and one branch for Lojban. (2) the proposal is withdrawn.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-29T17:39:25Z ]

   Perhaps I have been unfair. Perhaps your mention of "sister organizations" is not a reference to the earlier mention of "sister branches". You say "To be clear, sister organizations are separate entities with neither setting the rules, guidelines, or structure of the other. The LLG would not control the LLRC, and the LLRC would not control the LLG either in any way except insofar as there could be an overlap of Members." I understand sisters, and sister organizations, to have a common parent. But if for you "sister organizations" is merely a synonym for "completely separate unrelated organizations", then okay: in that case, the now-withdrawn proposal to create the LLRC was not disingenuous and was not a proposal to create a completely separate unrelated organization. 

mukti [ 2020-03-30T13:15:46Z ]

   My understanding is that LLRC has been proposed as a standing committee of LLG. I'm personally inclined to support the creation of such a committee.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-30T15:51:57Z ]

   It was proposed and the motion was carried. But I believe it no longer commands significant support or has any active proponents. Working within the LLG, except in a way that frames LLRC as a branch of Lojban/Lojbanology, comes at too great a cost of effort and wrangling and brings no compensatory benefits to anybody.

and.rosta [ 2020-03-30T15:59:40Z ]

   It would be a different story if within LLG there was agreement that it is a group for logical languages in general, not Lojban in particular.

vecusku [ 2020-03-30T16:21:22Z ]

   **gleki**: lol it's like coming to Apple store and asking "why don't you sell apples?"
   ok sry. back into lurking

ilmen [ 2020-03-30T17:07:00Z ]


kadis [ 2020-03-30T21:14:47Z ]

   kadis a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-04-01T00:39:57Z ]

   coi, @kadis. 

karis [ 2020-04-01T00:47:17Z ]

   It isn't that we disagree that the LLG is interested in logical languages, but you're right. We don't agree of how that interest relates to our interest in lojban.  This is why it became clear that coming to an agreement was not possible, and why I agreed that being some sort of sister organizations made the most sense.

karis [ 2020-04-01T00:56:36Z ]

   Yes, in my view sister organizations can come from the same organization which is sisterhood of the blood, and there's also sisterhood of the heart. That's coming together because of overlapping purposes and interests. This is different from sister branches, such as you pointed out.
   I also think that a sisterhood of organizations is significantly more likely to work when they come together because their purposes overlap than because the "parent" organization has been made to change into something with almost no role other than being the parent. 

karis [ 2020-04-01T01:09:08Z ]

   Anyone interested in discussing the LLRC or webpage set up feel free to do so in the channel "Side Conversations".
   We are now moving forward. The next topic on the agenda is @ilmen's all as follows:
   "Request officialization of the BPFK Gadri page. This will allow us to link to this page from the lojban.org front page as a officially endorsed summary of the currently officialized Xorlo reform. If this page is successfully officialized, an announcement in the mailing lists shall be made. Furthermore, provisions should be taken so that only Board members (or any other officially empowered people) can edit the Gadri page, as well as the Dotside summary at https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla which has been officialized in 2016 by the LLG."

kadis [ 2020-04-01T01:10:27Z ]

   Speaking as an outsider, it may be a good idea to merge xorlo into the Complete Lojban Language book; if only to have one source of truth to know about the language

karis [ 2020-04-01T01:22:22Z ]

   @kadis there's a committee that's working on at least writing up a clear document explaining how xorlo effects the lojban grammar in the CLL in detail, and hopefully it will ultimately produce a post-xorlo CLL. You and anyone else interested are welcome to join in the discussions in our meetings. If you have anything you want to ask outside the meeting channel you are also welcome to reach out to me. I'm the president of the LLG (Logical Language Group). 

karis [ 2020-04-01T01:32:33Z ]

   The challenge is xorlo makes changes that trickle through significant sections of the CLL making just an addendum not a good solution. 

phma [ 2020-04-01T02:29:21Z ]

   There are some typos in the gadri page, such as "mokla tirxe" for "moklu trixe" (I was wondering at first what a tiger had to do with a velar).

karis [ 2020-04-02T09:19:26Z ]

   @phma, are you willing to make corrections for these typos so we are considering a corrected document? 

phma [ 2020-04-02T13:11:26Z ]

   Yes. Are there any other typos on the page?

