| |
I think it's time to post the 0.99 draft of the LSC proposal. I've pasted it
below with mo revision marks.
You can see an HTML document _with_ revision marks here:
http://www.ldraw.org/temp/LSC099.html
I think we're 99% of the way there to having a final draft - and if there
are no questions/concerns on this version, I'll bump this up to version 1.0
in a few days.
Thanks to Kevin, Wayne, Paul, Larry, Orion, Dan and all of the others who
have helped shape this document!
-Tim
PS - I attempted to fix some of the line-wrapping issues by previewing this
post via the Web Interface, but it doesn't look like my tweaks to the post
helped in all areas. Sorry about that.
----
======================================
LDraw.org Standards Committee Proposal
======================================
Draft Version 0.99
Written by: Tim Courtney
Contributors: Kevin Clague, Wayne Gramlich, Paul Gyugyi, Larry Pieniazek,
Orion Pobursky, Dan Boger
May 5, 2003
Preface
=======
This document specifies is a proposal for an LDraw Standards Committee,
presented for discussion and suggestions for improvements from the LDraw
community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Overview
========
Proposed is a Standards Committee to endorse and shape an Official LDraw.org
file format spec document, consisting of the original LDraw spec (0.2.7)
plus meta-commands developed by various LDraw-compatible LEGO CAD programs.
This group's participants will discuss, vote on, and adopt
community-developed commands as Official LDraw.org standards. The goal of
this body is to foster increased coordination and direction in our common
community effort to develop a better 3D LEGO file format. This proposal is
based on previous industry experience establishing standards bodies.
Background
==========
The LDraw community has existed as a minimally organized group of users,
programmers, and parts authors since James Jessiman's LDraw became widely
used in the mid 1990's. This community originated solely online and
continues to use the internet as it's primary medium of communication. LDraw
standards have until this point only been semi-organized as well, with
individual leaders in file format issues, but no defined processes for
format evolution. This has caused confusion among both newcomers and long
time participants, and the community recognizes the need for a group charged
with adopting official standards and publishing official documentation.
Detail
======
Responsibilities of the Standards Committee
-------------------------------------------
The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) will be responsible for maintaining
semi-regular internal discussions on pending file format issues, the overall
progress of the LDraw file format and new or proposed developments made by
different LDraw-based software authors. Initially, this group will be
responsible for developing their own internal procedures on how to process
and vote on proposals and how to write and publish documentation. The
Committee will also be responsible for updating the greater LDraw community
periodically of progress within the group. The Standards Committee will
adopt new official
standards by voting on them, and publish documentation on LDraw.org
following such a decision. The LSC will document past, current and future
LDraw File Formats.
Procedures
~~~~~~~~~~
The procedures shall be determined by the initial membership of the LSC.
Items that shall be attended to are:
- Call for internal discussion on a proposal made internally (by another LSC
member) or externally (by a member of the LDraw Community)
- Request for Final Comments (RFC) from the community before a vote
- Call for a vote to ratify a proposal as standard
- Drafting, reviewing, and publishing spec documents
- Procedure for filling an early vacancy of a member
- Number of votes needed to accept a proposal as a standard
- Appointing sub-committees
Voting
~~~~~~
Each LSC member can cast one (1) vote on any issue brought up within the LSC.
Membership
~~~~~~~~~~
Membership of the LSC shall be limited to 5 people, unless LSC members vote
to create additional vacancies for a future election.
The LSC may also define a procedure for voting to eliminate seats added in
the future. The minimum number of seats on the LSC shall be 5.
Requirements for LSC Membership
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible to
become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following
requirements for nomination:
- Authored at least two LDraw parts subsequently released in an Official
LDraw.org Parts Update
- Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews in at least two updates since
their initial participation
- Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
spec or another spec published by the LSC
- Petition for nomination as an LSC candidate approved by 2 current LSC members
- Petition for nomination as an LSC candidate made to the LSC by at least 5
others eligible to be LSC candidates
LSC Discussion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The LSC shall have a mailing list or other communication method where only
members can post to, but the entire community can read. This allows the
community to keep tabs on what is being discussed, and discuss LSC issues in
public forums such as LUGNET's CAD.* groups. The LSC should encourage this
discussion, and should draw ideas and suggestions from non-LSC members in
the community, ensuring everyone's voice is heard. However, the LSC shall be
the only group that votes to ratify a proposal as a standard.
