-Robin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
-Robin
-Robin
Am 18.11.2012 19:48, schrieb Robin Lee Powell:Is anyone currently working on it?
There are probably 20 people on this list with most or all of the
requisite skills. No idea which if them would take money for it;
I've offered, and gotten no reply.
I can understand gleki's frustration, and I can also understand yours. I don't really understand how so many people just prefer to watch passively what happens. The BPFK has done a lot of great work already, it's a shame it completely ran out of steam.
I don't think a single person alone can get much done, and I also doubt that anyone would want a single person to make all their decisions for them, especially in a language as Lojban, where we still have a considerable amount of things that must be discussed before they can become official. Don't people want to have a say in it? If yes, then they must speak up, offer their help, get involved or else they must accept that they can't complain about any decisions that are being made without them.
What is the community's general opinion about the current state of affairs? Are people generally happy to wait and stay in this gray area between old and new Lojban?
We get lots of newbies on IRC and each one of them reminds us of the fact that we don't have a single up-do-date, official description of our language. We have to tell each time that they can learn from the CLL or Lojban for Beginners, but that there are several outdated things in those materials. Is it not in everyone's interest that people new to the language get welcomed by proper learning materials?
There are countless cases of dicussions, both on this list and on IRC about issues that some people believe are already solved but which others believe are unsettled. There is lots of mutual disagreement and even more confusion and obscurity because there is such a huge contrast between old and new cmavo definitions, for instance.
This is just a report of the current situation the way I experience it. Mainly, I'm confused about people's motivations.
I know that some years ago, some people agreed to make you (rlpowell) the Benevolent Dictator, but what were they thinking? Did they just want to free themselves of any responsibilities? A single person can in no way do all of this without getting overwhelmed, and it seems that is exactly what has happened.
What do people think about this now?
I'm not sure what the best solution is, or what step must be taken next. All I'm seeing is that we're stuck. In my opinion, we (and by "we" I mean everyone who wants to participate) should make sure that the docbook project gets finished as soon as possible and then we must immediately reactivate the BPFK.
If there are, as you say, 20 people on this list that could help with the docbook project, then those people are urged to speak up. We need you! If you haven't yet noticed, some of us are desperate enough to pay you for this job.
For what it's worth, gleki is talking about CLL2.0 because he's doubting that there will ever be a completed CLL1.1 at this rate and he considers the CLL1.1 relatively useless because it would still be outdated, which is true, of course. xorlo and dotside are by far not the only changes.
He and I were merely wondering how to move Lojban forward. One idea was to give up on CLL1.1 and get straight to the actual CLL2.0 that incorporates *every* change, not just xorlo and dotside. I told him that this is not an easy thing to do because we must discuss these changes together as a community, no single person has the right to make changes without the approval of at least some notable Lojbanists.
When I told you about this idea some time ago, you made it very clear to me that it would be a terrible idea to start already so I did nothing about it. The only way for this to be a useful idea is to have enough people of the old BPFK team coming together and finishing off the remaining issues (of which there are of course quite a few). Then, to create the actual CLL, all we need to do is get the old CLL on a wiki and make changes to it accordingly. Everyone who understands what they're doing can help at that point. Then once all the changes have been worked in, a team will read over everything and double and triple check. And probably some final dicussions will ensue, but the goal will be near by then. That's my vision anyway.
I've probably written enough now; those are my spontaneously-written-down but for-some-time-had thoughts, no more and no less. If anyone has anything useful to say, please do so.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku
.
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> Of course it is. That's why it's so important that the CLL1.1 is
> finished. [snip]
Yes, very useful and desirable. I again welcome anyone who is willing to
help to speak up and accept our money.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
-Robin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
What's gitorious?
It's on github; http://github.com/dag/cll/
-Robin
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:57:18PM +0100, Remo Dentato wrote:
> I would not be shocked that much by the lack of a page numbered
> index. I don't use them very often. Using section numbers (as
> xorxes suggested) would be perfect once the section number is on
> each page.
>
> My 2c
>
> remod.
>
> P.S. Does the cll-docbook repository on gitorious contain the
> latest version of docbook files?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Robin Lee Powell <
> rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
As far ad I'm concerned, sections or pages doesn't matter as long as it is properly and completely indexed. I've read many texts with either scheme and I never had any problems.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
Yeah, don't listen to gleki. Lack of activity does not mean dead, whatever he says.
Speaking of, is there a BPFK task list? I would not be surprised if I'm not the only BPFK member who isn't doing anything solely because I don't know what needs doing.
On Friday, December 28, 2012 7:25:25 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:Yeah, don't listen to gleki. Lack of activity does not mean dead, whatever he says.
Speaking of, is there a BPFK task list? I would not be surprised if I'm not the only BPFK member who isn't doing anything solely because I don't know what needs doing.
If so it's vitally important to me that selpa'i, tsani, latro'a and me (.o'acu'i) are allowed there. Are they?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/GiF8n-GI050J.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
There is no real task list at this time. The big projects I have in
my head are the CLL updates for xorlo, finishing a dictionary (i.e.
working on
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KUquj0w5V5Q7V6t2sne43Xb4kOkspHegbvwMzW-2NlM/edit
) and making a less crappy jbovlaste.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 08:40:34AM -0500, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG wrote:Also, as someone just mentioned some people just don't
> v4hn wrote:
> >I know the BPFK is not dead, I recognize a lot of names on the member list,
> >and I haven't been around for too long.