phma [ 2020-04-02T13:13:52Z ]

   I also notice that "lo'e" and "le'e" are not defined. Does that mean that their definitions are unchanged?

karis [ 2020-04-02T16:21:48Z ]

   Someone who reads lojban much better than me should check. 

fatci [ 2020-04-02T17:56:43Z ]

   I've read through it and found one obvious error: _lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u_, where each _ce'u_ creates a new variable, which is nonsense in this case. Suggestion: _...gi lo mebri be ri cu se cpana lo pa jirna_

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:41:03Z ]

   @phma: {lo'e} and {le'e} have a dedicated BPFK page: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Typicals

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:41:13Z ]

   Happy to see you back, by the way!

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:46:22Z ]

   I was meaning to make a motion for distributing LLG, LFK and cecmu contents into dedicated address sections lojban.org/llg, lojban.org/lfk and lojban.org/cecmu, but I see the topic has shifted back to the Xorlo motion. I suppose the website sections issue can wait for the next meeting anyway…

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:48:18Z ]

   For the reference, my Xorlo motion, which has been seconded, can be read at https://framateam.org/lojban/pl/7d73ng8oa38r5fhh3uxge9381o

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:50:28Z ]

   I agree with Xanri on the double {ce'u}.

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:51:26Z ]

   @phma: As {lo'e} and {le'e} have a distinct dedicated page, they are outside of the scope of the current motion.

ilmen [ 2020-04-04T20:54:01Z ]

   The {lo'e} and {le'e} page, unlike the main Gadri page, was apparently not yet checkpointed by the BPFK taskforce, so it was presumably not deemed to be ready yet for being submitted to the LLG for a vote of endorsement.

karis [ 2020-04-05T02:57:59Z ]

   No, xorlo isn't the topic. The proposal we are discussing is approval of the gadri pages. 

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T10:57:31Z ]

   Well, the Gadri page will be proposed to become the official temporary documentation for Xorlo, at least until the CLL is updated for the latter.

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T10:57:57Z ]

   So I wouldn't say that Xorlo is foreign to the current topic

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T15:47:58Z ]

   **gleki**: This BPFK gadri page makes things much worse than no page at all. lo'e and le'e, scope, jo'u and other JOI, ce'e, changes to gismu definitions in xorlo aspect ... all that is outside the scope of the proposal which makes the language even more broken. You can't touch just this section of the language. The rest is affected in a way that is not going to be officialized at the same time. Why

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T15:47:58Z ]

   **gleki**:  officiallize something unusable? 
   Is this the planned shift to something "other than Lojban"? Only under that assumption such officialization makes sense. I.e. make something superficially logical, later others discover it to be inconsistent and leading to more problems, finally abandon Lojban. A perfect plan to destroy the language.

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:12:40Z ]

   The Gadri page does mention the removal of implicit quantifiers

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:12:59Z ]

   Unless you're thinking of something else by mentioning "scope"?

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:15:22Z ]

   I don't think Xorlo really touches {lo'e} and {le'e} (apart from removing implicit quantifiers)

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:15:49Z ]

   I don't see how Xorlo affects {ce'e}

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:16:25Z ]

   I suppose {jo'u} is affected, but I've never understood what was the CLL interpretation of {jo'u}

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:17:24Z ]

   {me} is not really affected, the CLL definition of {me} is consistent with Xorlo's definition for {me} as far as I can tell. It's the ma'oste definition of {me} which is completely off, and the CLL should have precedence over the ma'oste.

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T16:23:36Z ]

   As for vocabulary shifting lo'i/set slots to lo/plural slots, that's a good point. We should probably add a note somewhere on the page indicating that the Xorlo reform replaced most set slots with plural reference slots in the Lojban vocabulary.

fatci [ 2020-04-05T16:45:45Z ]

   The lV'i examples on the gadri page should be removed too in that case.

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:47:35Z ]

   > ilmen: The Gadri page does mention the removal of implicit quantifiers

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:47:35Z ]

   **gleki**: Yes, I do mean removing implicit quantifiers. They break a lot of thing in unknown wsys

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:49:36Z ]

   > ilmen: As for vocabulary shifting lo'i/set slots to lo/plural slots, that's a good point. We should probably add a note somewhere on the page indicating that the Xorlo reform replaced most set slots with plural reference slots in the Lojban vocabulary.

