 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm going to snip out the stuff I'm not going to comment on
> Another thing to note: The "LDraw" file format is set in stone, and it is
> whatever LDraw/LEdit can use. The "LDraw.org" file format is extensible, and
> based upon meta-commands. The goal here is to form a direction for the
> extension of the LDraw.org file format, and define future standards and >formats.
I like this distiction. Now we can concentrate on forging a new path
without having to worry about legacy DOS programs
> Requirements for Membership
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors become members
> of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following requirements:
>
> - Authored an LDraw part subsequently released in an Official LDraw.org
> Parts Update
> - Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
> parts updates
> - Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> spec or another spec published by the LSC
I like this idea of having qualified members. You are definately qualified
if you have one or more parts certified or you write a program but I think
that the reviwer req needs some further clarification. My suggestion is this:
-Served as a reviwer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official parts
updates and have posted least 5 reviews per update
This ensures that the candidate has activly served as a reviewer and is not
just somebody who happens to have reviewer access
> Elections
> ~~~~~~~~~
> The LDraw.org Members eligible for LSC membership will vote on the nominees
> by privately listing the five (5) nominees they select for the position.
> Votes will be received and tallied by the LDraw.org leadership, who will be
> accountable to each other for accuracy. The 1st LSC will consist of no more
> than 5 people, however the LSC will be able to create vacant seats to be
> filled at a future election if they wish.
I assumes votes will be handled by Email to a special email address at
LDraw.org?
All and all I think this is a very well formed document. I would accept it
even without the change I suggested. Hopefully we can get this machine
rolling in the right direction.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:00:20PM +0000, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> -Served as a reviwer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official parts
> updates and have posted least 5 reviews per update
>
> This ensures that the candidate has activly served as a reviewer and is not
> just somebody who happens to have reviewer access
I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
programming side of the community.
:)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:00:20PM +0000, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > -Served as a reviwer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official parts
> > updates and have posted least 5 reviews per update
> >
> > This ensures that the candidate has activly served as a reviewer and is not
> > just somebody who happens to have reviewer access
>
> I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
> programming side of the community.
Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone -
programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making
decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers,
parts authors, or reviewers) to actually cast the vote to create an
LDraw.org standard. Naturally, the LSC members would be expected and
encouraged to participate in the public discussion, but they're the ones who
make the decision.
I suppose whether the LSC private list is publicly viewable or not is
something else up for debate - on one hand, transparency is a good thing, on
the other, it would be nice for them to have a forum where they don't have
to be politically correct.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:00:20PM +0000, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > > -Served as a reviwer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official parts
> > > updates and have posted least 5 reviews per update
> > >
> > > This ensures that the candidate has activly served as a reviewer and is not
> > > just somebody who happens to have reviewer access
> >
> > I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
> > programming side of the community.
>
> Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone -
> programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making
> decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers,
> parts authors, or reviewers) to actually cast the vote to create an
> LDraw.org standard. Naturally, the LSC members would be expected and
> encouraged to participate in the public discussion, but they're the ones who
> make the decision.
I agree that the slots should be open to everyone but I'd like to weed out
those who are the "rainy day" LDrawers. In other words, you need to have
proven your competency and commitment. We could go on and on about what
qualification someone must have in order to be declared competent but I
think the reqs as they stand are good enough, with or without my suggestion.
> I suppose whether the LSC private list is publicly viewable or not is
> something else up for debate - on one hand, transparency is a good thing, on
> the other, it would be nice for them to have a forum where they don't have
> to be politically correct.
I'm am not and will never be "polically correct". I say keep the list open.
If someone has a personal beef with anyone in the LSC then they can take the
courteous path of private Email discussion not via the public forum. The
public boards are no place for attacks on a persons character or ability.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky writes:
> I agree that the slots should be open to everyone but I'd like to weed out
> those who are the "rainy day" LDrawers. In other words, you need to have
> proven your competency and commitment. We could go on and on about what
> qualification someone must have in order to be declared competent but I
> think the reqs as they stand are good enough, with or without my suggestion.
