| |
There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style CAD fan
organization. Although an informal organization usually serves us pretty
well, there are some things an informal group can not do, such as deal well
with keeping a treasury, or establishing license agreements. Also, an
informal organization sometimes has a hard time establishing and reaching
goals, because no one has the responsibility to reach those goals.
Finally, a formal organization can receive a certain level of respect and
recognition from other groups and organizations.
In the last month or so, some of us have had more in-depth, offline
discussions about forming a 'real' LCAD/LDraw group, and what would be the
best approach to reach that goal.
What needs to happen is a small group -- an organizational committee --
needs to accept the charge of getting the LEGO CAD fan group through the
organizational process. "Getting through the process" means the committee
would gather input from the members, research standard (and non-standard)
methods of organization, write a charter (or adapt/adopt an existing
standard group charter), and finally run a ratification process (probably
by voting) to accept the charter and bylaws.
To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
That's these people:
Tim Courtney
Jacob Sparre Andersen
Terry Keller
Steve Bliss
Additionally, we've also asked Larry Pieniazek to 'sit in' on the
committee's communication, to lend us his expertise in volunteer/fan
organizations and general knowledge of group functioning.
Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
We've also established the following short-term goals. Each of these goals
is very important for the group, and needs to be handled as soon as
possible.
1. Spearhead the establishment of a formal LEGO CAD fan group.
2. Implement a process to formally register members of the group.
3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library.
4. Implement a permanent parts-submission process.
There has been some discussion about what type of organizational
'government' would work best for our group. Since we don't often get
everyone together for meetings, it would probably be best to follow a
representative style -- the group elects officers to handle group business.
Except for large questions of group direction, the officers handle
descisions. Large decisions would be handled by group decision/voting. If
the officers don't do a good job, the group would have to choose to evict
the officer(s), and replace them.
That's about all the ground we've covered so far. There is a lot more to
be done, but right now, we need to hear what you think about this. All
comments are welcome, but especially answer this question:
Do you agree with the selection of the ad hoc committee, and the short-term
goals for the ad hoc committee?
--
Tim Courtney
Jacob Sparre Andersen
Terry Keller
Steve Bliss
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> Do you agree with the selection of the ad hoc committee, and the short-term
> goals for the ad hoc committee?
Yes!
-Chuck
|
|
| |
FORWARD: Please accept my comments in the civil spirit in which they were
intended, and not an attempt to start some sort of conflict. I asked some
very tough questions because the proposal seemed to advocate it. This is
also a somewhat long response, but in the end it is only because this sounds
like a decent idea that just needs a good bit of discussion.
---------------------------------------------
That sounds like a good slice of the LDraw population to start this off.
One of the goals I would like to see set by this group is a serious effort
to simplify the entire gamut of the LDraw universe. Details:
- Offer a step-by-step procedure to new users on how to install LDRAW
and its various siblings (i.e. MLCAD) to their PCs, explaining the
difference between each. I am still having trouble determining which is
which and whether one is the "main" program and another is an "add-on", etc.
Plus, there are a plethora of bugs out there.
- Form an approved glossary, defining such off-world terms as
"Ray-Tracing" and DAT files among others, and what these things mean in
relation to the whole LDraw concept. Given a quiz on the subject, I'd get a
Z minus.
Personally, I find myself overwhelmed and even a little repelled by the
endless variety of LDraw sites and the different methods of installation. To
me, there is little effort to coordinate these sites except by random links.
I don't mean some type of catalog listing every site; that of course is
impossible, but rather, a directory of information that organizes and adds
links overtime, showing such things as "New Users: Start Here" and "Finished
Installing? Now add Your Parts Lists" (followed by links).
I find it irksome that a version of the program that is known to cause
run-time errors in most modern PCs has not been improved to alleviate this
error. The whole idea behind a patch is a <<temporary>> fix that will be
folded into improved versions of the program. Plus all the maddening
business with parts lists and home-brewed add-ons. Where does one begin? And
with what version of what program?
I guess the one thing I don't want to see an organization like this become
is an inner-circle type of group where veteran LDraw users can meet to
congratulate each other on how imaginative they all are while the neophytes
sit outside wondering what's going on. (For the record, this is in no way
intended to reflect any attack on LUGNET or the sharing of ideas through
MOCs). I'd just be really...discouraged...if I was to ask a simple question
regarding LDraw in the LDraw newsgroup and be told "Well, you really should
take this up with the LDraw Committee". No Big Brother, thank you.
I am encouraged by such efforts as Shiri Dori's LEGO acronym listing: easy
to access and use, and open to feedback.
I am aware that LDraw in all its infinite forms is generally available to
anyone. Please let this focus drive the formation of this organization.
Additional concerns follow.
==================================================
> There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style CAD fan
> organization. Although an informal organization usually serves us pretty
> well, there are some things an informal group can not do, such as deal well
> with keeping a treasury, or establishing license agreements.
Why a treasury? Why license agreements?
> Also, an informal organization sometimes has a hard time establishing and
> reaching goals, because no one has the responsibility to reach those goals.
> Finally, a formal organization can receive a certain level of respect and
> recognition from other groups and organizations.
Please provide some examples of goals that a formal LCAD group might wish to
establish, just for the sake of argument.