Annual Summary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The members of the LSC will be responsible for publishing an annual summary
to the community following elections for the next year's term. This document
must be published several weeks before elections, on the first of July of
that year. This summary shall outline the progress of the previous term,
note all versions of the spec ratified during the term, and summarize the
future goals and ideas of the current LSC members.
Determining LSC Membership
==========================
Members of the first LSC will be nominated and voted upon in the same manner
as in subsequent terms, with the exception that the first election shall be
overseen by the ad-hoc LDraw.org organizing committee and subsequent
elections shall be overseen by the then current LDraw.org governing body.
Initial Charter
---------------
The LSC will be chartered under the aegis of the overall LDraw.org.
The ad-hoc committee charged with organizing LDraw.org is responsible for
establishing a system for "LDraw.org Membership" in order to create a
legitimate group of voters. This membership will be open to anyone who wants
to declare themselves a member, provided they own a valid email address.
Information on this membership system will be posted to LDraw.org and
LUGNET. This membership will have the opportunity to ratify future
referendums on LDraw.org as presented by the ad-hoc committee or such
subsequent governing body as shall be determined or developed. The principle
of "one man, one vote" shall apply and any person determined to be using
multiple identities to secure multiple votes shall be banned from further
voting or membership. (We talk about membership/voting and organizational
details because they are necessary to carry out the first vote for LSC
members. Additional organizational details will be developed by the
organizing committee and are not properly the subject of this proposal.)
Terms
-----
Terms on the Standards Committee shall last one year.
The ad-hoc LDraw.org committee will issue the first call for nominations to the
Standards Committee on July 1, 2003. Each subsequent call for nominations
will be issued on the first day of July of that year, and shall be issued by
the then current LDraw.org governing body. Nominations must be received and
recorded by the 15th of July. Elections will be held on the 20th of July.
Elections
~~~~~~~~~
The LDraw.org Members who are eligible for LSC membership and the ad-hoc
organizing committee will vote on the nominees by privately listing the five
(5) nominees they select for the position. Votes will be received and
tallied initially by the ad-hoc committee (and subsequently by a permanent
LDraw.org governing body), who will be accountable to each other and to the
community 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.
Current LDraw.org leadership will announce the results of the election
within 5 days of the election, on or before July 25.
Inauguration
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elected members of the LSC will take office on August 15. This gives
downtime between elections on July 20th for outgoing members and incoming
members to discuss the published Annual Report and ensure a smooth transition.
Key Dates
=========
Initial Charter
---------------
July 1, 2003 - Call for nominations for 1st LSC
July 20, 2003 - 1st LSC Elections
August 15, 2003 - 1st LSC Members take office
Recurring Dates
---------------
July 1 - Annual Summary published
- Call for nominations to the LSC
July 15 - All nominations must be received and recorded
July 20 - LSC Elections
On or before July 25 - Ad-hoc organizing committee/permanent LDraw.org
governing body announces election results
August 15 - New LSC Members take office
Glossary
========
Ad-hoc LDraw.org Organizing Committee
-------------------------------------
Jacob Sparre Andersen, Steve Bliss, Tim Courtney, Terry Keller, and
Community Advisor Larry Pieniazek. This group is responsible for forming a
charter organization for LDraw.org. (see:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183)
LDraw.org Membership
--------------------
Defined, opt-in group of LDraw community participants who will have the
right to vote on resolutions put forward by the LDraw.org Leadership.
LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC)
-----------------------------------
Group of 5 parts authors, Parts Tracker reviewers, or LDraw-compatible
software authors elected by peers within the LDraw.org Membership to ratify
and publish the Official LDraw.org File Format Spec.
|
|
| |
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 03:52:25PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> You can see an HTML document _with_ revision marks here:
> http://www.ldraw.org/temp/LSC099.html
...
