LLG 2020 Annual Meeting Transcript

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:50:24Z ]

   karis a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:51:09Z ]

   Welcome to the main channel for our new Members Meeting. Please add anyone you know wants to participate. This meeting is open to non-Members. 

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:38Z ]

   and.rosta a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:38Z ]

   clsn a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:38Z ]

   banseljaj a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:38Z ]

   guskant a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:39Z ]

   dersaidin a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:39Z ]

   ilmen a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:39Z ]

   john.cowan a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:39Z ]

   lalxu a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:39Z ]

   lagleki a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:40Z ]

   lojbab a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:40Z ]

   mukti a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:40Z ]

   noras a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:40Z ]

   krtisfranks a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:40Z ]

   solpahi a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:40Z ]

   rlpowell a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:41Z ]

   suskeyhose a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:41Z ]

   ueslis a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:41Z ]

   veion a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:42Z ]

   phma a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:42Z ]

   uakci a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-09-15T00:53:43Z ]

   xorxes a été ajouté au canal par karis.

banseljaj [ 2020-09-15T01:21:55Z ]

   Hello everyone.

karis [ 2020-09-15T11:47:39Z ]


and.rosta [ 2020-09-15T14:33:00Z ]

   I am present but perforce inattentive.

suskeyhose [ 2020-09-16T20:11:40Z ]

   I'm not sure what the process is for this is officially, but I'd like to put on the docket that I'd like to become a member of the LLG. I'm concerned with how few of the members of the LLG are still actively involved with the greater online lojban community, and as a result want to volunteer.

karis [ 2020-09-17T00:59:56Z ]

   There will be a point when I ask if anyone wants to put themselves or another up for election to the Membership. That would be when it is traditionally done. Until then please participate as much as you are able. 

prenuvaic [ 2020-09-17T02:05:33Z ]

   prenuvaic228803 a rejoint le canal.

prenuvaic [ 2020-09-17T02:10:37Z ]

   hi, novice lojbanist, just here to watch :)

suskeyhose [ 2020-09-17T13:20:54Z ]


fatci [ 2020-09-18T11:20:46Z ]

   xanri a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-09-18T20:17:22Z ]

   Since all LLG Members Meetings are conducted that won't be an issue. Welcome! 

karis [ 2020-09-19T18:33:45Z ]

   I meant conducted in English. If someone speaks another language we will try and find someone to translate, and if they know lojban getting a translator is generally easy. 

karis [ 2020-09-24T19:22:31Z ]

   Do any of you think there has not been sufficient (two weeks according to the Bylaws) notice to start this meeting? 

karis [ 2020-09-26T23:31:32Z ]

   THE 2020 Logical Language Group (LLG) Members Meeting is now called to Order. It is September 26, 2020 at 23:20 UTC. 
   Thank you all for participating this year. I am Karen Stein, otherwise known as. Karis, and I am the current President of the LLG. I'm particularly excited to have some new people joining us. 
   Don't worry if you are not A Member (someone voted into the organization who is expected to participate) as the only differences between Members and Non-Members are that Members vote and if necessary a section of the meeting may take place with only Members present. Everyone's feedback, ideas, and comments are welcome. 
   As the question has come up in the past, the LLG conducts business in English as it is Incorporated in the United States. If you are not sufficiently fluid in English please tell us and we will do our best to find a translator for you within the community. For lojban, of course, that is usually no problem. 
   At this time I ask everyone here to please state your name (or names) and an indication of your presence. 

phma [ 2020-09-26T23:38:25Z ]

   I am Pierre Abbat (mi'e .piier.abát.), and I am here.

prenuvaic [ 2020-09-26T23:59:49Z ]

   I am Ethan Dole, I am present

suskeyhose [ 2020-09-27T01:27:34Z ]

   mi'e la srasu je la saski'os je la'o gy Joshua Suskalo gy

banseljaj [ 2020-09-27T02:56:20Z ]

   I am Ali Sajid Imami / banseljaj. I am here.

and.rosta [ 2020-09-27T09:41:46Z ]

   And Rosta (here in the meeting but barely in Mattermost)

noras [ 2020-09-27T16:52:13Z ]

   Nora LeChevalier (noras) is present.

lojbab [ 2020-09-27T17:06:39Z ]

   mi'e la lojbab. po'u la'o gic. Robert LeChevalier gic. la'o . i mi cazi zvati 

lojbab [ 2020-09-27T17:08:48Z ]

   sasi (The second la'o wasn't needed. The gic was the delimiter) .i mi cazi zvati

karis [ 2020-09-27T22:46:55Z ]

   @noras caught a typo in my opening statement. I am, indeed, the current President of the LLG. I apologize for any confusion this error caused. 

karis [ 2020-09-27T22:48:00Z ]

   I will do my best to keep you posted about topics under discussion and votes, @and.

gleki [ 2020-09-29T06:27:08Z ]

   coi do mi jundi mi'e la gleki

veion [ 2020-09-30T02:49:30Z ]

   mi'e la veion .i mi zvati

mukti [ 2020-09-30T14:16:11Z ]

   I am Riley Martinez-Lynch. I am present.

ml2 [ 2020-10-01T03:05:50Z ]

   ml2 a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-10-01T12:38:27Z ]

   @channel, Well, that seems everyone for the moment. Anyone who joins later will be added to the attendance list.
   We currently have 9 Members out of a total of 20 Members. Until and unless two more people join, or tell the meeting or an Officer (myself as President, @lojbab as Vice-President, and @mukti as Secretary /Treasurer) they wish to resign we will be unable to deal with Bylaw Amendments.
   I am also pleased to welcome the Non-members who hove joined us. 

bookofportals [ 2020-10-01T21:18:31Z ]

   bookofportals a rejoint le canal.

bookofportals [ 2020-10-01T21:18:53Z ]

   I'm here.

ueslis [ 2020-10-01T23:09:32Z ]

   My name is Wesley Wilson (ueslis.uilsyn.). I am present.

la_melijaubi [ 2020-10-02T11:56:34Z ]

   la_melijaubi a rejoint le canal.

ilmen [ 2020-10-06T21:50:28Z ]

   I'm here, I'm a member.

karis [ 2020-10-07T14:10:32Z ]

   Excellent. The meeting now meets quorum rules, which may make some of our work later easier.
   If anyone believes there was not at least two weeks notice given for this meeting, as directed in the Bylaws, please tell us now. Otherwise we will assume there was sufficient notice and move on.

karis [ 2020-10-07T14:16:26Z ]

   Please announce if you want to read the minutes from the last meeting in full. If no one wants to do so I'd like to proceed with this meeting so we can get to the interesting part more quickly.

karis [ 2020-10-13T23:45:43Z ]

   @channel ,
   Since no one has said they don't believe there was enough notice for this meeting either time I asked, we can proceed with the understanding that sufficient notice was given. 
   No one has indicated a desire for the minutes of the last meeting to be presented for all to read, so they will be finalized and saved. 