> In the last month or so, some of us have had more in-depth, offline
> discussions about forming a 'real' LCAD/LDraw group, and what would be the
> best approach to reach that goal.
I take "real" to mean 'formal'.
> What needs to happen is a small group -- an organizational committee --
> needs to accept the charge of getting the LEGO CAD fan group through the
> organizational process. "Getting through the process" means the committee
> would gather input from the members, research standard (and non-standard)
> methods of organization, write a charter (or adapt/adopt an existing
> standard group charter), and finally run a ratification process (probably
> by voting) to accept the charter and bylaws.
That charter sounds like the first real step towards forming the group. Ask
yourself "Why are we forming this organization?" In order to...
> To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> That's these people:
>
> Tim Courtney
> Jacob Sparre Andersen
> Terry Keller
> Steve Bliss
>
> Additionally, we've also asked Larry Pieniazek to 'sit in' on the
> committee's communication, to lend us his expertise in volunteer/fan
> organizations and general knowledge of group functioning.
>
> Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
> community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
Perhaps you should add one more representative -- a person from the general
LUGNET population who is not necessarily a LCAD or LDraw expert but can
translate the groups activities to the other LUGNET members. Sort of a liasion.
> We've also established the following short-term goals. Each of these goals
> is very important for the group, and needs to be handled as soon as
> possible.
>
> 1. Spearhead the establishment of a formal LEGO CAD fan group.
> 2. Implement a process to formally register members of the group.
> 3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library.
Now that (3) I'd like explained in greater detail.
> 4. Implement a permanent parts-submission process.
>
> There has been some discussion about what type of organizational
> 'government' would work best for our group. Since we don't often get
> everyone together for meetings, it would probably be best to follow a
> representative style -- the group elects officers to handle group business.
> Except for large questions of group direction, the officers handle
> descisions. Large decisions would be handled by group decision/voting. If
> the officers don't do a good job, the group would have to choose to evict
> the officer(s), and replace them.
>
> That's about all the ground we've covered so far. There is a lot more to
> be done, but right now, we need to hear what you think about this. All
> comments are welcome, but especially answer this question:
>
> Do you agree with the selection of the ad hoc committee, and the short-term
> goals for the ad hoc committee?
Selection of members: Yes. Goals: Not without some answers. I mean, it
sounds frighteningly like you're attempting to tighten control over
something I thought was public domain. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Peace,
Pat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Pat Hough writes:
> FORWARD: Please accept my comments in the civil spirit in which they were
> intended, and not an attempt to start some sort of conflict. I asked some
> very tough questions because the proposal seemed to advocate it. This is
> also a somewhat long response, but in the end it is only because this sounds
> like a decent idea that just needs a good bit of discussion.
OK. Actually, there has been a good bit of discussion around these topics.
But it would be a good idea to address them again. I'm going to snip/quote
your message pretty heavily (and respond to things out of order). Y'all can
assume that whatever I cut out, I agree with.
> One of the goals I would like to see set by this group is a serious effort
> to simplify the entire gamut of the LDraw universe.
Definitely. One big first step is to get a single, definitive download for
the parts library. Currently, the parts library is spread across four
files, with about 50% redundancy between the files. Which leads to...
> Why license agreements?
Because part authors are donating their creations to the common good. We
need to make it clear what it is they are donating, and what people can do
with the parts when they download them. A written license will spell these
things out, in plain and simple terms.
A lot of people don't really care about a documented agreement, but some
people care very much about it. Some of those people are parts authors, and
some are file redistributors. Some are probably even users.
> - Offer a step-by-step procedure to new users on how to install LDRAW
> and its various siblings (i.e. MLCAD) to their PCs, explaining the
> difference between each. I am still having trouble determining which is
> which and whether one is the "main" program and another is an "add-on", etc.
That's already an on-going effort. Hopefully, having a formal organization
will enable us to proceed faster with guides and informational materials.
> Plus, there are a plethora of bugs out there.
True. Michael generally responds quickly with bug fixes. And if anyone
wants to fix the bugs in LDAO, the source is available. :)
> - Form an approved glossary, defining such off-world terms as
> "Ray-Tracing" and DAT files among others, and what these things mean in
> relation to the whole LDraw concept. Given a quiz on the subject, I'd get a
> Z minus.
Good idea for the FAQ.
> I don't mean some type of catalog listing every site; that of course is
> impossible, but rather, a directory of information that organizes and adds
> links overtime, showing such things as "New Users: Start Here" and "Finished
> Installing? Now add Your Parts Lists" (followed by links).
Check <http://www.ldraw.org/>. In the upper right-hand corner of the main
page, click the "Get Started Now" link.
> I find it irksome that a version of the program that is known to cause
> run-time errors in most modern PCs has not been improved to alleviate this
> error.
Agreed.
> I guess the one thing I don't want to see an organization like this become
> is an inner-circle type of group where veteran LDraw users can meet to
> congratulate each other on how imaginative they all are while the neophytes
> sit outside wondering what's going on.
A private club is definitely *not* the purpose of having a formal group. We
don't need a formal group to sit around and congratulate each other. We
need a formal group so we can effectively reach out to other people, to make
the software easier to get at, all the things you've mentioned, Pat.
