WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: lerfu Shifts

posts: 14214

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:30:56AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
>
> Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Shifts
>
> > rlpowell:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:52:06PM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Shifts
> > >
> > > Okay, I've updated my recommendation to include the new sections.
> > >
> > > I've avoided the word "deprecated", instead using arj's wording
> > > that the words should not be included in future learning
> > > materials.
> >
> > Please make sure that it is absolutely clear whether your proposal
> > is that these cmavo be freed for future, different uses. You are
> > welcome to even state a proposed timeline for making them available
> > for re-use, if you wish.
>
> Am I missing something here? Isn't the purpose of the BPFK project
> to make the last changes to Lojban, ever?

Not quite. It's a bit more complicated then that. See
http://lojban.org/llg/baseline.html

For example:

During the baseline freeze, LLG will not consider any change
proposals to the language, and will encourage anyone seeking to
have a proposal considered after the freeze ends, to formally
write their proposal up in Lojban. Any such proposals will be
collected in a controlled "wiki" format and accessible on the
lojban.org website, but will not be formally considered. If
errors in the baseline documents are detected during the
baseline period, they shall be similarly documented in Lojban,
and may be formally considered by the appropriate language
standard group of the time (which by default will be the rump
form of the commission established below).


> If cmavo forms are to be relinquished sometime in the future,
> someone has to have the authority to make that change happen.

Not so; the BPFK has the authority to make such a decision now.
There is nothing that says that all BPFK decisions must take effect
immediately.

> For the record, I can live with keeping the cmavo, and I can live
> with scrapping or reassigning the cmavo, but at the moment I'm not
> able to see any benefits of a solution in between.

Neither am I, particularily. I didn't say it was a *good* idea,
just that it is a possibility.

-Robin