ilmen [ 2020-10-15T17:04:08Z ]


karis [ 2020-10-19T11:22:44Z ]

   Thanks for answering. 

bookofportals [ 2020-10-22T00:01:20Z ]

   I'm not actually the LFK chair, but I am deputizing to deliver our report. Apologies for how long this has taken.
   Report of the Lojbo Fuzykamni (LFK)
   The LFK got off to a seemingly very successful start in January and February. We adopted procedures and began productive discussions about structuring an official Lojban dictionary, which led to us setting up the dictionary as a wiki. We agreed that the dictionary was our highest priority project. We also had some early discussions about organizing an RFC process, as called for by our charter. We also had initial discussions about how to take over the maintenance of the CLL. 
   Things changed dramatically in March when committee activity came to an abrupt halt. Although we did not formally discuss why at the time, it is apparent that the primary cause was the COVID-19 pandemic, which interrupted the lives of people around the world. Unfortunately, our activity never resumed. The committee is not currently active, and approving this report is the first objective we have finished in months.
   The committee believes that our early work is worth continuing. It appears that most of the committee members are around but currently inactive. To continue work towards our goals, the committee would have to resume activity, which would likely involve recruiting new people. It is unclear how successful we would be at doing this, given the current world circumstances and most committee members' inactive status.  If we could become active again, we believe that the next step would be resuming our projects (the dictionary, CLL, and RFC projects) as resources allow.

karis [ 2020-10-22T17:52:14Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2020-10-22T18:08:36Z ]

   Internal conflict during the Members Meeting made it much longer and less effective than it should have been. In addition, much of it was about the same issue that has come up every several years -- Is lojban the primary focus of the LLG. The answer is yes. Lojban has always been the primary focus of the LLG and continues to be. We are happy to support other logical languages of interest to our Members and followers only secondary to lojban. 
   We did get some important work done as well:
   To remove the confusion of having two gadri descriptions we voted to make the one at the following page official:
   The Members Meeting got the new language committee, founded in 2019, under way. It got off to a good start and will hopefully be able to continue its work. 
   We worked to form a committee to address the interests of some in lojbanistan in other lojbanistan languages. It is unclear at this time if the committee exists as anything more than an idea at this time due to some of the disagreements that occurred. I would like to have such a committee to interface with other logical language communities and work being done under the auspices of the LLG using its own website to avoid issues of the committee being under lojban at lojban.org. Some work towards this was accomplished. 
   Much of this past year has also involved each and every one of us dealing with Covid-19. That's taken a toll in many ways on all of us and on the work that's been done since February or so. 
   The Board voted to contribute with the same Officers. If anyone is interested in learning the aspects of one of them, please contact the current Officer in your positron of interest or discuss it with me. 

karis [ 2020-10-22T18:09:30Z ]

   The Vice-President, @lojbab, has notified me he has nothing to report at this time. 

ilmen [ 2020-10-24T18:15:43Z ]

   As for the officialization of http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_section:_gadri , has any public announcement been made (e.g. in the main mailing list)?

greg_g [ 2020-11-08T21:58:02Z ]

   greg_g a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2020-11-22T05:11:12Z ]

   I want to apologize for having disappeared. It's been one thing on top of another. 

karis [ 2020-11-22T05:13:31Z ]

   I'm not sure since this was taken on by a committee. I haven't heard anything much of what was going on in it since the main action moved from here. 

mukti [ 2020-11-24T13:42:08Z ]

   These are tumultuous times.

mukti [ 2020-11-24T15:22:24Z ]

   I hope that everybody is staying safe. I've lost a couple of family members to the pandemic over the last month. 

karis [ 2020-11-26T01:34:21Z ]

   I'm so sorry, @mukti.

karis [ 2020-11-26T01:35:24Z ]

   Are there any more reports to submit? 

ilmen [ 2020-11-27T18:39:28Z ]

   Mukti: I'm sorry to hear that. I offer you my condolences, however little that may be.

karis [ 2020-11-28T14:27:11Z ]

   As I haven't heard anything about more reports, I'd like to move on. Are any of you who aren't Members interesting in joining? This only effects your ability to vote as anyone can contribute to or ask questions in our Members Meetings, or raise concerts and questions with both Board Members and Officers any time. 
   Remember, Membership does come with the expectation that you will stay involved with this group, The Logical Languished Group, beyond the end of the current meeting. 
   So, two key questions...
   Do any of our non-Members want to join the LLG voting Membership?
   Also,  do any of the current Members wish to be removed from Membership? 

suskeyhose [ 2020-11-28T14:44:11Z ]

   I have some interest in becoming a voting member.

karis [ 2020-11-29T12:13:34Z ]

   Is there more you'd like explained or questions you have that would make your decision easier, or are you interested and feeling hesitant? 

karis [ 2020-12-01T02:49:37Z ]

   dinynaus. a été ajouté au canal par karis.

karis [ 2020-12-01T02:49:37Z ]

   djeikon a été ajouté au canal par karis.

suskeyhose [ 2020-12-01T04:25:14Z ]

   I am most definitely interested.

karis [ 2020-12-04T15:55:48Z ]

   @suskeyhose has announced they would like to be a voting Member. 
   Therefore, please cast your votes on admitting suskeyhose to the LLG Voting Membership. If this passes they will begin that role at the announcement of the votes. the results. 
   I am opening the vote on this now and it will end at 23:59 UTC on December 6.

banseljaj [ 2020-12-04T20:02:08Z ]

   I vote yes for including @suskeyhose as a voting member

phma [ 2020-12-06T00:15:57Z ]

   I vote yes.

karis [ 2020-12-06T19:24:51Z ]

   With three votes in favor, counting mine, we have no clear statement that adding @suskeyhose to the Voting Membership has majority approval. On rereading the Bylaws I was reminded that adding a new Member requires, "election by a majority of all the members of the Corporation, in person or by proxy.... the Secretary/Treasurer shall be required to certify that a majority of the membership has supported the recommendation."
   Please add your votes,  for, against, or in abstention quickly so we can formalize whether or not @suskeyhose becomes a Voting Member. Then we will have only election of the Board coffee Directors remaining before we get to the topics on the agenda. 

lojbab [ 2020-12-08T05:55:28Z ]

   I vote yes. I also ask for an opinion by John Cowan as parliamentarian, whether the bylaw as written means that a majority of all LLG members must approve of a new member, or whether it means that a majority of all of those who are present either in person or by proxy who are members of the corporation.  If the attendance is taken to match that in Sept and October when the quorum was determined, then I think there were 12 members then present, and 7 would be a majority.  Otherwise, we need 11 out of the 20 members to approve.  I am pretty sure we've had this discussion before, but cannot recall the answer, so alternatively mukti or someone else can look at the meeting record for the last couple of meetings to see how many approved of other new members.

