[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
In the light of this, all I mean to say is that the current constraints on my time and net access are such that I will try to contribute to discussions that appear on jboske & occasionally read the phpbb if it is primarily a locus of record rather than of debate. This is no sort of complaint. It's just notification & explanation of my silence. Hopefully people will use jboske for technical debate, and phpbb for the mechanics of formal decision-taking, in which case it will be feasible for me to participate to the degree to which I had been hoping to. Finally, let me note that I understand & accept that Robin & others don't have the time & inclination to get involved in technical debates about the language, & I would hope that Robin will similarly understand that other people don't have the time & inclination to explore the phpbb resources he has so diligently provided. If he has sweated blood to give us good IT resources, I likewise have sweated blood to try to get Lojban a sound linguistic foundation; let's proceed with mutual respect. --And. > -----Original Message----- > From: webmaster@hidden.email [mailto:webmaster@hidden.email] > Sent: 28 April 2003 15:38 > Subject: [ lojban.org ] - New Post - Salvo 1: 27 April > > > Hello, > > The following message has been posted in Meta-BPFK.. > > Author : nitcion > URL : http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=125#125 > Subject : Salvo 1: 27 April > Message : > > This is polemic. Deal > > Before anything else, I will say (for the zillionth time): I will not > allow bpfk discussion to turn into the morass of jboske or lojban > list. And since you stuck your head out on the topic, over at the > Poll topic in NAI: that means you, Jordan. I *will* be nazi about > on-topic discussion. If anyone here feels impinged on, then feel free > to go right back to jboske, and the utterly unnavigable debate there. > If you don't like the fact that this is how I'll run things, then it > is in your power to unseat me (and let's see any of you lot run this better) > > And: it is simply unacceptable that I allow the free-form topic > meanderings that email enables. I will not preside over a repeat of > December 2002, and I shouldn't think you'd like one either. The > discussion here shall be organised and enforced into threading; and > in my opinion, this is the best way to enforce it. Frankly, I don't > see how this is that much more impractical than the wiki, which > people were happy to participate in. At any rate, this remains the > forum on offer, and until someone is prepared to invest the time to > come up with something better, you might as well use it. Since we > ummed and awwed for three months on what to put the discussions into, > you'll pardon both the webmaster and me if we are less than > enthusiastic about the prospect of switching now > > Greg: if finding the right forum and dialing up is a hassle, no email > to phpbb gateway that preserves the integrity of the current fora > will avoid that hassle that I can see. Your emailed posts must always > go to a specific, on-topic forum, or we will have chaos. If anyone > knows of a better solution, let's hear it. (I'd imagine it would be > something like storing the ID numbers of each topic, and allowing > email to go only to specified topics --- though you'd have to > download the current topics from the web anyway. I don't think that'd > be hugely more practical than logging on and going to the right forum > in the first place. This is probably doable, but I'm afraid neither > Robin nor I will do it; if any programmers here feel strongly enough > about it, phpbb is a pretty open architecture, off you go.) > > As to what causes the low level of participation, I'd have thought > the size of what I'm expecting people to do is daunting enough. We > can discuss ways of lessening that load; I want this done too, after > all. I'm now of the opinion, for example, that the shepherds should > do things like ask for volunteers to do corpus searches, or delegate > particular cmavo issues, once they have been broadly identified. But > make no mistake: this is all work that needs to be done. And noone is > going to do that work for you. (We know who we expected to do that > work for us, and how far that got.) You want a dictionary, you > contribute to it > > Arnt: you are correct that we all have day jobs. The dictionary will > get written despite that, or it won't get written at all. It has a > much greater chance of getting written like this than what we had > before. And if it takes five years, let it; as long as we're making > more tangible progress than we have in the past ten, I'm not dismayed > about missing the May 15 deadline. If you all need the psychological > boost, there are stacks of trivial paradigms out there. Compass > points, say, or mathematical constants. Do a scan for all Lojban text > ever for those cmavo, see if any issues have come up, read through > CLL, see if what it says makes sense, spend a day working out if > there are any other emerging issues, and hey presto you're done. > There'll only be 10 or 20 paradigms that offer a real challenge > > Yes, the discussions here will get abstruse, and I explicitly > organised things in the charter so that not everybody needs to > participate in every discussion. I will expect people to participate > in *some* discussions, though. And not to diss those in the rest. And > there's only one paradigm being discussed right now anyway; things > will get a lot busier > > Though I also remind you --- and that includes Craig: participants > need to identify and link to places where the debate has already been > conducted, in preference to redoing it (the djez principle). And Bob > is right that this is not the forum to open up freeform novel topics, > outside of the very restricted pro-con format. The forum for that > remains the main wiki and/or the much maligned jboske --- which has > been silent since January > > But Bob: Your reasoning that people aren't using phpbb because they > are horrified at Craig's or Jorge's revisionist proposals insults my > intelligence. There's been no shortage of fundamentalists to offer > rebuttals, and nothing has impeded anyone from going off and > researching another paradigm. The volume of posts on NAI is miniscule > compared to the greater flareups we have seen; that's not the issue. > I am happy for the vote, rather than fiat, to decide what is in of > out of bounds, in any case. The vote is already --- and unashamedly > --- rigged in favour of conservatism, because of the requirement of > consensus for change; if consensus isn't reached, the status quo > remains. That outcome is supported by the bpfk charter, and I do not > regard it as being under threat. But a community vote on this will > carry more moral weight than any amount of pronouncements from Lojban > Central, at this stage. I want to give the community the chance to > pass its own verdict, both on the more radical proposal (NAI=UI), and > the less radical (CAhA NAI) > > And even if we will disagree on details, Craig is doing the right > thing in identifying issues for discussion; and I will not rule > anything out of bounds until I see Craig's detailed record of the > standing of NAI. Bob, you are being unjustifiably peremptory to be > demanding detailed proposals and pros and cons right now. Craig is > working on it --- and he's doing more bpfk work right now than anyone > else. Let him continue his work > > I have already suggested that a decision on CAhA NAI might need to be > put on hold pending CAhA; but this does not get in the way of Craig > exploring what NAI does in general at this stage. Whether CAhA NAI > does in fact get put on hold is Craig's call first; then mine; then > ultimately the voting commission's > > If you want to respond to this post with a complaint, don't. All of > our time is worth more than that. There are seventy-odd paradigms out > there. Go out there and work on one. Identify the problems that > happen when you actually do the work --- and that, we can discuss. > The job of advancing Lojban is now on each of your shoulders > > -------------------------------- > -- > Thanks, The Management > >