clarifying, I hope

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

I've realized that the way I worded something in the last post on John's
proposal may not settle well, and hence would like to reword it (and maybe
focus on it in case it is a misconception to others).  I DO NOT mean to
imply that only a proposal made by Nora, John, or Lojbab warrants serious
consideration, and hopefully no one has come to understand that.  I condensed
two ideas into one sentence there.  Any proposal requiring a grammar change
must be written up to include the specific YACC changes required, which
normally John or Lojbab has done, though Colin did so with his relative
clause postings.  So we have to understand the proposal, and be convinced of
its support enough to do some YACCing, unless the proposer is willing/able to
do the work.  It is preferred that such proposals have a brief summary of
the status quo and the rationale,after the format that Cowan has used, and
has been posted on this list/printed in JL, for a formal grammar baseline
change proposal.  (I'll note that the *mo'e change has NOT reached this
state yet and is still tentative, even though John, Nora adn Lojbab
support it)
   The second part of the statement is perhaps more controversial in that
I figure that any proposal that has convinced none of the three of us to
support it probably is far enough from a consensus as to consider it still
tentative.  I include Nora because she doesn't read the day-to-day interaction
on Lojban List, but evaluates ideas strongly on their own merit (she almost
never proposes new things on her own); John and I tend to (in our opinion
at least) be more or less strongly influenced by strnegth and numbers of
support from commenters on the List, although often in different ways.
   I cetainly hope, and do not think, that we have acquired a "not invented
here" attitude and want to avoid giving that impression by what I write.

lojbab