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:49:36Z ]

   **gleki**: Most or all?

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:49:46Z ]

   > xanri: The lV'i examples on the gadri page should be removed too in that case.

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:49:46Z ]

   **gleki**: And mass gadri too then

fatci [ 2020-04-05T16:49:51Z ]


fatci [ 2020-04-05T16:51:58Z ]

   As for the mass examples, most look okay to me; only the {jmaji} one might be a little fishy.

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:55:23Z ]

   **gleki**: Where is the mention of: "the publisher CLL is no longer recommended for usage" in the proposal? And if it is recommended what is its status with the conflicting xorlo reform?

vecusku [ 2020-04-05T16:55:36Z ]

   **gleki**: ✎ Where is the mention of: "the published CLL is no longer recommended for usage" in the proposal? And if it is recommended what is its status with the conflicting xorlo reform?

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T19:24:33Z ]

   I made the suggestion that the disclaimer be located on the lojban.org front page instead of the Gadri page:

ilmen [ 2020-04-05T19:25:18Z ]

   (i.e. the disclaimer on the officialness statuses of the CLL and the Gadri page as well as the relation between the two)

vecusku [ 2020-04-06T12:39:53Z ]

   **gleki**: I see. I can only repeat my disagreement on at least paedagogical grounds. It's a kind of hijacking the  language by the LLG, its committees and those who learnt it without such internal contradiction in the documentation.
   There must be 1. a single source of truth 2. without any handwaving 3. without any internal contradictions
   There must be a trend of eliminating ambiguities in explanations of

vecusku [ 2020-04-06T12:39:53Z ]

   **gleki**:  the language like fixing mistypes, resolving cases when one part seemingly contradicts another part of the CLL, specifying the status of (even if underformalized) word lists.
   But instead this proposed reform only increases the number of ambiguities. I can't support it.
   Telling newcomers "when some (which???) part of the CLL contradicts this reform (in what way does it contradict? I'm learning

vecusku [ 2020-04-06T12:39:53Z ]

   **gleki**:  the language and want to know it from you!)" is basically telling newcomers: "go away and return maybe in 20 years if ever".
   Instead I suggest that the LLG stop reforming the language by underformalized decrees and turn to more pressing and important issues: documentation, publications, software, tutorials, proficiency tests.

mukti [ 2020-04-06T14:07:06Z ]

   I'd like to cast my vote for a general approval of the page that Ilmen indicated on the wiki, on the basis of the assumption that it reflects the consensus of BPFK and/or LFK, and that the membership delegates the description of the language to those committees. If there is a particular innovation to consider, let's subject it to a separate motion, but in general, I'd like to recommend that we not, as a membership, micro-manage the work of the language description committee(s).

mukti [ 2020-04-06T14:11:44Z ]

   I agree with gleki that LLG should consider what it can do to support the publication of documentation, especially tutorials. I would urge, however, that we delegate this work to committees and refrain from linguistic debate within the context of meetings of the general membership.

mukti [ 2020-04-06T14:21:38Z ]

   The language of the xorlo disclaimer is too prescriptive for my taste, but it seems consistent with the resolutions that were long ago adopted by this body regarding xorlo. I don't think we're going to reach a happy equilibrium until we have produced an updated CLL which includes the gadri reform that we call xorlo. It may be worth forming a committee dedicated to this task. It seems to me that would be best organized as a subcommittee of LFK: The subcommittee would edit the text of CLL to reflect the gadri reforms, submit the edits to LFK for revision and approval, and LFK would then petition LLG to publish a new edition of CLL including these updates.

mukti [ 2020-04-06T14:31:01Z ]

   I've created a channel called "LLG and loglang" to discuss the issues that And has raised about harmonizing LLG's broad ambitions regarding language and logic and its particular commitment to lojban. I hope that discussion will yield an agenda item for the 2020 Members Meeting.

vecusku [ 2020-04-06T20:08:56Z ]

   **gleki**: Can you please specify what would using non-xorlo Lojban mean for it's speakers? Should those that bought the CLL burn it? How will those that speak un-xorlo Lojban be punished?
   If someone says the language from the CLL is Lojban what would the supposed action by the LLG be?
   If a member of the LLG uses nonxorlo Lojban should its membership be cancelled?
   Please specify answers to these questions.

