Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:06:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
856 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) 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, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