ilmen [ 2020-12-08T16:52:56Z ]

   I vote yes as well.

ilmen [ 2020-12-08T16:53:15Z ]

   (albeit lately)

karis [ 2020-12-11T13:34:50Z ]

   This is so frustrating. We all want meetings to be shorter and more interesting, but too often we get held up waiting for more participation to proceed. I can't speak with certainty at the moment, but if I remember correctly the whole issue of how to remove people who hadn't participated in several meetings resulted from this same problem -- how can we add members if enough members aren't actively participating?

karis [ 2020-12-11T13:45:39Z ]

   While we continue to wait on more votes regarding @suskeyhose's desire to join the LLG Membership, and in order to move the meeting along, that vote will be running in the background as we proceed.
    In order to get to old and new business sooner I now ask for those interested in being Members of the Board for the next term (approximately a year) or who want to nominate someone else to please state your interest now. Any current Board Members who want to continue must state this desire as well. 

karis [ 2020-12-11T13:46:47Z ]

   I hereby state my desire to be elected to the LLG Board for another year.

and.rosta [ 2020-12-11T14:09:31Z ]

   I abstain on the vote. Regarding Board: work--life imbalance means I am unlikely to remember to check in on Mattermost regularly, and therefore my ability to make a useful unobstructive contribution is pretty limited. I'm willing to accept a nomination for the Board if I am nevertheless nominated, but I won't nominate myself.

karis [ 2020-12-11T14:20:42Z ]

   Thank you for responding quickly. I hope your work-life imbalance eases at least some soon. 

gleki [ 2020-12-11T14:22:16Z ]

   I hereby state my desire to be elected to the LLG Board for another year.

karis [ 2020-12-11T14:23:32Z ]

   Thank you as well. 

gleki [ 2020-12-11T14:23:45Z ]

   And, what'd be your preferred way to communicate via the internet that would make you disappear less? Email, another messenger, phone calls, etc?

karis [ 2020-12-13T11:21:32Z ]

   @and.rosta just said why he isn't more active in these meetings. I don't see why "making him disappear less" is any of our jobs. 
   When he's needed .I will continue to tell him and others who've requested the service when topics change or a vote has been announced. Then it is any of their decision what to do with that information, and it seems he will usually take a look here. 

gleki [ 2020-12-13T12:39:08Z ]

   In general case such notifications can be automated as it's already done for mattermost/discord/telegram that are bridged. If emailing is desired development of autonation tools for it can be discussed 

and.rosta [ 2020-12-13T17:50:27Z ]

   Ordinary email (with ordinary sender, subject, reply options) would suit me far better. But there's no point going to any trouble to accommodate my needs, because even at the best of times I don't have enough to offer that could justify that effort.

karis [ 2020-12-14T03:50:39Z ]

   Sending out notes the way I've been is very little trouble and you aren't the only one taking advantage of it. That way you,  and they, receive emails at the email of your choice and, since they aren't sent in bulk or automatically they have a normal sender email, subject, etc. We do not need this process automated. 

gleki [ 2020-12-14T06:21:29Z ]

   No idea what made you think they will have no normal email, subject etc.

karis [ 2020-12-14T06:55:37Z ]

   Many mass emails and notification emails do not. It really doesn't matter as we aren't going to do this as there's no need now. 
   Please, @lagleki, keep the discussions on the designated topics during the meeting. If you get an offer you want to discuss, add it to the agenda rather than bringing it up in the meeting directly. That will help the meeting proceed and is how meetings are supposed to run. 

lojbab [ 2020-12-15T22:00:46Z ]

   I am willing to serve on the LLG Board for another year.  I apologize to the community for my ongoing lack of prompt attention to organization matters.  I cannot plead work-life imbalance as my excuse like And does, nor is my health currently in danger as it was for a few years.  I'd like to do more with Lojban, but the projects that I've had in mind never seem to get started and they are big ones that need a lot of sustained time.  Maybe someday.

gleki [ 2020-12-16T10:38:12Z ]

   Any help needed with those projects?

karis [ 2020-12-20T11:16:11Z ]

   Help is definitely needed. At the same time discussion of this is not going to get in the way of our meeting. Such discussion can take certainly take place after this meeting has concluded. 

mukti [ 2020-12-21T06:29:50Z ]

   I'm going to abstain on the vote for @suskeyhose because I don't know their interests or qualifications. I'm an easy get, but without knowing who they are, it doesn't seem to me to be responsible to vote for them.
   I think it would be good if membership petitions included either a statement from the candidate member describing those things, or an introduction from a member to that effect. I would also request that a legal name is included in the petition, since membership is a relationship with legal consequences. I would recommend that we only vote for members when we understand these things.
   I suspect there is a notion of a quorum, and if enough people do not participate in a vote, it might not be actionable. But that deserves a more definite interpretation.

mukti [ 2020-12-21T06:31:31Z ]

   I would read "election by a majority of all the members of the Corporation" as requiring a majority of members: Not just those who happen to respond.

mukti [ 2020-12-21T06:34:01Z ]

   I support Karen, Gleki, and Lojbab to remain on the Board– I think that's everybody who has put a name forward– and I also request to continue myself. 

mukti [ 2020-12-21T06:36:56Z ]

   We may want to take this opportunity to review the membership of those who haven't participated in a while, in order to lower the barrier to membership.

gleki [ 2020-12-21T08:55:29Z ]

   That's a very important observation and iirc it's not the first time it's mentioned. The result of not following this proposal will increase probability of a defunct organization. Which did happen in fact

karis [ 2020-12-22T05:05:06Z ]

   @mukti, I do request the legal (first and last) names of people who become members. These get recorded on our website, and I have a record of these stored in Evernote. I'm fine with discussing both when these should be provided and if during the Members Meeting. 
    As for writing up an introduction, that is a great idea. I'm sure @suskeyhose would be willing to describe their interest and experience with lojban, and that may help anyone who's unsure. 
   Personally I think it would be a good idea to either request or require (where I'm leaning) anyone wanted to be A Member attend the majority of one Members Meeting first. For any who may not have realized it who don't remember, @suskeyhose did attend last year's meeting. 
   @lagleki, I'm not sure if you are referring to @mukti's suggestion that when someone puts themselves or someone else forward to be added to the Membership, or that their legal name be included. 

karis [ 2020-12-22T05:10:09Z ]

   As far as looking, per @mukti's comment above, to see who could, by the criteria we voted on previously, be removed from the Membership I'll post the information I have so the rest of you can review it and make comments. I'm pretty sure there's only one person we kept on last year who would now meet the criteria for removal, but I'll double check tonight or tomorrow. 

gleki [ 2020-12-22T07:08:40Z ]

