Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:55:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
848 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?
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?
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