vecusku [ 2020-04-06T20:08:56Z ]

   **gleki**:  These are not jokes. I want to know the date of some people.

karis [ 2020-04-06T21:15:30Z ]

   As there have been no sanctions on those not using xorlo lojban since it was approved by the Membership years ago there still would be none. The only thing that might change in order to achieve a gradual shift in usage is new people would be more obviously encouraged to learn that form. Xorlo has been official, and officially the preferred form of lojban for years.
   Making the gadri pages "official" would only make them the preferred documentation for what they include. This way there's no longer an argument about which writeup is official. 

vecusku [ 2020-04-07T14:49:40Z ]

   **gleki**: I need an official confirmation that the language described in the CLL published in 2016 is still Lojban.

mukti [ 2020-04-07T15:03:36Z ]

   Gleki, it sounds like you are proposing a new item of business. Personally, I don't see any reason to suppose that the republication of CLL has any bearing on LLG's support for CLL as a description of lojban, but if you want to seek a resolution on that, let's bring it up at the 2020 meeting. I can't imagine it would be controversial.

ilmen [ 2020-04-07T19:39:35Z ]

   Gleki: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG_2007_Annual_Meeting_Minutes#The_xorlo_Discussion

ilmen [ 2020-04-07T19:39:41Z ]

   ``    1. The proposal will be considered correct Lojban until such a
       time the complete new baseline is established and approved by
       the membership. Usage according to the CLL standard will not be
       considered incorrect, but usage according to the ZG will be

karis [ 2020-04-08T13:51:51Z ]

   As we are nearing the end of this meeting, and because @mukti just suggested a topic be brought up at the 2020 Members Meeting I started a Google Drive document for that agenda.

gleki [ 2020-04-08T13:56:17Z ]

   I'm asking for an official confirmation, not for opinions or proposals of any members of the LLG.

gleki [ 2020-04-08T13:59:59Z ]

   Put it another way: I need a public website or a webpage where such official information is listed

karis [ 2020-04-10T00:45:32Z ]

   Asking for the information to be stated publicly on a website or webpage is quite different from asking for official confirmation, so I'm glad you've now made this clear, @lagleki. 

karis [ 2020-04-10T00:47:13Z ]

   As what @Ilmen quoted above is not the sort of aknowledgement you're seeking than I suggest you follow @mukti's advice and put it on next year's agenda. 

karis [ 2020-04-10T10:25:49Z ]

   @mukti, this is what I understand to be happening. It is certainly what the LFK was discussing doing earlier this year. 

gleki [ 2020-04-10T10:33:46Z ]

   That's because ilmen was hinting at the possibility of what I was curious about as being already official. I'm not sure of that. In any case I need a clear confirmation.

karis [ 2020-04-10T10:40:02Z ]

   Since several typographical errors have been pointed out do you accept the corrections of the page to be part of your proposal? 

ilmen [ 2020-04-10T11:21:47Z ]

   I hereby amend my proposal:
   I hereby move that the membership vote on which of the two following versions of the BPFK Gadri page they would favor for being subject to a vote of officialization subsequent to this one vote:
   1. http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75
   2. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
   Whichever option is selected, the typo "mokla" will be corrected to "moklu", and the example sentence «lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u» will see its last part corrected as «… gi lo mebri be ri cu se cpana lo pa jirna» — please state it expressly if you disagree with these corrections.

ilmen [ 2020-04-10T11:24:47Z ]

   I think we should go ahead and vote, unless somebody can spot a big mistake in one of the pages. If other typos are found later, I don't think correcting them is worth being voted on, whoever finds a typo there should just ask the Board to make the necessary correction.

ilmen [ 2020-04-10T11:25:57Z ]

   I think only issues with the Xorlo semantics layed out in that page should be submitted to the membership; mere issues of form or typos can be handled by the Board in my opinion.

karis [ 2020-04-10T12:50:29Z ]

   The corrections I was specifically referring to are the typos @phma pointed out, and I think there was one or two found by someone else (I haven't read back to find these specifically). I didn't mean that we should rewrite any other parts of the material first. 

karis [ 2020-04-12T02:22:59Z ]