   I support all of mukti's proposals in this thread.
   In addition I request that new members explain in CLL or official Lojban why they want to become a member, what are their plans, how they contributed in past. if they can speak English they should translate that text to English. If not others will translate. This requirement will not be applicable to existing members and Founders (Karis,lojbab, jcowan etc.) once they wish to rejoin.
   Non active members should be removed before voting for new members.
   Legal names is must for everyone ofc.

karis [ 2020-12-22T07:31:22Z ]

   I understand that you want all Members to be literate, if not even fluent in lojban as a requirement for Membership, @lagleki. That would need to be a Bylaw amendment as the specific requirements for Membership are included there. rather than simply a decision (or even just a suggestion to those putting someone forward for vote). 

gleki [ 2020-12-22T07:32:17Z ]

   That's simply a recommendation. It's not formal.

karis [ 2020-12-22T07:32:53Z ]

   Do, please, remember then that the Board rejected this for themselves so it would be rather odd to even request it of Members. That could easily be seen as putting pressure on new ones as well as unfair to them that we aren't asked to do it. 
   As part of the information they give us about why they want the position and what they can contribute some will choose to include their level of knowledge and language use without us asking our even mentioning it. Others won't, then all voting can decide individually based on the information. 

gleki [ 2020-12-22T07:34:57Z ]

   If a person can't speak any Lojban why would they want to join? Why adding arbitrary people?

karis [ 2020-12-22T07:51:42Z ]

   I'm happy to have your questions discussed more in our channel "Side Conversations". If you or anyone else wants to move it there, you may add it to the agenda, or both.
   There are two important and required proposals open right now, and responding to your questions is involved and will postpone them even longer. 

karis [ 2020-12-22T09:21:32Z ]

   According to my records of past participation in these meetings, Paul Swift and Adam Lopresto are the only people who have not attended in two previous meetings. I am not able to get into the Minutes for 2017 or 2018, and I'm missing the complete listings for the attendees of both. 
   I think I remember one or both resigning or being removed also so what information the rest of you have about this too would be really helpful. @mukti, in particular, I'm hoping you have the information. 

banseljaj [ 2020-12-22T14:34:49Z ]

   I do believe Paul Resigned a while back. Likely 2017.

karis [ 2020-12-23T00:41:06Z ]

   Thank you. I don't have access to the emails from either the Member or Board meetings before we moved them here so I cannot check. I no longer have access to the email account I used. That's why I'm having to ask the rest of you. 

gleki [ 2020-12-23T06:48:53Z ]

   Send me your new email. I will try to add you back.

lojbab [ 2020-12-24T00:50:07Z ]

   gleki, I think And would point out that there are people interested in logical languages other than Lojban who are involved in LLG (including himself).  But I also need to point out that the Members voted to start holding annual meetings in Lojban back around 2004 with translator support optional.  The decision was never actually rescinded to my recollection, but absolutely no one spoke for actually implementing it when the next meeting started.

gleki [ 2020-12-24T06:01:25Z ]

   Yes. That's why if we had been in 2004 I wouldn't have suggested that.
   But times changed. I don't ask those who are from 2004 to show their knowledge of Lojban. For the others reaching fluency is a matter of few months.
   As for other logical languages they don't have rich history or they have too few speakers. Only Lojban is mature. That's why whether they are interested in them or not they should show the knowledge of Lojban as the absolutely minimum in loglangology.

mukti [ 2020-12-28T21:39:16Z ]

   Our bylaws specify that "qualifications of persons proposed for membership shall be … competence in [mission-relevant] fields of science or scholarship … and/or … high personal dedication to the purposes of The Logical Language Group". An introduction in Lojban, or really any loglang, would be one way of demonstrating competence and dedication. But I personally wouldn't want to rule out other modes of demonstration.

mukti [ 2020-12-28T21:45:40Z ]

   I will confirm Paul's status and update the wiki accordingly. Adam was removed from the list of members in March. I thank Karen for her assistance in keeping that list up to date.

suskeyhose [ 2020-12-28T22:23:40Z ]

   In the spirit of the above suggestion, and to potentially assist with those voting members who do not know me, this is a spoken sample of my lojban, introducing myself.

karis [ 2020-12-28T23:56:08Z ]

   For the upcoming year the people who've said they are interested in being on the Board are:
   Karen Stein (karis)
   Robert LeChevalier (lojbab)
   Riley Lynch (mukti)
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki)
   Please cast your votes now for either the group as a whole or for individuals. Votes for the group are recorded as one vote for each.
   Voting will end at 23:59 UTC on January 2, 2021, but please vote now. 

karis [ 2020-12-29T00:35:57Z ]

   As for how this election is carried out, according to the Bylaws, "At the Annual Meeting of members, the three (3) persons receiving a plurality of the votes cast and up to four (4) additional persons receiving a majority of votes shall be Directors and shall constitute the Board of Directors for the ensuing year." 

gleki [ 2020-12-29T05:20:12Z ]

   So maybe you would also want to share your goals, your motivations why you would like to join, what you would like to contribute with.
   I know that's not required either.

fatci [ 2020-12-29T09:45:34Z ]

   coi la srasu .i pe'i ca lo tolfa'o be lo cabdei ze'a pu ku ze'a lo nanca be li za'u mu ku no da jbovokta'a ci'e su'o tutra be la lojbangri .i .i'o gau do de'a smaji
   [Hello, srasu. I think that nobody has spoken Lojban out loud on LLG territory in over five years. I appreciate you breaking the silence.]

mukti [ 2020-12-29T21:40:22Z ]

   I took a pass at transcribing suskeyhose' introduction for the record. Please amend as needed. (Thanks for doing that, by the way!)
   coi rodo 
   mi'e la srasu
   .i jalge .y lo nu co'e kei fa lo nu ca'e mi .y sajgau ro do tu'a mi
   .i ca ku mi karcykla lo mi zdani lo jai bu'u jibri be mi
   .i .y ja'e bo lo mi menli cu masno lo nu pensi je finti lo .y lojbo jufra
   .i ta'o nai mi tadni la lojban ze'a lo nanca be li re
   .i je mi vokta'a .y so'e da poi jgopre .y se pi'o lo mi voksa je nai
   .y .y lo .y skami po'o .y
   .i mi so'a roi gunka lo nu finti lo proga 
   .i je .y mi nelci ro bangu
   .i mi se bangu .y re da ca ku .i ku'i mi ca .y  ji'a tadni .y la jugybau
   .i va'u da'i lo nu .y do te preti da mi .y si si mi da .y kei mi .ai spuda
   .i co'o

suskeyhose [ 2020-12-29T21:42:26Z ]

   pro'oga -> proga
   karcekla -> karcykla
   Otherwise looks good to me.

mukti [ 2020-12-29T21:44:12Z ]


mukti [ 2020-12-29T21:45:15Z ]

   I cast my vote for the slate of directors who have volunteered.

karis [ 2020-12-29T23:46:28Z ]