That was the intent of the minimum requirements. I'd like this to be as open
as possible too, without risking the integrity and competency of the
decision making body by allowing someone to walk in off the street and get in.
> I'm am not and will never be "polically correct". I say keep the list open.
> If someone has a personal beef with anyone in the LSC then they can take the
> courteous path of private Email discussion not via the public forum. The
> public boards are no place for attacks on a persons character or ability.
Yep. I'm leaning towards a publicly viewable LSC mailing list myself. They
publish congressional records - and what we're doing is infinitely trivial
to the decisions they make.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:19:23PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
> > programming side of the community.
>
> Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone -
> programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making
> decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers,
> parts authors, or reviewers) to actually cast the vote to create an
> LDraw.org standard. Naturally, the LSC members would be expected and
> encouraged to participate in the public discussion, but they're the ones who
> make the decision.
right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion
pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the
programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I
could gather):
Jacob: parts author, reviewer(14 reviews in last 3 updates)
Steve: parts author, reviewer(185 reviews in last 3 updates)
Tim: reviewer(0 reviews in last 2 updates)
Terry:
Larry: reviewer(32 reviews in last 3 updates)
I know Steve and Jacob have written software... I guess I'm asking how
were these names selected?
> I suppose whether the LSC private list is publicly viewable or not is
> something else up for debate - on one hand, transparency is a good thing, on
> the other, it would be nice for them to have a forum where they don't have
> to be politically correct.
I've asked you before - what do you mean by transparency? I think since
the LSC is a public body, it's discussions should be public. Why, I'm
sure Todd would be happy to set up a newsgroup here on LUGNET for those
discussions, and have only members of the committee able to post there.
But any mailing list that people could read it's archives would work.
Easy to set up too - a list that everyone can read, but only few can
post. Can have it autopost mails to a group on lugnet for easy reading -
that way it'd be easy for everyone to read, but we're not requireing people
to be lugnet members to post.
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Dan Boger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:19:23PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > > I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
> > > programming side of the community.
> >
> > Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone -
> > programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making
> > decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers,
> > parts authors, or reviewers) to actually cast the vote to create an
> > LDraw.org standard. Naturally, the LSC members would be expected and
> > encouraged to participate in the public discussion, but they're the ones who
> > make the decision.
Hi Dan,
>
> right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion
> pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the
> programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I
> could gather):
>
> Jacob: parts author, reviewer(14 reviews in last 3 updates)
> Steve: parts author, reviewer(185 reviews in last 3 updates)
> Tim: reviewer(0 reviews in last 2 updates)
> Terry:
> Larry: reviewer(32 reviews in last 3 updates)
>
> I know Steve and Jacob have written software... I guess I'm asking how
> were these names selected?
Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is
the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty
as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of
setting up how the Standards commitee will be chosen. From what I
read the real Standards commitee will be chosen sometime in July
(pretty aggressive schedule if you ask me.) and its very possible
that it may be made up of entirely different people I suppose.
I would think that one of the things up for discussion between now
and then may even be the number of people on it, and what qualifications
they may need? But I may not have seen something that says otherwise.
I guess that also leaves mw wondering though, Who sets up the rules
by which this upper level of LDraw.org leadership is chosen/replaced?
and operates?
Then again I could be totally out on a limb here. :)
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kyle McDonald writes:
> Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is
> the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty
> as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of
> setting up how the Standards commitee will be chosen. From what I
> read the real Standards commitee will be chosen sometime in July
> (pretty aggressive schedule if you ask me.) and its very possible
> that it may be made up of entirely different people I suppose.
You're mostly right. I suppose the proposal/message wasn't clear enough (and
this is the part I was afraid of it not being clear enough in, so I tried to
disclaim it).
A couple years ago, the four of us posted this message:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183 - sometime following the
CAD summit, when there was another push to organize LDraw.org. This is quite
a while before the idea of a standards body came up.
