WikiDiscuss

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:30:50PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> At 12:06 PM 3/5/04 -0800, you wrote:
> >Posted by: rlpowell
> >
> > > noras:
> > >
> > > I think this page, and probably many others, may have to change -
> > expand, really - as a result of interactions with other cmavo
> > (especially the other lerfu cmavo) in order to clarify interactions.
> >
> >Boy, I certainly hope so.

That was, perhaps, overstated in terms of enthusiasm. I meant something
more like, "Boy, if any complicated interactions with other cmavo become
apparent down the line, I sure hope someone will notice them so we can
re-open these sections and update them.".

> Then I don't understand the "checkpoints". Why are we voting now, if
> we know they are incomplete and we are going to be coming back and
> changing them? My checkpoint votes are based on the assumption that
> this is supposed to be more or less final, and only if a later change
> *requires* revisiting these, would we be doing so. That is far
> different from acknowledging that the thing is incomplete and needs to
> be expanded merely to understand interactions with other cmavo.

There is no inherent contradiction between 'more or less final' and
'needs to be expanded merely to understand interactions with other
cmavo'. See my re-statement above.

> As Nora noted to me, the level of review that seems to be taking place
> is much less rigorous than we would have expected the byfy to be
> undertaking.

Then she should be undertaking the level of review that she thinks
appropriate.

I stated from the outset that I am taking the BPFK jatna job in an
administrative capacity; it is up to the other BPFK members to do the
actual work.

There are 30 of them, FFS. It shouldn't be hard.

Please note that of the 30 or so BPFK 'members', *eight* people have
voted in this checkpoint. Of those, two have only voted for one section
of the three.

If you want more rigorous review, light a fire under the other 20+
members; I've tried my best.

> She thinks it is OK to proceed, if it is understood that we will be
> doing another go-round; if this is the case, I think the chair needs
> to make it more clear in the procedures what precisely a checkpoint
> approval means now, and how open things will be to changes down the
> pike.

Read http://lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Procedures

I write this stuff for a reason.

Thanks.

In particular:

- When that is done, the pages get moved to an archive for the given
checkpoint, and all the passed proposals are considered to define
Baseline LLG Lojban. Note that all proposals in checkpoint sections
must pass for a checkpoint to be complete.

- Progress to the next checkpoint then begins. Lather, rinse, repeat.

- Please note that a particular section can be opened more than once. In
particular, a future checkpoint can re-open a section if a problem
with the previously approved proposal is discovered.

> (Now perhaps it is just that no one cares that much about the lerfu
> shifts that they were treated this lightly.)

I'm certain that has a lot to do with it.

> I'll try to spend some serious review time this weekend, so I can prepare
> my own lucid comments. Sorry for being silent so long.

Don't worry too much; you're not the only one. If I wasn't so desperate
to prove that The BPFK Is Capable Of Doing Something, and that it doing
so Is Not The End Of Lojban As We Know It, I wouldn't be being so damned
antsy.

-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