   Excuse me. The official language of these meetings has always, at least in practice, been English. When lojban or any other language is used, please provide a translation or ask for help making one. Similarly if we have someone attending who isn't fluent in English may ask for translations of what everyone else says, to lojban if they speak it well enough or to another language. If lojban is not beings used we will attempt to find someone who can help. 

gleki [ 2020-12-30T08:36:41Z ]

   I cast my vote for the slate of directors who have volunteered.

noras [ 2020-12-30T17:10:39Z ]

   I vote for the slate of 4 volunteers listed.

lojbab [ 2020-12-30T17:12:54Z ]

   I vote for all  4 listed by karis

veion [ 2020-12-31T04:00:59Z ]

   I cast my vote for the slate of directors who have volunteered.

phma [ 2020-12-31T06:05:03Z ]

   I vote for all four.

karis [ 2020-12-31T07:19:20Z ]

   Thank you for adding the translation, @xanri.

karis [ 2020-12-31T07:22:54Z ]

   Our website is down at the moment so I cannot double check, but by my records there are currently 18 voting Members. 

yatima [ 2020-12-31T14:20:55Z ]

   yatima a rejoint le canal.

karis [ 2021-01-01T18:18:35Z ]

   Welcome, @yatima.

karis [ 2021-01-01T18:19:12Z ]

   Happy New Years, Everyone. May it be healthy and happy for all. 

karis [ 2021-01-08T19:53:50Z ]

   Total current Members: 18
   Number who've voted: 7 (counting my vote for the full slate), all in favor.
   The Board of Directors for the Logical Language Group is:
   Karen Stein (karis)
   Robert LeChevalier (lojbab)
   Riley Lynch (mukti)
   Arkadii Balandin (gleki)

karis [ 2021-01-08T20:02:12Z ]

   We've now reached the more interesting part of Members Meetings. In order to two this meeting from running and longer than it has to I hope we can get through this quickly.
   As a reminder, the agenda can be found at: 

karis [ 2021-01-09T20:21:21Z ]

   Our first topic, and the only one listed as old business, is the following from @ilmen:
   "We should decide how to share lojban.org between LLG content, LFK content, and community content. I think there should be a clearly separated section for each of them and the LFK should be the only entity able to modify pages in the LFK section. The LLG Board would control the LLG section and the front page, which should display links to all aforementioned sections. (LLG, LFK, community). "

karis [ 2021-01-14T00:13:00Z ]

   Does anyone have anything to say about this? 

ueslis [ 2021-01-14T04:07:11Z ]

   That sounds reasonable to me. I think that there needs to be a clearly accessible section for nintadni to be informed about changes that have been made since the CLL was published, by the BPFK and LFK.

gleki [ 2021-01-14T10:11:11Z ]

   Sounds reasonable to me too

karis [ 2021-01-14T17:12:08Z ]

   I expect there's no reason for us to put thought into the LFK section since the committee has been dormant for over 6 months. We can add that should the committee start work again.
   I like the idea of having clearly marked sections for official and user created materials. Having a clearly marked nintadni section also makes sense. 

phma [ 2021-01-14T20:29:07Z ]

   Sounds good to me too.

karis [ 2021-01-15T17:43:07Z ]

   The question was not just if we should do this, but also how. Suggestions? 

karis [ 2021-01-16T15:28:58Z ]

   My only concern about the initial suggestion by @ilmen is that it specified only LFK members could modify that section. Since committees are a part of the whole organization I suggest that all Officers, at a minimum, be able to make changes and add new people to those able to make changes. That would prevent the problem that exists now with the initial dictionary setup put together under the LFK. None of the officers, and quite possibly none of the Board Members can change who has editing access nor access allowing ok to add others later who want to continue the process. It's such a waste of expertise, effort, and time. 

karis [ 2021-01-16T15:38:11Z ]

   If there are no more comments or related proposals made by Sunday at 23:59 UTC this topic will be closed and we will move on to NEW BUSINESS and the last topic on the agenda. My hope is to finish this meeting by the end of this month, if not sooner. At the same time, if people were actively engaged in discussion I would be happy for it to run a bit longer. 

ilmen [ 2021-01-16T19:23:45Z ]

   > Since committees are a part of the whole organization I suggest that all Officers, at a minimum, be able to make changes and add new people to those able to make changes.
   Sounds reasonable to me.

karis [ 2021-01-16T20:18:42Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2021-01-18T13:23:22Z ]

   There's been basically no discussion on this topic this year. In order to vote on @ilmen's proposal, with or without the friendly amendments, it needs a Second. Now the time. 
   @Ilmen's proposal:
   "We should decide how to share lojban.org between LLG content, LFK content, and community content. I think there should be a clearly separated section for each of them and the LFK should be the only entity able to modify pages in the LFK section. The LLG Board would control the LLG section and the front page, which should display links to all aforementioned sections. (LLG, LFK, community). "
   @ueslis suggests a clearly marked section for nintadni.
   @karis suggests, "Since Committees are a part of the whole organization, all Officers, at a minimum, be able to make changes and add new people able to make changes to Committee sections, such as that designated for the LFK. "
   Taken as a whole the resulting organizational structure for the main lojban website matches very closely that suggested by myself and others at our meeting a year ago. 
   1) Are there any objections to including these two suggestions with the original proposal? 
   2) Does this proposal have a Second? 

suskeyhose [ 2021-01-18T14:02:12Z ]

   I don't believe this was the intended channel for that image

suskeyhose [ 2021-01-18T14:55:39Z ]


suskeyhose [ 2021-01-18T14:56:13Z ]

   (more related to the business at hand, I'd have seconded, but I was not confirmed)

karis [ 2021-01-18T19:56:56Z ]

   No, I'm sorry. I was taking a picture so my wife could see her incisions then deleting it. She just had a heart valve replaced by femoral catheter. 

karis [ 2021-01-18T19:57:40Z ]

   There's been a huge problem with getting people to vote this meeting. 

ilmen [ 2021-01-18T21:13:02Z ]

   > That sounds reasonable to me. I think that there needs to be a clearly accessible section for nintadni to be informed about changes that have been made since the CLL was published, by the BPFK and LFK.
   I guess that could be a LLG page harboring a changelog for all the changes approved by the LLG since CLL v1.0

ilmen [ 2021-01-18T21:14:11Z ]

   Could also be a LFK page but a LLG page makes more sense if it is about changes endorsed by the LLG

karis [ 2021-01-18T21:21:28Z ]

   Is the LFK actually doing anything these days? 

ilmen [ 2021-01-18T21:35:47Z ]

   not that I know of

ilmen [ 2021-01-18T21:36:36Z ]

   I can think of one possible technical issue with moving all the unofficial pages to a `community` or `cecmu` section, that of broken hyperlinks

ilmen [ 2021-01-18T21:37:31Z ]

   Is there an easy way to avoid that?

ilmen [ 2021-01-18T21:41:00Z ]