   It is now time to vote for which version of the gadri page you prefer, as per @ilmen's amended proposal, which follows. 
   "I hereby move that the membership vote on which of the two following versions of the BPFK Gadri page they would favor for being subject to a vote of officialization subsequent to this one vote:
   1. http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&preview=75
   2. https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
   Whichever option is selected, the typo "mokla" will be corrected to "moklu", and the example sentence «lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u» will see its last part corrected as «… gi lo mebri be ri cu se cpana lo pa jirna» — please state it expressly if you disagree with these corrections."
   If you don't care which version is selected, please state that you are abstaining. As this proposal says, after this vote we will be deciding if the gadri page selected now will be considered official. This vote will be open until Monday April 13th at 23:59 UTC. 

karis [ 2020-04-12T02:34:28Z ]

   @ilmen, as a note, would the word "proposed" be removed throughout option 2 according to your proposal? I would think it would as if we select this option and vote to accept it as official there would be no need to say "Proposed Definition" nor "Proposed Keywords". 

gleki [ 2020-04-12T07:35:29Z ]

   Why no option for voting against all options?

gleki [ 2020-04-12T07:36:16Z ]

   If those who are against are abstaining this means that one of the options will pass anyway

karis [ 2020-04-12T11:19:19Z ]

   @lagleki,we are having two votes. This vote does not make any gadri page official and is basically a poll. I suggest abstaining on this vote as, not wanting any form of the gadri page to be official, you likely don't have a preference between them. Then, on the next vote, to either have a gadri page be official or not, voting against.
   Making a gadri page official won't stop the people who speak CLL lojban nor make what they are doing wrong. It will simply mean that an explanation of gadri use under xorlo will be chosen from the various explanations for those who want to use it. 

karis [ 2020-04-12T11:24:18Z ]

   Put another way, If you prefer you can certainly vote against on this as well. That will simply count as equivalent to abstaining. A vote against the second part, to follow, is a vote against having an official gadri page at all. 

and.rosta [ 2020-04-12T23:59:22Z ]

   I abstain. (I'm not sure where one is supposed to vote. There is a Private Channel called "Voting Only - LLG Members Meetings", but with apparently not messages on it,)

karis [ 2020-04-13T09:35:39Z ]

   Voting here is fine. I'll also post the proposal there in case anyone wants to vote there, and the vote totals will be posted in both places. 

karis [ 2020-04-15T04:29:23Z ]

   The results of the vote of which version of the gadri page is preferred see as follows:
   For the first option (tiki) - 0
   For free second option (mw) - 4
   Abstentions - 3
   Few second part of @ilmen's all is a vote for whether or not the winning version (http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_section:_gadri) will be made the official description of this material at this time. We can certainly vote to replace this at any time if a more complete description is presented.
   Voting starts now and will continue until 23:59 UTC on April 16th. Please cast your vote in the channel "Voting Only - LLG Members Meeting" before then. 

and.rosta [ 2020-04-17T14:06:27Z ]

   I abstain, I echo what Mukti said and I would like to move that future votes on matters that affect only Lojban be excluded from the main LLG meeting and moved to a different meeting in a different forum. Before that is framed as a formal motion (if that is necessary), it should first be established what the different meeting and different forum are.

karis [ 2020-04-18T17:45:35Z ]

   I suggest you as this to next year's agenda. We aren't adding anything new to this one so we can finish it sooner rather than later. 

karis [ 2020-04-18T17:48:21Z ]

   The vote for whether to approve the previously chosen gadri page is as follows:
   For - 4
   Against - 1
   Abstain - 1
   With only six people voting I am concerned that this decision isn't representative of the views of the rest of the voting members. It does, however, pass at this time. 

karis [ 2020-04-18T18:01:07Z ]

   I would very much like to end this meeting, so I am asking if there are any objections to moving the remaining two agenda items, started below, to the upcoming Members Meeting agenda.
   1) @ilmen proposes,
   "Put on the front page of lojban.org a prominent link to the CLL, the official Xorlo documentation (if there's still none, then notify on that page the acknowledgment that Xorlo has no official documentation) and a link to https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_cmevla (Dotside), stating that these have been officially endorsed by the LLG."
   NOTE: There is currently a link to the CLL, dotside description, and the gadri page just chosen will be listed there as well as official documentation. If anyone objects to how this section is worded or positioned and sized, please contact me directly here or at [email protected].
   2) @ilmen suggests we decide how to divide up lojban.org between content, LFK content (karis - also presumably content for other committees), and community content.
   One partial solution may be to put community content on one of the domains @mukti has reserved. 