If the proposal implies the leadership group defined there is doing double
duty as the initial LSC, that's wrong. My rationale is, we have to start
somewhere with this - and the only defined leadership group stems from that
post. According to the proposal, the leadership group, which I like to call
the "4+1" for short, is responsible for setting the LSC in motion. That
means appointing the initial chairperson and secretary, and holding the
first elections. The 4+1 members don't make up the LSC, they hold the vote,
and the LSC is a subcommittee of the 4+1. There could be overlap between the
two, but the first LSC could in theory be entirely different people. The LSC
is limited in scope to defining LDraw.org file format standards, nothing more.
> I would think that one of the things up for discussion between now
> and then may even be the number of people on it, and what qualifications
> they may need? But I may not have seen something that says otherwise.
Well, the proposal is up for discussion. I honestly think this document is
90-100% there. I posted it to get public response and feedback to resolve
any issues that may be outstanding in it. I also posted it to get interest
back up in the LSC idea, as well as the idea of more organization for LDraw.org.
> I guess that also leaves mw wondering though, Who sets up the rules
> by which this upper level of LDraw.org leadership is chosen/replaced?
> and operates?
We set them up ourselves originally, because we had to start somewhere. BUT
- that should be one of the tasks of the 4+1 itself discussing in
conjunction with the community, to set up a system for LDraw.org leadership.
Eventually, the system proposed should be put to a vote for ratification,
and the individuals to fill leadership roles for LDraw.org voted on as well.
> Then again I could be totally out on a limb here. :)
You're right on track. I want to emphasize that - as a community site, we
need to start somewhere. There needs to be efforts made to end the chaos and
ambiguity surrounding LDraw.org standards and organization leadership. The
LSC proposal is intended to do 2 things: solve the issues of forming
standards, and introduce a need to further define what LDraw.org is and how
it is led.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Kyle McDonald writes:
>
> > Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is
> > the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty
> > as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of
> > setting up how the Standards commitee will be chosen. From what I
> > read the real Standards commitee will be chosen sometime in July
> > (pretty aggressive schedule if you ask me.) and its very possible
> > that it may be made up of entirely different people I suppose.
>
> You're mostly right. I suppose the proposal/message wasn't clear enough (and
> this is the part I was afraid of it not being clear enough in, so I tried to
> disclaim it).
I don't think that what Kyle is describing is what I have in mind.
LDraw.org is the natural group to designate that their will be an LSC
committee. The committee is made up of "technically qualified" members. Only
members of LDraw.org that are "technically qualified" and have a desire to be
on the LSC will have their nominations accepted. There is no distinction
between LDraw.org memebers and non-members for acceptance of nominations.
The LSC will operate as an independent body that makes its own decisions about
LDraw file format. It at no time must answer to LDraw.org on decisions about
LDraw file format. It must answer only to itself and members of the community.
The LDraw.org body is in some ways a *political* (in the nicest sense of the
word) organization that provides technical guidance especially in the area of
part creation (a hugely significant task that we probably all take for
granted.) Tim has his role as evangelist (which he does a fine job of.) Steve
has is role as part/creation database, BFC guy (whic he does a fine job of.).
Ahui does a great job as the help desk guy. Jacob has many roles, but most
notably he maintains the web site server. Larry is guilty by association :^)
in the role of advisement.
The LSC is a technical body that will document where we really are, and guide
future changes and enhancements to the status quo.
I'm one of the instigators in the creation of the LSC, because when I started
working on LPub, I was extremely suprised by the decentralized nature of the
understanding of the LDraw file format and the extensions people had made. I
didn't know where to go to get guidance on how to do what I wanted to do in a
community friendly way. Innovation is fine, but best done in ways that fit
nicely with the status quo.
>
> A couple years ago, the four of us posted this message:
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183 - sometime following the
> CAD summit, when there was another push to organize LDraw.org. This is quite
> a while before the idea of a standards body came up.