> Why a treasury? Why license agreements?
The license agreement I've already touched on. The issue of a treasury (and
thus, a treasurer) came up a few months ago, when there was an effort to
create an LDraw.org CD-ROM for distribution. We can't burn CD's without
money, and we'd need someone to handle the money.
> Please provide some examples of goals that a formal LCAD group might wish to
> establish, just for the sake of argument.
1. Organize the website to lead new users easily through the process of
installing software, and getting started with it.
2. Create a software CD-ROM, suitable for distribution at public shows.
3. Define new versions of the LDraw language, or replace the existing
language with an entirely new one.
4. Evangelize LDraw and LEGO-style CAD at public events, such as BrickFest
or MindFest.
These are more activities than goals. They could easily be rewritten as goals.
> Perhaps you should add one more representative -- a person from the general
> LUGNET population who is not necessarily a LCAD or LDraw expert but can
> translate the groups activities to the other LUGNET members. Sort of a liasion.
We've already got two of the three biggest noisemakers on LUGNET on the ad
hoc committee. ;) (see <http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=1396>)
I'm not opposed to having one more person on the ad hoc committee. Pat, are
you volunteering? Anyone else want to have a go?
> > 3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library.
>
> Now that (3) I'd like explained in greater detail.
Licensing has been an on-again, off-again topic of discussion for some time.
But without a formal body to make an actual decision, we haven't been able
to move ahead on the idea.
> Selection of members: Yes. Goals: Not without some answers. I mean, it
> sounds frighteningly like you're attempting to tighten control over
> something I thought was public domain. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Yes and no. We're tring to organize the process. That's one meaning of
"control". We're not interested in restricting anything.
BTW, none of this is public domain. LDraw and the original LDraw parts
library are the copyrighted materials of James Jessiman's family. The newer
parts (and updated parts) are in "domain limbo". By default, they are the
copyrighted material of their authors. But the authors freely donated them
to the LDraw parts library without making any kind of agreement about their use.
That's enough rambling from me, for now. I hope I've addressed some of your
concerns, Pat. That's what this newsgroup is here for.
Steve
sbliss@ldraw.org
|
|
| |
Hi Pat -
I will attempt to expound upon our ideas and answer your questions below.
(revisit.... Steve beat me! Well, I'll take out what I feel Steve addressed
well enough and add comments where I want to be a blabbermouth) ;-)
"Pat Hough" <houghpt@usa.net> wrote in message news:G85tFH.Fss@lugnet.com...
> One of the goals I would like to see set by this group is a serious effort
> to simplify the entire gamut of the LDraw universe. Details:
Something we all want to do, believe us. It takes time and energy to do those
things though.
> - Offer a step-by-step procedure to new users on how to install LDRAW
> and its various siblings (i.e. MLCAD) to their PCs, explaining the
> difference between each. I am still having trouble determining which is
> which and whether one is the "main" program and another is an "add-on", etc.
> Plus, there are a plethora of bugs out there.
How is the step-by-step at http://www.ldraw.org/download/start/newuser.html on a
scale of 1-10?? What can we do better? How is the Intro to DAT utilities at
http://www.ldraw.org/download/start/introdat.html on a scale of 1-10, etc?
From reading your message through I gather you understand that this is a
volunteer effort and the individual utilities are published by different
indepenent authors. We have not yet made a comparison chart (I thought about
doing one at one point) of what utilities do what and work on what OSes.
Unfortunately this stuff takes time, and we all want to put forth the best
resources for yall, but realize that in the past we've missed the mark on
clarity. We're trying.
> - Form an approved glossary, defining such off-world terms as
> "Ray-Tracing" and DAT files among others, and what these things mean in
> relation to the whole LDraw concept. Given a quiz on the subject, I'd get a
> Z minus.
A glossary sounds like a great idea for the site.
> Personally, I find myself overwhelmed and even a little repelled by the
> endless variety of LDraw sites and the different methods of installation. To
> me, there is little effort to coordinate these sites except by random links.
Funny you mention that. When I proposed LDraw.org over two years ago that's
what I sought to eliminate. I think we've come a long way from the way it was
then, but we still have a long way to go.
> I guess the one thing I don't want to see an organization like this become
> is an inner-circle type of group where veteran LDraw users can meet to
> congratulate each other on how imaginative they all are while the neophytes
> sit outside wondering what's going on.
I don't believe the group will get to that point - that's not our intentions.
> (For the record, this is in no way
> intended to reflect any attack on LUGNET or the sharing of ideas through
> MOCs). I'd just be really...discouraged...if I was to ask a simple question
> regarding LDraw in the LDraw newsgroup and be told "Well, you really should
> take this up with the LDraw Committee". No Big Brother, thank you.
Nope - the 'Committee' will never be for that. Questions can be handled via the
Help Desk where non-committee members are helping on even now, and an improved
glossary/faq. And there will always be people here willing to help on the CAD
groups.
> Why a treasury? Why license agreements?
Steve hit on this one nicely. I see the treasury as a way to manage org funds
for putting on displays and making CDs - buying display materials (additional
banners, signs, printing, laminating, business cards, domain names,
computers..etc....) All of this needs to be managed by a formal organization
which is responsible for the funds and the taxes on income (unless we are a
non-profit org).
> > Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
> > community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
>
> Perhaps you should add one more representative -- a person from the general
> LUGNET population who is not necessarily a LCAD or LDraw expert but can
> translate the groups activities to the other LUGNET members. Sort of a
liasion.
I do not object to adding one more person either. But we shouldn't be hasty on
our decision for an addition, and think it over who will be added. Do you
volunteer Pat? It appears to me you take a genuine interest and with your
suggestions could add something to the group.
> Selection of members: Yes. Goals: Not without some answers. I mean, it
> sounds frighteningly like you're attempting to tighten control over
> something I thought was public domain. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Steve explained the public domain thing. We aren't trying to tighten control,
we're trying to formalize and organize control. The organization will lead to
greater potential for the LCAD community to grow and do greater things. I think
we've outlined a few of those in our responses here.
I hope this helps.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@ldraw.org
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
|
|
| |
Tim and Steve answered a lot, I will try to fill in a few additional items
and additional perspective.
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Pat Hough writes:
> FORWARD: Please accept my comments in the civil spirit in which they were
> intended, and not an attempt to start some sort of conflict. I asked some
> very tough questions because the proposal seemed to advocate it. This is
> also a somewhat long response, but in the end it is only because this sounds
> like a decent idea that just needs a good bit of discussion.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> That sounds like a good slice of the LDraw population to start this off.
>
> One of the goals I would like to see set by this group is a serious effort
> to simplify the entire gamut of the LDraw universe. Details:
While this is a laudable goal, it is not the first goal of the group.
The first goal of the group is to solve some specific problems around
licensing, one of the big ones being that an organization that doesn't exist
cannot license anything. For an organization to exist, a group has to form
to organize it and give it a legal identity. I wanted to see this group
called the ad-hoc organizing committee, because that's what it is. It is not
intended to be the final structure but it's a good cut. Simple is best.
Don't read too much into this. The other stuff can and should happen but is
not necessarily solely the responsibility of the ad-hoc organizing committee
to accomplish.
<snip a bunch of very constructive concrete suggestions for improvement of
various things because I totally agree with them as good things to do by
somebody, although not necessarily this committee>
> I guess the one thing I don't want to see an organization like this become
> is an inner-circle type of group where veteran LDraw users can meet to
> congratulate each other on how imaginative they all are while the neophytes
> sit outside wondering what's going on. (For the record, this is in no way
> intended to reflect any attack on LUGNET or the sharing of ideas through
> MOCs). I'd just be really...discouraged...if I was to ask a simple question
> regarding LDraw in the LDraw newsgroup and be told "Well, you really should
> take this up with the LDraw Committee". No Big Brother, thank you.
Not the idea. The idea is to have an organization to solve the licensing
problem. With the events that are coming down the pike, this problem needs
to be solved and soon.
> I am encouraged by such efforts as Shiri Dori's LEGO acronym listing: easy
> to access and use, and open to feedback.
>
> I am aware that LDraw in all its infinite forms is generally available to
> anyone.
Today. By luck. And we'd prefer to see to it that it stays that way.
> Please let this focus drive the formation of this organization.
It does. Licensing needs to exist in order to ensure that things remain
generally available.
> Additional concerns follow.
> ==================================================
> > There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style CAD fan
> > organization. Although an informal organization usually serves us pretty
> > well, there are some things an informal group can not do, such as deal well
> > with keeping a treasury, or establishing license agreements.
>
> Why a treasury?
A group without one has no real substance. Necessary evil.
> Why license agreements?
Steve and Tim answered this one. We have a very muddy situation now and it
needs fixing. Informal groups and discussion weren't getting to the end goal.
> That charter sounds like the first real step towards forming the group. Ask
> yourself "Why are we forming this organization?" In order to...
Solve the licensing problem. Provide a legal entity for the licenses to be
anchored to.
> > To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> > consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> > That's these people:
> >
> > Tim Courtney
> > Jacob Sparre Andersen
> > Terry Keller
> > Steve Bliss
> >
> > Additionally, we've also asked Larry Pieniazek to 'sit in' on the
> > committee's communication, to lend us his expertise in volunteer/fan
> > organizations and general knowledge of group functioning.
> >
> > Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
> > community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
>
> Perhaps you should add one more representative -- a person from the general
> LUGNET population who is not necessarily a LCAD or LDraw expert but can
> translate the groups activities to the other LUGNET members. Sort of a >liasion.
That would be me. I am no CAD expert. Never wrote a tool. Never authored a
part. But I AM a CAD user who cares about the subject. However adding
another person to the 4 members would be doable. Why add someone from the
LUGNET population that has no CAD interest, though? What is the relevance?
I asked to stay OUT of the committee for a reason, I want to advise only. I
don't think users should have the same voice as authors, and doers of
organizational work, since we don't do the work, only reap the benefits.
Before adding more members, remember, small committees are better at getting
big things done. Big committees tend not to even be able to get small things
done. And solving this license problem is a Big Thing.
> > We've also established the following short-term goals. Each of these goals
> > is very important for the group, and needs to be handled as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > 1. Spearhead the establishment of a formal LEGO CAD fan group.
> > 2. Implement a process to formally register members of the group.
> > 3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library.