phma [ 2020-04-18T22:38:27Z ]

   Moving them to the next meeting is fine with me.

ilmen [ 2020-04-20T22:02:55Z ]

   I'm fine with moving #2 to the next meeting

ilmen [ 2020-04-20T22:03:45Z ]

   As for #1, I think in the current circumstances it doesn't need vote from the membership and can be delegated to the Board.

ilmen [ 2020-04-20T22:04:05Z ]

   An announcement of Dotside's officialization needs to be done in the mailing list

ilmen [ 2020-04-20T22:04:26Z ]

   The Gadri page should be linked from the front page where Xorlo is mentioned

ilmen [ 2020-04-20T22:04:58Z ]

   And an announcement of the official endorsement of the Gadri page alongside the one for Dotside would probably be good as well

ilmen [ 2020-04-20T22:05:32Z ]

   all of these would be work for the Board and not the Membership, presumably

karis [ 2020-04-20T22:20:55Z ]

   The Board can certainly take care of the announcement and the front page stuff. 

karis [ 2020-04-22T03:30:40Z ]

   @channel, does anyone else want to comment?
   Also I've fixed access to next meeting's agenda so anyone should be able to edit it now. I do not like the new Google Drive interface. 

karis [ 2020-04-26T04:22:08Z ]

   Alright. Apparently no one else wants to comment since I asked several days AFI. Would someone please propose ending the meeting. At least this year we will end two months earlier than last year. 

phma [ 2020-04-27T01:12:49Z ]

   I move to adjourn the meeting.

karis [ 2020-04-27T07:01:01Z ]

   Note: Please remember to add any topics or proposals to the next Members Meeting agenda before the end of August if at all possible. The link to the agenda is:
   It will also be available in the "links" channel here on Mattermost.  
   The next meeting is planned to start on 1 September 2020. We hope to start promptly so please check back on Mattermost then. If you have any questions feel free to ask in me or in the "coi" channel. 
   @phma has moved we adjourn. Is there a second? 

veion [ 2020-04-27T08:32:05Z ]


karis [ 2020-05-02T07:33:36Z ]

   @veion, thank you.
   I want to thank all of you for your participation, by speaking or observing, in this somewhat contentious meeting. I know it was uncomfortable for many of us here. 
   As I said a few weeks ago, please add any ideas for topics or proposals for our next meeting  to the agenda. You can get to it using the link posted recently in this channel and it is also available in the "links" channel. Please complete this before the beginning of September. 
   Doing so will speed up the upcoming meeting, as will watching for an announcement/reminder for the start of the next LLG Members Meeting. It will appear, with a link for those not yet a member of this Mattermost team. It will appear in late August/very early September. 5in the "coi" channel here on Mattermost and in the Google group "Lojban", this also all the fees to which that is bridged, at a minimu. 
   ** This is the initial formal announcement that the next Members Meeting of the Lojban Language Group will begin on or about 5 September 2020 her on Mattermost. **
   @phma moved to end the meeting and @veion seconded it. Would everyone please vote on this as soon as possible, please? I will close the vote and either @mukti or I will announce the results on May 4th or sooner if all the votes are in before 23:59 the evening of May 3, 2020.

phma [ 2020-05-03T16:44:58Z ]

   I vote yes.

ilmen [ 2020-05-03T21:19:13Z ]

   I vote yes as well.

mukti [ 2020-05-04T00:40:26Z ]


karis [ 2020-05-05T21:09:03Z ]

   Alright, with my vote of yes this meeting is adjourned at 22:05 UT, May 5, 2020. Stay as safe and healthy as you can. I hope you are all able to enjoy your summers. 

karis [ 2020-05-11T13:09:20Z ]

   karis a mis à jour l'entête du canal de : LLG Members Meeting 2019 en : 2019 LLG Members Meeting

karis [ 2020-05-11T13:09:51Z ]

   karis a mis à jour l'entête du canal de : 2019 LLG Members Meeting en : LLG 2019 Members Meeting

yatima [ 2020-12-31T14:26:47Z ]

   yatima a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2021-03-16T01:05:54Z ]

   @yatima this meeting is long over.