>
> If the proposal implies the leadership group defined there is doing double
> duty as the initial LSC, that's wrong. My rationale is, we have to start
> somewhere with this - and the only defined leadership group stems from that
> post. According to the proposal, the leadership group, which I like to call
> the "4+1" for short, is responsible for setting the LSC in motion. That
> means appointing the initial chairperson and secretary, and holding the
> first elections. The 4+1 members don't make up the LSC, they hold the vote,
> and the LSC is a subcommittee of the 4+1. There could be overlap between the
> two, but the first LSC could in theory be entirely different people. The LSC
> is limited in scope to defining LDraw.org file format standards, nothing more.
Agreed.
>
> > I would think that one of the things up for discussion between now
> > and then may even be the number of people on it, and what qualifications
> > they may need? But I may not have seen something that says otherwise.
>
> Well, the proposal is up for discussion. I honestly think this document is
> 90-100% there. I posted it to get public response and feedback to resolve
> any issues that may be outstanding in it. I also posted it to get interest
> back up in the LSC idea, as well as the idea of more organization for • LDraw.org.
>
> > I guess that also leaves mw wondering though, Who sets up the rules
> > by which this upper level of LDraw.org leadership is chosen/replaced?
> > and operates?
>
> We set them up ourselves originally, because we had to start somewhere. BUT
> - that should be one of the tasks of the 4+1 itself discussing in
> conjunction with the community, to set up a system for LDraw.org leadership.
> Eventually, the system proposed should be put to a vote for ratification,
> and the individuals to fill leadership roles for LDraw.org voted on as well.
>
> > Then again I could be totally out on a limb here. :)
>
> You're right on track. I want to emphasize that - as a community site, we
> need to start somewhere. There needs to be efforts made to end the chaos and
> ambiguity surrounding LDraw.org standards and organization leadership. The
> LSC proposal is intended to do 2 things: solve the issues of forming
> standards, and introduce a need to further define what LDraw.org is and how
> it is led.
Ohhh.... I don't agree that your second part is the LSC's job. I think that
the initiation of the creation of the LSC has brought to light the ambigious
nature of *what LDraw.org is*, but it is not LSC's job to resolve that. That
is LDraw.org's job with the help of the community at large.
>
> -Tim
Respectully,
Kevin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin L. Clague writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > You're right on track. I want to emphasize that - as a community site, we
> > need to start somewhere. There needs to be efforts made to end the chaos and
> > ambiguity surrounding LDraw.org standards and organization leadership. The
> > LSC proposal is intended to do 2 things: solve the issues of forming
> > standards, and introduce a need to further define what LDraw.org is and how
> > it is led.
>
> Ohhh.... I don't agree that your second part is the LSC's job. I think that
> the initiation of the creation of the LSC has brought to light the ambigious
> nature of *what LDraw.org is*, but it is not LSC's job to resolve that. That
> is LDraw.org's job with the help of the community at large.
[snip everything else, good stuff]
I think I wasn't clear enough. As you read it, I don't agree either. I meant
- this proposal is yet another catalyst to the issue of further organizing
and defining LDraw.org. It isn't the LSC's job, but the LSC's creation is
yet another push in that direction. So, after tackling the LSC - which is
arguably of immediate/near term need, the community and the LDraw.org
leadership should shift focus towards discussing and defining LDraw.org and
how it functions as an organization. An initial group of installed leaders
would be appropriate for a term, followed by org elections by the LDraw.org
membership, for example.
I want to put off the in-depth discussion surrounding this for a little bit,
and focus on LSC issues. Just thought I'd post to clarify. We're agreeing, I
was just confusing in the way I worded things.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin L. Clague writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Kyle McDonald writes:
> >
> > > Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is
> > > the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty
> > > as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of
> > > setting up how the Standards commitee will be chosen. From what I
> > > read the real Standards commitee will be chosen sometime in July
> > > (pretty aggressive schedule if you ask me.) and its very possible
> > > that it may be made up of entirely different people I suppose.