   I have written a reworded version of the proposal, as a motion this time:
   I move that three different sections be created on the lojban.org website:
   • An LLG section containing all the LLG pages and other official materials; this section would be modifiable only by LLG Board members or persons appointed by the LLG for that task.
   • An LFK section for the LFK page, modifiable only by LFK members and LLG Board members (and possibly people appointed by them for the task).
   • A community section (I'd recommend `cecmu` for its name) for harboring pages created by registered lojban.org users; the materials in this section would be clearly indicated as being unofficial.
   These sections may be reflected in the URL of pages (for example something like `https://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG/main`, `https://mw.lojban.org/papri/cecmu/xorlo`) and should be indicated at the top of the pages they contain (I suppose that one of the easiest way to do that in the current setup is to prepend the section name to the page title, as is the case with the UserWiki:username personal page sections, see https://mw.lojban.org/papri/UserWiki:Ilmen/lo_smuni_be_zo_kau for an example).

phma [ 2021-01-19T07:10:33Z ]

   I second the motion.

karis [ 2021-01-19T13:09:48Z ]

   Thank you, @ilmen and @phma.

karis [ 2021-01-20T01:48:45Z ]

   @ilmen as proposed the following and @phma seconded it.
   I move that three different sections be created on the lojban.org website:
   • An LLG section containing all the LLG pages and other official materials; this section would be modifiable only by LLG Board members or persons appointed by the LLG for that task.
   • An LFK section for the LFK page, modifiable only by LFK members and LLG Board members (and possibly people appointed by them for the task).
   • A community section (I'd recommend `cecmu` for its name) for harboring pages created by registered lojban.org users; the materials in this section would be clearly indicated as being unofficial.
   These sections may be reflected in the URL of pages (for example something like `https://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG/main`, `https://mw.lojban.org/papri/cecmu/xorlo`) and should be indicated at the top of the pages they contain (I suppose that one of the easiest way to do that in the current setup is to prepend the section name to the page title, as is the case with the UserWiki:username personal page sections, see https://mw.lojban.org/papri/UserWiki:Ilmen/lo_smuni_be_zo_kau for an example).
   Voting is now open. Please have your votes in by 23:59 UTC on January 21st. Thank you. 

ueslis [ 2021-01-20T07:43:44Z ]

   I vote in favor of this motion.

ueslis [ 2021-01-20T07:45:19Z ]

   Side note: I think we should keep lojban terms like "cecmu" as part of the lojban version of the website, while keeping other sections as part of their respective languages, so as not to confuse nintadni.

phma [ 2021-01-20T09:50:56Z ]

   I vote yes.

gleki [ 2021-01-20T13:52:39Z ]

   I vote yes

mukti [ 2021-01-21T03:09:47Z ]

   I support Ilmen's proposal.

ilmen [ 2021-01-21T19:46:09Z ]

   We could also use "official" instead of "LLG" for the LLG page namespace

ilmen [ 2021-01-21T19:47:28Z ]

   I seem to remember that moving for a proposal doesn't entail voting for it, so I hereby vote in favor of the proposal.

karis [ 2021-01-26T16:34:02Z ]

   You're correct. They're two different actions,  as are seconding and voting for a proposal. 

karis [ 2021-01-26T19:35:24Z ]

   I'm sorry I haven't posted anything in almost a week. My mom died last Thursday from a heart attack and I've been helping my dad.
   Please, @channel, we have six votes for @ilmen's proposal (clouding mine), none against, and no abstentions. There are 17 Members currently of whom 11 have indicated their presence at this meeting. Therefore, @ilmen's motion passes. If anyone not currently on the Board (Member or not) wants to work on this project, please message me directly.

karis [ 2021-01-26T19:35:39Z ]

   Our next, and last item on the Agenda is New Business..
   @gleki, it is unclear which of the following you intended. 
   Are you proposing that  we "approve the revised candidate edition of the cll published at lojban.pw. " (ie. the candidate edition already exists there) or that we create a revised candidate edition of the CLL to be published at lojban.pw (ie. the candidate edition doesn't exist yet). 

phma [ 2021-01-26T19:41:33Z ]

   Oooh, very sorry to hear that. My cow-orker died last week, and besides missing him as a friend, I'm trying to find someone who can try out my software and find clients.

karis [ 2021-01-26T21:20:42Z ]

   I'm very sorry for your loss too. 

gleki [ 2021-01-29T18:44:56Z ]

   The first one. The candidate edition exists

karis [ 2021-01-29T18:49:24Z ]

   Thank you. 

karis [ 2021-01-29T18:52:06Z ]

   @gleki purposes at the LLG Members vote to approve the updated version of the CLL currently available at lojban.pw. The topic is now open for discussion. 

ilmen [ 2021-01-29T22:20:10Z ]

   My sincere condoleances.

ilmen [ 2021-01-29T22:24:43Z ]

   As for the CLL update candidate, if I'm not mistaken, this is the list of changes since CLL v1.1:

ilmen [ 2021-01-29T22:34:58Z ]

   That's quite a lot of changes to review; I must say I haven't been following closely the work on that version candidate.

ilmen [ 2021-01-29T22:37:47Z ]

   I see that it includes my work of incorporation of Dotside into the CLL as well as cmevla terminology improvements.

gleki [ 2021-01-31T07:54:47Z ]

   You can also use the visual diff document

karis [ 2021-02-01T02:27:01Z ]

   Thank you. 

phma [ 2021-02-02T16:19:25Z ]

   I've been running through the visual diff and I've found a few things that still need to be fixed.

karis [ 2021-02-03T03:24:01Z ]

   It sounds like this version isn't ready to publish as a replacement yet, we're we to decide to do that. The meeting also really should wrap up soon. Maybe this proposal needs to be put off for the next meeting. What do the rest of you think, @channel?

gleki [ 2021-02-03T12:28:10Z ]

   How do you know they need to be fixed? Please list them. Do you mean that the cll 1.1 published by robin lee powellin 2016 is better than this candidate edition?

phma [ 2021-02-03T23:39:38Z ]

   So far I've filed three and just noticed another: {toldi} isn't only "butterfly", {kuarka} isn't well formed (this example was in the first printed CLL before the BPFK decided to ban syllables beginning with a consonant followed by a glide), {brlgan} (this too was in the first printed CLL before we decided what the syllable structure is), and 9.16 has {zarci} for "office".

gleki [ 2021-02-04T06:20:22Z ]

   Regarding toldi and kuarka i think you first need to consult LFK. You are proposing major changes. Such changes can be discussed forever. In my candidate edition I mostly have mistypes fixed, bare contradictions removed and dotside applied.
   brlgan - not sure what you propose to change.
   zarci might need to be fixed but notice we can search for such errors forever. We need a better edition of the cll compared to 2016, not a perfect edition. We can collect mistypes and officially publish a new fixed edition every year with recommendations from LFK in case changes are significant. But for now I suggest that we approve my candidate edition. I believe that it is better than 2016, not worse. Do you agree that it is better?