> Elections
> ~~~~~~~~~
> The LDraw.org Members who are eligible for LSC membership and the ad-hoc
> organizing committee will vote on the nominees by privately listing the five
> (5) nominees they select for the position.
This is new? Only the committee and people who are eligable for
membership in the LSC can vote? I thought we were defining the general
membership in LDraw.org so that everyone can vote?
I think this paragraph should say:
LDraw.org Members will vote on the nominees by privately listing
the five (5) nominees they select for the position.
Other than this (surprising) change, it looks good :)
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 03:52:25PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > You can see an HTML document _with_ revision marks here:
> > http://www.ldraw.org/temp/LSC099.html
>
> ...
>
> > Elections
> > ~~~~~~~~~
> > The LDraw.org Members who are eligible for LSC membership and the ad-hoc
> > organizing committee will vote on the nominees by privately listing the five
> > (5) nominees they select for the position.
>
> This is new? Only the committee and people who are eligable for
> membership in the LSC can vote? I thought we were defining the general
> membership in LDraw.org so that everyone can vote?
I don't believe the beginning part is new (eligible LSC members can vote) it
is new, but I added the ad-hoc group in there for those in the ad-hoc who
are ineligible for LSC membership. Track Changes didn't highlight it in Word.
I am for that statement though - it assures only competent people who are
aware of the issues can decide who decides our standards.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 03:52:25PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > You can see an HTML document _with_ revision marks here:
> > > http://www.ldraw.org/temp/LSC099.html
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Elections
> > > ~~~~~~~~~
> > > The LDraw.org Members who are eligible for LSC membership and the ad-hoc
> > > organizing committee will vote on the nominees by privately listing the five
> > > (5) nominees they select for the position.
> >
> > This is new? Only the committee and people who are eligable for
> > membership in the LSC can vote? I thought we were defining the general
> > membership in LDraw.org so that everyone can vote?
>
> I don't believe the beginning part is new (eligible LSC members can vote) it
> is new, but I added the ad-hoc group in there for those in the ad-hoc who
> are ineligible for LSC membership. Track Changes didn't highlight it in Word.
That statement (aside from the ad-hoc addition) was in Version 0.6, the
first version I posted publicly. I found it in my local text file, as well
as in the post here:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2304
I'm strongly in favor of at least restricting the vote to only those
eligible to be on the LSC, as the original statement read.
-Tim
|
|
| |
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 10:38:49PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> I don't believe the beginning part is new (eligible LSC members can vote) it
> is new, but I added the ad-hoc group in there for those in the ad-hoc who
> are ineligible for LSC membership. Track Changes didn't highlight it in Word.
huh.
> I am for that statement though - it assures only competent people who are
> aware of the issues can decide who decides our standards.
you're supporting that only LSC-eligable can vote, or that the ad-hoc
group can vote? I think everyone can vote - but if we say that's not
so, then I think the ad-hoc part should be removed. Why the special
treatment?
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 10:45:03PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> That statement (aside from the ad-hoc addition) was in Version 0.6, the
> first version I posted publicly. I found it in my local text file, as well
> as in the post here:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2304
>
> I'm strongly in favor of at least restricting the vote to only those
> eligible to be on the LSC, as the original statement read.
Why? And why the exception to the ad-hoc group?
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 10:38:49PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > I don't believe the beginning part is new (eligible LSC members can vote) it
> > is new, but I added the ad-hoc group in there for those in the ad-hoc who
> > are ineligible for LSC membership. Track Changes didn't highlight it in Word.
>
> huh.
>
> > I am for that statement though - it assures only competent people who are
> > aware of the issues can decide who decides our standards.
>
> you're supporting that only LSC-eligable can vote, or that the ad-hoc
> group can vote?
Both, but moreso that only LSC-eligable. I'd rather the LSC be selected by
people who are familiar with the other programmers and potential members, as
well as the issues the LSC will be dealing with. I think this is a very
important concern, which minimizes the risk of the LSC being a dud if
non-technically inclined LDraw.org members cast votes for who should be on
the LSC. A handful of people have expressed this idea to me.
If there's only this one objection to the stipulation that only people
eligible to be members of the LSC can vote people into the LSC, I see no
reason to remove it. This has been in the draft since version 0.6, and there
have been no other objections thus far that I recall seeing (if there have
been, feel free to point them out and I will stand corrected).