> >
> > You're mostly right. I suppose the proposal/message wasn't clear enough (and
> > this is the part I was afraid of it not being clear enough in, so I tried to
> > disclaim it).
>
> I don't think that what Kyle is describing is what I have in mind.
Me either.
Snipped the next bit because it's a good summation of the roles...
> I'm one of the instigators in the creation of the LSC,
And thanks muchly for that! progress on overall org goals had stagnated. a
good sharp poke was a good thing.
<more snippage>
> > You're right on track. I want to emphasize that - as a community site, we
> > need to start somewhere. There needs to be efforts made to end the chaos and
> > ambiguity surrounding LDraw.org standards and organization leadership. The
> > LSC proposal is intended to do 2 things: solve the issues of forming
> > standards, and introduce a need to further define what LDraw.org is and how
> > it is led.
>
> Ohhh.... I don't agree that your second part is the LSC's job. I think that
> the initiation of the creation of the LSC has brought to light the ambigious
> nature of *what LDraw.org is*, but it is not LSC's job to resolve that. That
> is LDraw.org's job with the help of the community at large.
What I think Tim meant here (and what I KNOW I mean here) is this:
Setting up the voting mechanism to elect the LSC will help resolve the
current ambiguity as a second order effect. It is NOT the LSC's job to bring
structure to ldraw.org. But bringing the LSC into existance with the
election mechanism that's being proposed will nevertheless drive structure
into ldraw.org.
Once that election mechanism is in place (meaning, once the ldraw.org
membership has self selected itself and binsorted itself into qualified to
vote (to ratify) on LSC proposals, and just general interest guys, and the
voting mechanism itself is established) it's natural to move beyond where we
are now. The current structure can be replaced with a more formal structure,
the current steering committee can be replaced with an elected one and lots
of other good things.
None of that is the LSC's job. It's the 4+1's job and the community's job.
The LSC is just the push to make it happen, at last, after much talk-talk.
Let's do the things that will enable the 4+1 to be replaced them with an
elected steering committee. But bootstrapping an org takes work. The LSC is
a good reason to finally do that work.
(I see Tim posted a response to your post as well, saying the same thing in
different words... that's good)
Hope that helps.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:19:23PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
> > > programming side of the community.
> >
> > Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone -
> > programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making
> > decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers,
> > parts authors, or reviewers) to actually cast the vote to create an
> > LDraw.org standard. Naturally, the LSC members would be expected and
> > encouraged to participate in the public discussion, but they're the ones who
> > make the decision.
>
> right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion
> pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the
> programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I
> could gather):
>
> Jacob: parts author, reviewer(14 reviews in last 3 updates)
> Steve: parts author, reviewer(185 reviews in last 3 updates)
> Tim: reviewer(0 reviews in last 2 updates)
> Terry:
> Larry: reviewer(32 reviews in last 3 updates)
>
> I know Steve and Jacob have written software... I guess I'm asking how
> were these names selected?
I think you're misunderstanding, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the
proposal. The leaders who set up the LSC are only setting it up, they aren't
the initial members of the LSC. These people were self-selected two years
ago, based on the fact that they were the ones doing the work, with a road
map towards organizing LDraw.org. [1] Obviously, since then, we've lost
focus somewhat, and there have been other volunteers stepping up and helping
out with the site. I'm trying to re-gain focus via the LSC and also efforts
to further define LDraw.org leadership for the future. Going off of Kyle's
post, this essentially prompts discussion surrounding how LDraw.org
functions as an organization.
As for the (proposed) LSC members themselves, the criteria put forth via the
proposal would stand, and they would be voted upon in the initial election.
> > I suppose whether the LSC private list is publicly viewable or not is
> > something else up for debate - on one hand, transparency is a good thing, on
> > the other, it would be nice for them to have a forum where they don't have
> > to be politically correct.
>
> I've asked you before - what do you mean by transparency? I think since
> the LSC is a public body, it's discussions should be public.
That's precisely what I meant.