phma [ 2021-02-04T09:56:43Z ]

   I agree that it is better.

gleki [ 2021-02-04T11:34:09Z ]

   I don't believe we can achieve a state of perfection. For example, I strongly believe that we can't apply xorlo to it anytime soon since it's lead to basically a new book with lots of changes to revise and discuss (and probably not at the LLG meeting). Changes to morphology need special treatment by committees like LFK. We can't make such hasty decisions since it may lead to a broken or ambiguous language. 
   toldi is said to be a butterfly. That's not the only place where the cll contradicts gimste. Dictionary project hasnt been presented to the cll by anybody. So let's concentrate on doable things. If you propose precise changes they can go into future candidate releases. I don't think it's a good idea to cancel a new release forever because someone finds a bug that is still present in the official release.
   Have you noticed any deteriorations in my candidate release compared to Robin's official release from 2016?

ueslis [ 2021-02-04T19:50:30Z ]

   If we are actually going to update the CLL, it should really include all major changes since its publication. Certainly xorlo would fall under that purview. I also think that the use of fu'ivla as rafsi needs to be updated, as the section in the CLL covering it only covers a proposal, and it does not include all aspects of fu'ivla rafsi that are used today.

phma [ 2021-02-05T03:31:26Z ]

   I'm about 1/5 through reading the diff. Besides the place I noticed (which doesn't mention moths but mentions large brightly-colored wings), is there anywhere that the CLL states that {toldi} includes butterflies but not moths?

gleki [ 2021-02-05T11:32:10Z ]

   Have you read my candidate edition? It has dozens of fixes that are not that major as xorlo but nevertheless can lead to confusion. Since we don't have anyone to write down AND revise xorlo changes can we please first deal with minor but noticeable bugs like mistypes, bare contradictions?

gleki [ 2021-02-05T11:33:02Z ]

   Not sure but you can just use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F) to search for any text.

karis [ 2021-02-06T05:30:04Z ]

   Referring anything to the LFK is difficult if the committee isn't active, as seems to be the case. As for approving this version, I asked before if this would be better if we asked anyone interested to go through the whole document as. @phma is doing, or the changes only before the next meeting or better to keep this meeting going until we all have a chance to review it? 

chadkennedyonline [ 2021-02-15T22:54:50Z ]

   chadkennedyonline a rejoint le canal.

mukti [ 2021-02-16T07:02:45Z ]

   I want to commend gleki, ilmen, and anyone else who has contributed to the CLL edits. I'd like to support getting the edits published, but I don't think that keeping this meeting open would be helpful to that end. The republication of CLL was a careful, community-driven effort, and what I have seen of those edits adheres to that tradition. The meeting hasn't intervened in the editing of previous publications, and I don't think it should start. Let's designate a committee specifically charged with the publication of the next edition of CLL, to report back to the next meeting. I will volunteer to sit on the committee, but I request that someone else step forward to chair it.

karis [ 2021-02-16T12:59:04Z ]

   That sounds like an excellent idea, @mukti, unless what's left o of the LFK wants this as a subcommittee, as this project was hibernation to them last Members Meeting.

ilmen [ 2021-02-16T14:18:04Z ]

   If the LFK can take care of that, I'm not sure why should we create yet another committee

mukti [ 2021-02-17T01:16:04Z ]

   My concern is that the ambitions of LFK are somewhat unbounded, whereas in this case the task is finite. LFK wrestles with stimulating issues. Getting a book published involves a lot of tedium: Ask Robin! I'm open to LFK taking this on, and/or spinning off a subcommittee to do the same. I Just don't want this effort to remain stuck.

karis [ 2021-02-17T02:08:23Z ]

   We definitely don't want any major project like this trapped in any committee. I'm just concerned about chasing off more enthusiastic people by stepping on toes unnecessarily. 

phma [ 2021-02-18T07:49:52Z ]

   I think the publication committee should be separate (not necessarily disjoint) from the LFK. Publishing a book and regulating a language, even if the book is about the language, are quite different tasks.

gleki [ 2021-02-18T12:22:53Z ]

   Of course. There are at least 4 separate tasks:
   1. Approving of changing the content of the cll
   2. Actually changing the cll and compiling it in electronic form
   3. Printing it on paper
   4. Distributing
   My project is mostly about 2. and to some degree 1.
   We need volunteers for 3. and 4. because robins method produces expensive books.

ilmen [ 2021-02-19T22:50:34Z ]

   phma: How far have you gone in your review of the UnCLL?

ilmen [ 2021-02-19T22:52:31Z ]

   I'm pretty much done reviewing it, except for the Chrestomathy appendix

phma [ 2021-02-19T22:59:52Z ]

   I'm about 1/4 through. I have a survey going on, and I've had to move stuff to prepare for replacing the floor, on top of my usual programming work, so I haven't had much time for it.

ilmen [ 2021-02-19T23:03:04Z ]

   I've noted down 31 parts of interests, some of which might be controversial changes; apart from these everything seems fine to me.

phma [ 2021-02-19T23:16:04Z ]

   I've also been chasing possible jobs and people interested in marketing my surveying software.

gleki [ 2021-02-20T11:12:38Z ]

   ok maybe when you finish you will list them so that we can vote what needs to be reverted to the state of the cll 1.0 or cll 1.1?

maik [ 2021-02-20T15:02:54Z ]

   maik a rejoint le canal.

ilmen [ 2021-02-20T18:04:51Z ]

   gleki: I'm in the discontinuous process of making the list presentable

ilmen [ 2021-02-20T18:05:25Z ]

   Also, hi Maik

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:37:17Z ]

   Here are all the possibly contentious points I have found:

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:37:38Z ]

   As I said, I haven't read the chrestomathy at the end of the UnCLL however.

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:38:48Z ]

   Many of these are just changes whose motivation I don't understand, or changes which some people might disagree with

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:39:53Z ]

   Many are not very important details

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:41:54Z ]

   However a few things like replacing "djuno le jei" with "djuno tu'a le jei" should be discussed furthers before considering applying them to the CLL, in my opinion

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:43:17Z ]

   I think that for the CLL, {jei} is the same thing as the experimental {xau'a}, i.e. it doesn't return a truth value but a predicate (ka/du'u type), so that {djuno le jei} would not contain any sumti raising.

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:47:02Z ]

   (I'm sending it again because I've just corrected a potentially confusing typo)

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T11:49:57Z ]

   I don't think I will have the time to read the chrestomathy carefully in the forthcoming week

gleki [ 2021-02-21T14:57:55Z ]

   All in all your problem is that the diff doesn't (and can't?) contain motivations and explanations of changes. Most of them are listed in the original github issues. So I guess we can just just amend your list by adding links to the explanations.

