Subject:
|
Re: LCAD/LDraw.org Formal Organization
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:51:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
617 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LCAD/LDraw.org Formal Organization
|
| (...) 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.. (...) OK Point taken- Looking at your list it seems you have more of a software (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LCAD/LDraw.org Formal Organization
|
| (...) 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'. (...) Yes. Agree (...) What model where you thinking of using? (...) Not Todd ? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
