Talk:Old BPFK Procedures

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

Posted by xorxes on Thu 23 of Oct., 2003 23:09 GMT posts: 1912 ...the jatna has absolutely nothing against any change that ..., ... the jatna thinks that..., ...and the jatna doesn't like it very much either.

Is Nick still the jatna, and Robin is writing this on his behalf? Is the position vacant and these are proclivities that whoever holds the office must have? Or is Robin the new jatna and we haven't been told about it yet?

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Procedures

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 23 of Oct., 2003 23:12 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 04:09:02PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > Re:BPFK Procedures > > ...the jatna has absolutely nothing against any change that > ..., ... the jatna thinks that..., ...and the jatna > doesn't like it very much either. > > Is Nick still the jatna, and Robin is writing this on his behalf? > Is the position vacant and these are proclivities that whoever > holds the office must have? Or is Robin the new jatna and we > haven't been told about it yet?

Robin is almost without question going to be the new jatna as of about tomorrow. Robin just explained this to the bpfk-announce list.

-Robin

-- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all from running out and eating all the cookies." — Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Procedures

Posted by xorxes on Thu 23 of Oct., 2003 23:33 GMT posts: 1912


> Robin is almost without question going to be the new jatna as of > about tomorrow. Robin just explained this to the bpfk-announce > list.

ui xamgu

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Procedures

Posted by "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" on Fri 28 of Nov., 2008 00:03 GMT On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM, arj wrote: > > I worry because, if sometime in the future someone wants to know what the BPFK thinks about some minor peripheral matter, such as what "je'e do'u pei" means, they will find that the BPFK is silent.

I think we usually base our decisions on four pillars:

(1) Baseline. (2) Usage. (3) Usefulness. (4) Coherence.

When all criteria agree, all is well. Fortunately that is the most common case.

When different criteria point in different directions, even when we can agree about what each criterion would suggest, we often disagree about the weight we give to each. I tend to go with (4) > (3) > (2) > (1), but others tend to prefer the exact opposite order, and others will give the most weight to (2) or to (3). And of course sometimes we don't even seem to agree about what each criterion by itself suggests.

It seems to me that the requirement of almost unanimity practically entails that the BPFK will have to remain silent on some issues.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Earlier

Posted by arj on Thu 27 of Nov., 2008 18:59 GMT posts: 953 Recently, Adam and Jorge had a disagreement in a minor point in _BPFK Section: Intensifiers_. They solved it not by discussing until agreement was reached, but by removing the sentence that caused the disagreement.

I, too, have sometimes offered to address a disagreement about matters that I think are peripheral to the main topic of the section.

It is all well and good that we are pushing ourselves and each other to get this done, and we should congratulate ourselves for not getting bogged down in endless spiralling discussions once again. At the same time, I worry.

I worry because, if sometime in the future someone wants to know what the BPFK thinks about some minor peripheral matter, such as what "je'e do'u pei" means, they will find that the BPFK is silent. And that is not good. The BPFK was established because the Lojban community doesn't want ambiguity and Humpty-Dumpty interpretations. They want definite answers. And they want cmavo definitions that are as thorough as possible.

Is this a serious threat to the quality of our work? Should something be done to remedy it? Maybe it would be a good idea to separate out contentious issues from a section, so that the non-controversial part can be rubber-stamped, and the controversial part be thoroughly discussed?

Perhaps it is the Elephant we need? (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Elephant)

-arj