>
> Now that (3) I'd like explained in greater detail.
I find that baffling, what more detail did you want exactly? The problems
have been discussed in depth. There has been thrashing on licenses but no
closure.
> Selection of members: Yes. Goals: Not without some answers. I mean, it
> sounds frighteningly like you're attempting to tighten control over
> something I thought was public domain.
No, we are trying to straighten out a big mess and ensure that the right
sort of license is put in place, one that protects authors and ensures their
work remains usable.
> Maybe I'm missing something here.
Maybe.
++Lar
|
|
| |
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 02:26:05AM +0000, Pat Hough wrote:
First, I'd like to thank those who will be forming this group. The
licenses are of course my biggest personal issue. So, thanks and good
luck :)
[snip]
>
> Additional concerns follow.
> ==================================================
> > There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style
> > CAD fan organization. Although an informal organization usually
> > serves us pretty well, there are some things an informal group can
> > not do, such as deal well with keeping a treasury, or establishing
> > license agreements.
>
> Why a treasury? Why license agreements?
Well, I am packaging leocad for Debian GNU/Linux, and it depends on the
parts library. Without a license or notice, at least in the US,
copyrightable things are copyrighted by the owner with all rights
reserved. This makes it technically illegal for me to put the parts
library into Debian; the parts library comes with no such notice.
I already have the packages but they cannot go into Debian. And
Debian-jr (which is a group that packages software for kids) and I
would like to see leocad get into Debian.
But, as others have said, this has been discussed before and I do not
intend to start another thread about it.
[snip]
> Peace,
>
> Pat
--
Pat Mahoney <patmahoney@gmx.net>
I had no shoes and I pitied myself. Then I met a man who had no feet,
so I took his shoes.
-- Dave Barry
|
|
| |
When I wrote the original reply to the proposal last Friday, I knew what I
was letting myself in for and braced very hard this morning for the
onslaught of Pandora's Box.
However, after reading every followup in the thread, I must say that I am
impressed with the level tone that has been maintained in this discussion.
For the most part, my comments were received in the civility that I intended
them. There's always the one party that takes these kind of comments a
little too personally and leans towards the defensive, but I expected that.
At least two of the responses ask if I am volunteering my time to the
ongoing efforts to formalize an LDRAW organization. Let me answer that by
saying that if I can help out in any way, just let me know what needs to be
done and we'll go from there.
I appreciate the correction to my assumption that LDRAW was public domain.
It is not and I should have been more specific; I have a tendency to use the
words "public domain" when I mean "freeware" (at least I haven't seen any
direct mention of cost associated with the program).
Personally, I feel I owe LUGNET and its members a great deal for their
open-mindedness, encouragement, and integrity when dealing with tough issues
like this. It tells me that I can continue to communicate with them about a
subject we all know and love without fear of retribution.
I'm not sure what this group needs in the way of skills, but for the record
I am a full-time technical writer working for Cisco Systems. I majored in
English at UTSA and dabbled in computer science before I realized I was not
talented in this area; however, last Friday I did complete an online course
on UNIX basics. I spend a great deal of time doing non-technical writing as
well. If this helps, great.
Carry on smartly.
Peace,
Pat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Pat Hough writes:
> I'm not sure what this group needs in the way of skills, but for the record
> I am a full-time technical writer working for Cisco Systems. I majored in
> English at UTSA and dabbled in computer science before I realized I was not
> talented in this area; however, last Friday I did complete an online course
> on UNIX basics. I spend a great deal of time doing non-technical writing as
> well. If this helps, great.
I have no official standing to delegate anything but if someone doesn't jump
up and latch on to you I will be very surprised, as there are a number of
areas within the site and elsewhere, where either word smithing, or worse,
out and out content creation, are going to be greatly appreciated.
Good technical writing is hard, it's a skill that is vastly undervalued in
my opinion.
++Lar
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G8ALC8.CMF@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Pat Hough writes:
>
> > I'm not sure what this group needs in the way of skills, but for the record
> > I am a full-time technical writer working for Cisco Systems. I majored in
> > English at UTSA and dabbled in computer science before I realized I was not
> > talented in this area; however, last Friday I did complete an online course
> > on UNIX basics. I spend a great deal of time doing non-technical writing as
> > well. If this helps, great.
>
> I have no official standing to delegate anything but if someone doesn't jump
> up and latch on to you I will be very surprised, as there are a number of
> areas within the site and elsewhere, where either word smithing, or worse,
> out and out content creation, are going to be greatly appreciated.
>
> Good technical writing is hard, it's a skill that is vastly undervalued in
> my opinion.
Well put Lar.
Pat - since you are experienced in technical writing, how would you like to help
the site in the area of Reference and Get Started? We still need help
eliminating the confusion for first-time users, and more reference articles
would be great! Please email me with any ideas you have, or if you want me to
point out specific tasks I'd be happy to.
Thanks for the offer, and thanks for your comments/questions!
--
Tim Courtney - tim@ldraw.org
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
|
|
| |
Do whatever you want, but please return to creating new parts. Except for a
couple of decorated elements there wasn't much new worth mentioning in the
past weeks.
Thanks to all who spend time for creating DAT-parts, making my "work" possible.