> Why, I'm
> sure Todd would be happy to set up a newsgroup here on LUGNET for those
> discussions, and have only members of the committee able to post there.
That works.
> But any mailing list that people could read it's archives would work.
> Easy to set up too - a list that everyone can read, but only few can
> post. Can have it autopost mails to a group on lugnet for easy reading -
> that way it'd be easy for everyone to read, but we're not requireing people
> to be lugnet members to post.
Right, I think discussion should maintain independence from LUGNET, and be
based at LDraw.org. BUT, that doesn't say posts to an LSC list can't be
simultaneously posted to a LUGNET NG for the convenience of LUGNET readers.
-Tim
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> Going off of Kyle's
> post, this essentially prompts discussion surrounding how LDraw.org
> functions as an organization.
Sorry, I should have said, "how LDraw.org should function as an organization
in the future."
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:19:23PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the
> > > programming side of the community.
> >
> > Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone -
> > programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making
> > decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers,
> > parts authors, or reviewers) to actually cast the vote to create an
> > LDraw.org standard. Naturally, the LSC members would be expected and
> > encouraged to participate in the public discussion, but they're the ones who
> > make the decision.
>
> right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion
> pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the
> programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I
> could gather):
>
> Jacob: parts author, reviewer(14 reviews in last 3 updates)
> Steve: parts author, reviewer(185 reviews in last 3 updates)
> Tim: reviewer(0 reviews in last 2 updates)
> Terry:
> Larry: reviewer(32 reviews in last 3 updates)
>
> I know Steve and Jacob have written software... I guess I'm asking how
> were these names selected?
Dan, there seems to be some confusion here on your part. Hopefully other
posters have cleared it up for you, but I want to go on record here on what
the vision was. If it wasn't clear from the proposal, that's at least partly
my fault since I was a contributor, but it seemed pretty clear to me at the
time.
Here's the sequence of events as they unfold:
The current guiders of ldraw.org (Jacob, Steve, Tim, Terry with advice from
me.. the so called the 4+1) charter the creation of the Standards Committee,
and select two people to document the current standard, starting with 0.2.7.
This should be relatively non controversial since the standards are what
they are, by definition. The two people selected haven't been decided yet
but will be soon. All they're chartered to do is get the current standards
codified as a starting point.
The "4+1" hold elections for the five members of the LSC. These members will
be elected by an open, transparent process by voters who self select themselves.
Who could be on the committee? Anyone who passes the screen for
qualification... a recognised parts author, parts reviewer or software author.
Well more than 5 people have been mentioned as nominees so far, including
several software authors.
The LSC, newly elected, begins work.
Hope that helps. As to why do the 4+1 charter this committee? Because
they're the currently recognised authority, even if selected by consensus
rather than by election. Besides, who else would do it? A committee of the
whole doesn't seem workable and this matter needs addressing. Once the
mechanism for membership and voting is put in place to enable this committee
to get elected it certainly could be the mechanism used going forward.
> > I suppose whether the LSC private list is publicly viewable or not is
> > something else up for debate - on one hand, transparency is a good thing, on
> > the other, it would be nice for them to have a forum where they don't have
> > to be politically correct.
>
> I've asked you before - what do you mean by transparency? I think since
> the LSC is a public body, it's discussions should be public. Why, I'm
> sure Todd would be happy to set up a newsgroup here on LUGNET for those
> discussions, and have only members of the committee able to post there.
That would presumably require some new coding but seems a good approach for
the public record discussions to me, assuming Todd is willing to do that. Up
till now I don't think we've had any newsgroups where only certain people
could post.
> But any mailing list that people could read it's archives would work.
> Easy to set up too - a list that everyone can read, but only few can
> post.
Sure, that would work too.
> Can have it autopost mails to a group on lugnet for easy reading -
> that way it'd be easy for everyone to read, but we're not requireing people
> to be lugnet members to post.
Not following that last part... would this group be set up to accept posts
ONLY from the mailing list software? Isn't that the same as setting up a
group that only some people can post to?
| | | | | | |
