Subject:
|
Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:40:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1936 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok, picking up where I left off with the previous post.
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Consensus among all
> stakeholders is hard to check for if there is no formality whatever, no
> process to ensure inclusion, no mechanism for tallying views.
>
> So I'd like to see the larger organization work moved forward as well. There
> were a few folks working on this in the past. Maybe it's time they spoke up
> and gave somewhat of a progress report and got things started again, this
> time with a new vigor to get things all the way to the point where they are
> ready to present for consensus. I imagine that a fair bit has changed since
> the last burst of activity on this. (and a fair bit hasn't)
The group charged with working on this was Steve Bliss, Jacob Sparre
Andersen, Terry Keller, Larry Pieniazek, and myself. There hasn't been much
activity among the four of us as of late, but I've been spending some time
talking with Steve about this, and also spending time drawing input from
various people in the community who aren't involved here, but whose opinions
I trust. See this post for reference:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183
I guess before I get too into this, it needs a preface: This is a hobby.
Everyone here does LDraw stuff because it's fun for them. Many have
expressed they don't want to see things bogged down in bureaucracy, I agree,
too much bureaucracy could stifle the fun for contributors, not a good
thing. We should be sure to frame an organization in that light, but we
should be sure to have an organization, because it gives us a solid footing
to grow our hobby even more, which means in the long term, more fun for
everyone.
I know the group I mentioned above needs to discuss this some more before
outlining a plan of action and posting for feedback. But, I want to at least
get out a few reasons _for_ an organization, as relevant to the current
state of the LDraw community.
The intent of a formal org in my mind is not to bog decisions down in red
tape. In fact, it is to free us, to establish a clearly defined process for
decision making, and clear legitimate authority to back decisions up, which
we do not have right now. It is to facilitate the further promotion and
evangelism of LDraw tools to new users, to give us a springboard from which
to spread the word about our free tools to others.
We need to move towards a formal nonprofit organization because:
- Ultimately, a formal organization can carry a charter to keep the core
LDraw properties - the file format and the parts library, freely accessible
to all.
- A formal org will give us a platform from which to request community
ownership of the original LDraw properties. I feel if we demonstrate our
responsibility in maintaining James' attitude of keeping these tools free,
the Jessiman family will grant that.
- A formal org will be able to legitimately and legally resolve the issues
with the licensing of the parts library.
- A formal org will be able to channel resources to promote LDraw-based
tools to the public far better than we as individuals can.
- A formal org will give us more respect and recognition from other
entities, opening the possibilities for exposure for LDraw tools. [1]
Those are some of the key reasons.
While as I said I don't want to get too in-depth with this now, I felt the
need to reply to Larry's prompting up there. We should focus on making this
something that encourages and promotes growth and cooperation, not something
that restricts and boggs down progress.
Feel free to add thoughts. This is a huge undertaking (as the ILTCO guys
have experienced), and it will take several weeks before some clearer ideas
can be put up for feedback. I think the forming of such an organization
implies the need for a membership system as well, which is something Steve
has thoughts on.
That's all for now.
> > > I think we should take this energy and focus it on the tech standards body.<<<
It's needed immediately in my view, and this organization will take quite a
while to pull together simply based on all of the work involved. The formal
org is a longer term project which requires a lot of discussion among the
group I mentioned, and then some buy in from the greater community. I'll be
working on organization stuff with the others, as this is a project I'm
committed to seeing through. It just won't all happen right away.
-Tim
[1] As a side note: why do we want this? Everywhere, I mean EVERYWHERE I've
gone and spoken on LDraw stuff, or not even that, but everyone I've spoken
to about this who isn't so connected with the community really loves what
the community has done. They always wonder why it isn't in schools, or why
it's so hard to set up, or this or that. I have to explain the nature of the
commuinty is rather free-form. Many see the potential of this free software.
I think if we organize ourselves, many many more people will be able to
enjoy what this community has put together.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
| This thread has grown so much since Friday it's hard to know exactly where to interject.... so I just picked a spot. I'll have more to say later after reading the thread again but wanted to throw a few comments out. (...) YES! Exactly. And one could (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