Primus BuS
ComStar
LEGO Mechcommander: www.go.to/LegoMC
|
|
| |
"Burkhard Schloemer" <BuS1503@muenster.de> wrote in message
news:G8B1DI.DBo@lugnet.com...
> Do whatever you want, but please return to creating new parts. Except for a
> couple of decorated elements there wasn't much new worth mentioning in the
> past weeks.
>
> Thanks to all who spend time for creating DAT-parts, making my "work"
possible.
Hi Burkhard -
There will always be parts authors and official additions as long as there is a
desire to create new parts. We're just laying foundational work for future
structure of the distribution of parts and more. So, rest assured you will get
your parts :-)
--
Tim Courtney - tim@ldraw.org
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
|
|
| |
> > Good technical writing is hard, it's a skill that is vastly undervalued in
> > my opinion.
Much appreciated -- it pays bills better than majoring in history would have.
> Well put Lar.
>
> Pat - since you are experienced in technical writing, how would you like to help
> the site in the area of Reference and Get Started? We still need help
> eliminating the confusion for first-time users, and more reference articles
> would be great! Please email me with any ideas you have, or if you want me to
> point out specific tasks I'd be happy to.
>
> Thanks for the offer, and thanks for your comments/questions.
I'm ready -- just tell me where to go to get started and a list of specific
essays, opening paragraphs, descriptions you want. Since I am not an HTML
expert I believe it would be better for me to send completed drafts to one
of you for final check and posting.
Peace,
Pat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style CAD fan
> organization. Although an informal organization usually serves us pretty
> well, there are some things an informal group can not do, such as deal well
> with keeping a treasury, or establishing license agreements.
Plus the fact an informal group would have difficulty enforcing such a
licence agrement... Even the FSF (ie GNU's managment group) is an
'organisation'.
> Also, an
> informal organization sometimes has a hard time establishing and reaching
> goals, because no one has the responsibility to reach those goals.
> Finally, a formal organization can receive a certain level of respect and
> recognition from other groups and organizations.
Yes. Agree
> In the last month or so, some of us have had more in-depth, offline
> discussions about forming a 'real' LCAD/LDraw group, and what would be the
> best approach to reach that goal.
>
> What needs to happen is a small group -- an organizational committee --
> needs to accept the charge of getting the LEGO CAD fan group through the
> organizational process.
> "Getting through the process" means the committee
> would gather input from the members, research standard (and non-standard)
> methods of organization, write a charter (or adapt/adopt an existing
> standard group charter), and finally run a ratification process (probably
> by voting) to accept the charter and bylaws.
What model where you thinking of using?
> To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> That's these people:
>
> Tim Courtney
> Jacob Sparre Andersen
> Terry Keller
> Steve Bliss
Not Todd ?
>
> Additionally, we've also asked Larry Pieniazek to 'sit in' on the
> committee's communication, to lend us his expertise in volunteer/fan
> organizations and general knowledge of group functioning.
>
> Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
> community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
>
> We've also established the following short-term goals. Each of these goals
> is very important for the group, and needs to be handled as soon as
> possible.
>
> 1. Spearhead the establishment of a formal LEGO CAD fan group. • Agree
> 2. Implement a process to formally register members of the group. • Agree.
> 3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library. • Agree defintly. It's needed...
> 4. Implement a permanent parts-submission process.
>
> There has been some discussion about what type of organizational
> 'government' would work best for our group. Since we don't often get
> everyone together for meetings, it would probably be best to follow a
> representative style -- the group elects officers to handle group business.
> Except for large questions of group direction, the officers handle
> descisions. Large decisions would be handled by group decision/voting. If
> the officers don't do a good job, the group would have to choose to evict
> the officer(s), and replace them.
>
> That's about all the ground we've covered so far. There is a lot more to
> be done, but right now, we need to hear what you think about this. All
> comments are welcome, but especially answer this question:
>
> Do you agree with the selection of the ad hoc committee, and the short-term
> goals for the ad hoc committee?
Yes! However 2 additonal aims should be :
The publication, and subsquent mantianence of a standards document detaling
the LCAD standard so that suitable LCAD software can be written or mantained
for currently supported (or in the future additonal) computing platforms.
The establishment of working groups to look into extensions to the current
de-facto LCAD standard. Such as texture mapping or curves. This group would
make represntations to the committe that would be considered in standards
revison.
Your viewpoint?
Alex
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Farlie A wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> > "Getting through the process" means the committee
> > would gather input from the members, research standard (and non-standard)
> > methods of organization, write a charter (or adapt/adopt an existing
> > standard group charter), and finally run a ratification process (probably
> > by voting) to accept the charter and bylaws.
>
> What model where you thinking of using?
We haven't gotten that specific, yet. We're thinking along the lines of a
'town council' approach, where the elected officers are equal peers (as
opposed to having offices of president, vice president, etc). As I
mentioned before, we're leaning toward a republic/representative org,
rather than direct democracy -- there's not large-scale dissention in the
l-cad community, just arguing over detials. We need some people who have
the granted authority to make decisions and act on them.
> > To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> > consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> > That's these people:
> >
> > Tim Courtney
> > Jacob Sparre Andersen
> > Terry Keller
> > Steve Bliss
>
> Not Todd ?