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T17:30:36Z ]


mukti [ 2021-02-21T22:01:50Z ]

   I'm glad to see a granular discussion of these changes happen– but I would urge that we take this offline. The meeting can do things like delegate decisions to a committee (which it has) and approve a report by the committee, but it would frustrating for all involved if we try to edit here!

karis [ 2021-02-21T22:02:34Z ]

   coi @maik.

mukti [ 2021-02-21T22:04:07Z ]

   Once decisions have been taken by the committee, the members can commit resources to republication. The board can also do that when the members meeting is not in session. In the case of the last edition of CLL, decisions were taken both by the meeting and by the board to support republication.

karis [ 2021-02-21T22:06:05Z ]

   I agree. Since anyone who wants can be involved in LFK discussions would it make sense to move this discussion, and a discussion about whether to form a sub-committee to address he CLL update, into the LFK Mattermost section so we can close out this Members Meeting? 

ilmen [ 2021-02-21T23:35:01Z ]

   Would a Board approval/vote suffice for officializing the conclusion of the LFK on the reviewed CLL version candidate?

maik [ 2021-02-22T11:26:15Z ]

   coi .karis

karis [ 2021-02-22T14:52:55Z ]

   As I understand the Bylaws the Board could approve the final draft from the LLG if the draft is presented to it when the Members Meeting is not in session. 

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:53:12Z ]

   OK, so the best thing to do is probably getting some people willing to review the UnCLL for the LFK, and then after they reach some consensual conclusion, we get the Board to officialize it — presumably on the basis of the report/summary of the LFK, as the Board is unlikely to read the whole UnCLL in their turn, that would be duplicate work

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:53:42Z ]

   I'd say, any member of the Board who is closely interested in CLL update should join the LFK review team

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:54:40Z ]

   This will leave Pierre some time to finish their review

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:56:32Z ]

   Even if I finish reviewing the chrestomathy appendix, the LLG meeting can't reasonably officialize the candidate version on the sole basis of my own review, in my opinion.

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:57:51Z ]

   So it seems more reasonably to delay the matter for a couple months and then call the Board for requesting officialization

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:58:06Z ]

   and close this LLG meeting

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:58:46Z ]

   Any LLG member not member of the Board who would like to have a say on the officialization can join the LFK discussion, even if not as an official member, as far as I can tell

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T16:59:37Z ]

   Does that sound reasonable?

gleki [ 2021-02-22T17:36:58Z ]

   I added links to the issues and added motivations behind all the issues you found. Please, have a look https://gist.githubusercontent.com/lagleki/198d66883c8af12ae3d881803b5ff843/raw/c500007a1c881341a158de0e05a72a4bbaa60fa3/gistfile1.txt

gleki [ 2021-02-22T17:37:40Z ]

   I agree that more people should take a look. I dont want believers to arise.

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T20:50:05Z ]

   .u'i ie

ilmen [ 2021-02-22T20:53:05Z ]

   But apart from me, you gleki, and Pierre, who else will volunteer for reviewing and validating the update candidate?

karis [ 2021-02-23T12:16:01Z ]

   I see no problem with a Board member helping with the review. In fact @gleki is on the Board, so by that reasoning he shouldn't be able to work on it. 

karis [ 2021-02-24T10:18:18Z ]

   I am referring to @ilmen's comment, "Any LLG member not member of the Board who would like to have a say on the officialization can join the LFK discussion, even if not as an official member, as far as I can tell." 

karis [ 2021-03-04T16:22:42Z ]

   @ilmen, did you mean what I thought, or something else? 

karis [ 2021-03-04T16:31:27Z ]

   @channel, we have two things left to do and I suspect we'd all appreciate having this meeting finished. First, let's settle if there's general agreement about ilmen's suggestion, with clarification on what he meant above. Second, please, will one of you then propose we end the meeting?

ilmen [ 2021-03-06T22:43:21Z ]

   I think it is a appropriate to postepone a little the examination of officialization of the CLL candidate version, for Pierre hasn't got the time to finish their review — and I'm not completely done with mine either.

ilmen [ 2021-03-06T22:44:57Z ]

   My impression of the candidate version is positive, but I haven't yet read the chrestomathy appendix, and anyway I don't think the LLG should proceed on an officialization only on the basis of the review of a single person (me in that case).

ilmen [ 2021-03-06T22:46:28Z ]

   So I think the best thing to do is to end this meeting and then call the Board for officialization when me, Pierre and possibly others (other reviews would be desirable, but I haven't seen anybody else volunteering) are ready to report their conclusions.

ilmen [ 2021-03-06T22:49:07Z ]

   As I'm not seeing any good reason to keep the meeting going, I'm hereby moving that the meeting be ended, unless somebody else has an objection.

phma [ 2021-03-06T23:59:44Z ]

   I second the motion. I'm a little less than halfway through.

mukti [ 2021-03-08T18:42:11Z ]

   I'm going to take Ilmen's suggestion and join LFK, at least as an observer, so that I can help to facilitate any publication-related requests to the Board. I also support Ilmen's motion, as seconded by Pier.

karis [ 2021-03-09T18:17:30Z ]

   Ilmen has proposed this Members Meeting end at this time with the candidate CLL update to be brought before the Board for approval when fully reviewed, preferably by more than just one or two people. phma has seconded it. 
   Voting starts now on this proposal. Please cast your vote before 23:59 UTC on March 13, 2021.

gleki [ 2021-03-09T19:38:21Z ]

   I vote aye

phma [ 2021-03-10T21:11:36Z ]

   I vote yes.

ilmen [ 2021-03-13T13:42:14Z ]

   I vote yes as well.

karis [ 2021-03-14T03:08:48Z ]

   We have, with my vote, five votes to end the meeting, none against, and no abstentions. Just based on the number of Members who've participated in this meeting we need several more votes to reach half ago I'll give people another day or two to cast their votes. 

ueslis [ 2021-03-14T04:11:48Z ]

   I vote yes.

veion [ 2021-03-14T17:00:27Z ]

   I vote yes

lojbab [ 2021-03-14T20:56:08Z ]

   I vote yes for adjournment.  I suggest that the chair set a date a few days hence, asking for any objection, and if there is no objection the meeting can then be adjourned without a majorityof votes.

and.rosta [ 2021-03-14T21:45:10Z ]

   Yes to end

karis [ 2021-03-16T16:19:23Z ]

   The vote to end this Members Meeting results to date are:
   For - 9
   Against - 0
   Abstain - 0
   There are currently 18 voting Members and one additional Member on a leave of absence. As there are Members who haven't participated in this meeting we have enough votes to conclude this meeting.
   Over the next several months please add the topics and specific proposals you would like to the agenda for our next meeting. It would help the meeting to run smoothly if they are on the agenda before the meeting starts. Here's the link.

karis [ 2021-03-16T16:23:55Z ]

   Also, anyone interested in reviewing all our part of the potential CLL update that's now under evaluation please, please join the LFK channel here. That's where links can be found and discussion on this work will be happening.