>
> It isn't dead. It just has nothing to do as a GROUP, because there
> haven't enough individuals actually doing the individual things that
> need to get done, which are mostly boring and time-consuming, (or
> requiring specialized knowledge).
know what needs to be done and how they can help!
If CLL 1.1 is not about making decisions, not about including proposals, etc.
> > But it looks like that to me
> >because there weren't /any/ "official" announcements concerning decisions
>
> That is because there have been no such decisions, and there won't
> be any until after CLL 1.1 is done. We have to document the status
> quo before we consider changes, or people won't know what is being
> proposed to change.
then WHAT THE @!#$ _is it about_? Just typesetting?
The work that needs to be done for the baseline is nicely described here
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Community+Work
and I understand why it is hard to make progress with this..
(Though it seems, this is the best place to start contributing)
How does one get feedback on the stuff he wrote there,
given that he attempts to update some definitions?
Just wait for an email from someone who got notified about the change?
Does everything in there need to be finished for CLL 1.1 or do I mix up stuff here?
Will these definitions be included in the CLL (1.1?)?
> >or even new official proposalsAt least in practice it seems to me like xorlo is such an official proposal
>
> There have never been ANY official proposals since byfy started.
which is still not incorporated(whatever this means exactly).
> >or any other progress within the last year.That's a rather blurry and - given that Robin does not even have time
>
> The progress, such that it is, is whatever Robin says that it is.
> He was granted essentially dictatorial powers until (at least) such
> time as CLL is updated.
to describe things - non-helpful description of what should be done.
Ok, he has dictatorial powers. But if few other people know what to do,
then something is severely wrong...
Concerning editorial work...
There is a TODO file/the issues page on github, but a lot of items on that list
are just incomprehensible to me. What exactly does e.g.
"<lojbanization> tables are shit" mean?
v4hn
Well, it means that tables that utilize the <lojbanization>* should not be used, because they are "shit".
and a comparative reference grammar that discusses several dozen
languages in more or less the same format of 10-50 page essays.
I did a study of lexicography in the 1990s to learn how to write a
proper dictionary.
> But this is something that must be discussed further.
NOTHING "must" be discussed further.
Things must be DONE, not "discussed". Discussion is the enemy of
getting things done.
And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to habitually do,
makes paying attention to your proposals antithetical to getting things
done.
> But this is something that must be discussed further.
NOTHING "must" be discussed further.
Things must be DONE, not "discussed". Discussion is the enemy of
getting things done.
And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to habitually do,
makes paying attention to your proposals antithetical to getting things
done.If you mean helping with CLL 1.1 i already expressed my opinion.As for rewriting cmavo definitions i dont understand how I can help.Do you wish i presented a ma'oste with new definitions? what would it change?everyone would ignore it.
> As for rewriting cmavo definitions i dont understand how I can help.
If you don't understand, then probably you cannot help. No one has time
to figure out how to enable others to help. The current situation,
alas, is one in which one single person has to do a lot of work and
serves as a bottleneck until they have time to get done. But all other
approaches that we've tried have failed, because people with limited
time are more interested in discussing than in doing.
> Do you wish i presented a ma'oste with new definitions?
No.
> what would it change?
> everyone would ignore it.
I hope so.
I don't want any change to the cmavo list.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 07:10:25PM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:Just to be clear about it: "that work" refers to (1) the work
> He wants of you the same thing he wants of all of us- to shut up about our
> ideas, STOP trying to fix perceived faults in the language, and just stop
> endlessly debating how the language "ought" to be at least until the work
> that NEEDS TO BE DONE before any of those thing matter in the slightest
> GETS DONE.
>
> Absolutely no changes will even be considered until that work is done, so
> any proposals are a waste of your breath and our time.
described here http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Community+Work
to get on with the cmavo definitions for the baseline
and it refers to (2) the formatting issues in the CLL,
which ento (thank you for that!) just recently pushed to the github
cll issue tracker at https://github.com/dag/cll/issues
(AND everything that comes to Robin mind, whenever he's around...) ???
Both are fairly well defined tasks which could be done by anyone
with enough time and (for 1) an idea of what certain cmavo are about
or (for 2) some knowledge about how xml works and how to use git.
So yes gleki, you probably can take on something from these tasks and do that. {.ui}
However, as I look through the byfy sections nearly all of them appear blue,
which is supposed to mean "ready for voting".
To me this looks like _there is_
currently work for the BPFK? This is surely no trivial work, but it is
well defined: "Read through the sections and vote on whether or not they are
coherent with how you understand lojban."
Will this happen in the near future so these sections get checkpointed?
Is the voting apparatus/process still up and running?
Are there members of the BPFK gone/away without official leave?
Would this hinder the voting?
Is there a list/a way to create a list of all missing cmavo,
which still need to be described? Without such a list, who is to know if
the baseline is complete?
> When the baseline is complete, and not before, is when proposals may beWell, at least "perceived faults in the language" are documented somewhere
> submitted for consideration- and there's a formal procedure for that, too.
> Until then, it is an utterly pointless activity.
by then, so it's not totally pointless to write mails about them.
However, it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss problems which
require changes in the language definition, agreed.
v4hn