This isn't a LUGNET initiative, and Todd has not been highly involved in
l-cad activity in the past. This isn't a LUGNET initiative, it's an action
to form a new organization for the l-cad community.
> Yes! However 2 additonal aims should be :
>
> The publication, and subsquent mantianence of a standards document detaling
> the LCAD standard so that suitable LCAD software can be written or mantained
> for currently supported (or in the future additonal) computing platforms.
I'm not *exactly* following you on this. Do you mean detailed specs on the
LDraw graphics description language, or something else/more?
I would see the publication of a standards document as falling within the
scope of the ad hoc committee, as it is in the nature of clearing defining
the current environment. But I don't see it as a high-priority activity;
we've got the basics covered in the LDraw FAQ (especially question #20).
> The establishment of working groups to look into extensions to the current
> de-facto LCAD standard. Such as texture mapping or curves. This group would
> make represntations to the committe that would be considered in standards
> revison.
I agree that this should definitely be a high priority for the permanent
organization. However, I don't think it is something that should be
addressed by the ad hoc committee, because it goes into new development,
rather than consolidation/definition of the current environment.
Steve
|
|
| |
I think the idea of a formal organization is really good, provided that it
does server it's constituants. I think this is a good start and I encourage
you to continue.
I agree on the problem of installing/getting all of the necessary tools
running. I was just getting ready to offer to make a central installer that
could set up all of this stuff. In the Windows world, this could be a very
easy task to accomplish, by using either a canned setup program (such as the
Microsoft Windows Installer) or by using scripts to run through WSH (Windows
Scripting Host). The scripts have the added advantage of being quickly
modified and they can be filled with comments to outline and explain what is
going on behind the scenes.
Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I support the effort, and if needed I
will be glad to offer my services on creating an installer.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Geoff Gray writes:
> I think the idea of a formal organization is really good, provided that it
> does server it's constituants. I think this is a good start and I encourage
> you to continue.
Serve or sever? I think that was a typo up there :)
I honestly don't think a formal org will do either. It will be a way to
bring together LCAD people in a more organized/official capacity, and the
people involved in the government of the org will be voluntarily working to
serve the LCAD community (not the other way around).
> I agree on the problem of installing/getting all of the necessary tools
> running. I was just getting ready to offer to make a central installer that
> could set up all of this stuff. In the Windows world, this could be a very
> easy task to accomplish, by using either a canned setup program (such as the
> Microsoft Windows Installer) or by using scripts to run through WSH (Windows
> Scripting Host). The scripts have the added advantage of being quickly
> modified and they can be filled with comments to outline and explain what is
> going on behind the scenes.
>
> Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I support the effort, and if needed I
> will be glad to offer my services on creating an installer.
We have discussed a central installer for quite some time - and it is useful
on several projects. One program to download from the website which will
walk a user through the setup much like an installation wizard would be
GREAT! It would be great if that program could give the options of
downloading other utilities like MLCad, L3Lab, LDView, L3P etc etc... as well.
Something like this would need to eventually end up multi-platform. Because
of the heavy shift towards the Windows end of the spectrum for utilities,
its fine to lean that way _at first_ but as time goes on, the utility needs
to be available on other OSes (Mac, Linux, ?).
Please email Steve Bliss (steve@ldraw.org) and myself to discuss an
installer - we'd like to hear your ideas and it would be great if you could
help!
Tim Courtney - tim@ldraw.org
|
|
| |
> Microsoft Windows Installer) or by using scripts to run through WSH (Windows
> Scripting Host). The scripts have the added advantage of being quickly
I think that an installer program would be better, I for one dont like windows
scripting host/vbscript, mostly because it has more security holes than a piece
of swiss cheese :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> Do whatever you want, but please return to creating new parts. Except for a
> couple of decorated elements there wasn't much new worth mentioning in the
> past weeks.
Echoing and amplifying a bit on Tim's response:
Forming an official ldraw.org, and adopting a licensing policy, and
establishing a fully automatic Parts Tracker will all directly lead to more
parts being authored.
Heck, I'd be doing more parts now if that wouldn't just make more work for
myself (that I'm putting off anyway).
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Farlie A wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> > > "Getting through the process" means the committee
> > > would gather input from the members, research standard (and non-standard)
> > > methods of organization, write a charter (or adapt/adopt an existing
> > > standard group charter), and finally run a ratification process (probably
> > > by voting) to accept the charter and bylaws.
> >
> > What model where you thinking of using?
>
> We haven't gotten that specific, yet. We're thinking along the lines of a
> 'town council' approach, where the elected officers are equal peers (as
> opposed to having offices of president, vice president, etc). As I
> mentioned before, we're leaning toward a republic/representative org,
> rather than direct democracy -- there's not large-scale dissention in the
> l-cad community, just arguing over detials. We need some people who have
> the granted authority to make decisions and act on them.
OK but you would need at least a chairman or tresuarer...
Also .. "Politics is often about the 'details' " ;-) Quote from a UK MP but
cant remember which one..
> > > To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> > > consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> > > That's these people:
> > >
> > > Tim Courtney
> > > Jacob Sparre Andersen
> > > Terry Keller
> > > Steve Bliss
> >
> > Not Todd ?
>
> This isn't a LUGNET initiative, and Todd has not been highly involved in
> l-cad activity in the past. This isn't a LUGNET initiative, it's an action
> to form a new organization for the l-cad community.
OK Point taken- Looking at your list it seems you have more of a software
vendors group (at the moment) in my view......
> > Yes! However 2 additonal aims should be :
> >
> > The publication, and subsquent mantianence of a standards document detaling
> > the LCAD standard so that suitable LCAD software can be written or mantained
> > for currently supported (or in the future additonal) computing platforms.
>
> I'm not *exactly* following you on this. Do you mean detailed specs on the
> LDraw graphics description language, or something else/more?
> > I would see the publication of a standards document as falling within the
> scope of the ad hoc committee, as it is in the nature of clearing defining
> the current environment. But I don't see it as a high-priority activity;
> we've got the basics covered in the LDraw FAQ (especially question #20).
I know about the FAQ :-)
What I wanted was a document that also clarified file paths,defualt settings
,colour models,coordinate... also the BFC and the numerous 'extensions' to
the format...
Esentialy the thinga software writer would need when developing a
compatible tool...
A short peice of text is given below as an example
"
A DAT file is a file of a number of line types.
The line types are written as lines of plain text
These plain text lines are encoded using ASCII/utf8(?)
A linetype shall be written on a single line.
Line types over multiple lines are not suported..
A single line shall be considered as all the charecters on a
line from the first non whitespace charecter till an LF/CR(?)
Prior whitespace is ignored. (This being space prior to the first non
whitespace charecter on the line.)
Whitespace between the last non whitespace whitespace charecter and the
LF/CR is ignored..
A DAT file has no file-specfic end of file indicator.
The stanadrd method for determing EOF on the platform should be used.
A line type consits of :
An number using the digits 0-9 indicating the 'line-type'
Followed by the paramters for that line type.
The line type number and paramaters must be seperated with whitespace.
The whitespace may be of any size.
The paramters used by LDRAW are of two types.
numerical and filename..
Numerical paramters shall be considerd according to (X format) for reading
floating point numbers.
Filename paramters are text strings terminated by the first whitespace
charecter CR or LF.
Filename paramters are case-sensitive.
Filename paramters may include path details.
Filename paramters shall consider '\' &'/' to be path seperators.
"
That's what I meant by 'standard'.... (The above is an extremly limited
example..
Essentialy what I was after was a specification that would allow some to
write a viewer on any platform without having seen the orignal LDraw/LEdit
program.
( I did SW Eng on my college course and STILL don't fully understand SW
specification! Do we have a CAD SW enginer in the house? )
The reason I was suggesting a spec. was that I was considering a port of
LDraw to the RISC-OS system (currently V4 altough my ref platform is RO3).
No doubt given the speed an ARM chip runs at I could probably put in (given
time) proper render capability as well. I am seriously considering ditiching
the current DOS version.. once the full parts lib is avialable sperately...
(RISC-OS by the way was a pionerring operating system for the Acorn
Achimedies range of machines produced by Acorn Computer Group in the UK. It
suppourted 32 voice Sampled sounds, taskbar ,FULLY draggable windows, &(CD?)
in 1987 long before Windows. + it did allow for software(?) video since 1992
via !Replay. Currently in Relase 4.0 it is represnts a credible alternative
to Windows for some applications...FUT : off.topic.geek)
I really thnk there SHOULD be an LDraw version for it.... Anbody got C code?
(This is the best option in the absence of a spec.. Source code being the
ultimate spec ;-) )
I would also suggest that the ad-hoc commitre seriously consider that L-Draw
isn't just a PC/Windows system... We've got Linux users as well now... What
about MAC?!)- so maybe R0 should be added to the list..
Some thoughts on this
RO has 10 Char filenames- No problem as LDraw naming is DOS 8.3?
Colours- RO- 256 on early machines(more on later) - LDraw- (?)
RO has also been used for education CAD for many years... Designer
Castles,!Euclid, and others so a 3D progrom on it is not something new.
> > The establishment of working groups to look into extensions to the current
> > de-facto LCAD standard. Such as texture mapping or curves. This group would
> > make represntations to the committe that would be considered in standards
> > revison.
>
> I agree that this should definitely be a high priority for the permanent
> organization. However, I don't think it is something that should be
> addressed by the ad hoc committee, because it goes into new development,
> rather than consolidation/definition of the current environment.
OK..
> Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Alex Farlie writes:
[snip - lots of stuff]
> The reason I was suggesting a spec. was that I was considering a port of
> LDraw to the RISC-OS system (currently V4 altough my ref platform is RO3).
> No doubt given the speed an ARM chip runs at I could probably put in (given
> time) proper render capability as well. I am seriously considering ditiching
> the current DOS version.. once the full parts lib is avialable sperately...
>
> I really thnk there SHOULD be an LDraw version for it.... Anbody got C code?
Ldglite is distributed as C source code and requires either OpenGL or Mesa.
There is information on Mesa for Risc-OS here:
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~davidb/Mesa/
Installation should be similar to the "ldglite for linux" instructions
in the Reference section on ldraw.org
http://www.ldraw.org/reference/linux.html
I can probably help if you have any trouble.
Have fun,
Don
|
|
|