> I think everyone can vote - but if we say that's not
> so, then I think the ad-hoc part should be removed. Why the special
> treatment?
You're probably right there. It can be removed.
-Tim
|
|
| |
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:36:40AM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > you're supporting that only LSC-eligable can vote, or that the ad-hoc
> > group can vote?
>
> Both, but moreso that only LSC-eligable. I'd rather the LSC be selected by
> people who are familiar with the other programmers and potential members, as
> well as the issues the LSC will be dealing with. I think this is a very
> important concern, which minimizes the risk of the LSC being a dud if
> non-technically inclined LDraw.org members cast votes for who should be on
> the LSC. A handful of people have expressed this idea to me.
I'm actually half and half on it. I do see reasons why to limit it, but
for some reason I'm a little wary of accepting it without discussion.
> If there's only this one objection to the stipulation that only people
> eligible to be members of the LSC can vote people into the LSC, I see no
> reason to remove it. This has been in the draft since version 0.6, and there
> have been no other objections thus far that I recall seeing (if there have
> been, feel free to point them out and I will stand corrected).
Well, at least I haven't noticed it before, otherwise I would have
probably mentioned it. But you're right - my (possible) objection alone
is not enough to cause a change there. I just want to see if it bothers
others for the same unknown reason.
> > I think everyone can vote - but if we say that's not
> > so, then I think the ad-hoc part should be removed. Why the special
> > treatment?
>
> You're probably right there. It can be removed.
that would be good :)
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:36:40AM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > you're supporting that only LSC-eligable can vote, or that the ad-hoc
> > > group can vote?
> >
> > Both, but moreso that only LSC-eligable. I'd rather the LSC be selected by
> > people who are familiar with the other programmers and potential members, as
> > well as the issues the LSC will be dealing with. I think this is a very
> > important concern, which minimizes the risk of the LSC being a dud if
> > non-technically inclined LDraw.org members cast votes for who should be on
> > the LSC. A handful of people have expressed this idea to me.
>
> I'm actually half and half on it. I do see reasons why to limit it, but
> for some reason I'm a little wary of accepting it without discussion.
Ok :-)
> > If there's only this one objection to the stipulation that only people
> > eligible to be members of the LSC can vote people into the LSC, I see no
> > reason to remove it. This has been in the draft since version 0.6, and there
> > have been no other objections thus far that I recall seeing (if there have
> > been, feel free to point them out and I will stand corrected).
>
> Well, at least I haven't noticed it before, otherwise I would have
> probably mentioned it. But you're right - my (possible) objection alone
> is not enough to cause a change there. I just want to see if it bothers
> others for the same unknown reason.
Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
I've been thinking about this and I think I mildly favor LSC elections open
to all ldraw.org members. But I waver on it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> Key Dates
> =========
>
> Initial Charter
> ---------------
>
> July 1, 2003 - Call for nominations for 1st LSC
> July 20, 2003 - 1st LSC Elections
This needs to be changed - voting should be open for longer than one day, to
give everyone the opportunity to vote. What do people think? I think it
should be open 5 days or less, probably something like 3. Thoughts?
-Tim
|
|
| |
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 04:08:47AM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> > Key Dates
> > =========
> >
> > Initial Charter
> > ---------------
> >
> > July 1, 2003 - Call for nominations for 1st LSC
> > July 20, 2003 - 1st LSC Elections
>
> This needs to be changed - voting should be open for longer than one day, to
> give everyone the opportunity to vote. What do people think? I think it
> should be open 5 days or less, probably something like 3. Thoughts?
I'm tempted to say a week - 3 days would miss people that can only deal
with such stuff on weekends, or weekdays...
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> I'm tempted to say a week - 3 days would miss people that can only deal
> with such stuff on weekends, or weekdays...
A week sounds good. I'd even go 10 days maybe, including two weekends
(believe it or not,people go on vacation in the summer and not all of them
are deranged like me and take their laptops with them and check email and
LUGNET each day anyway)... not much more than that though, ne?
|
|
| |
Here's an idea: treat it like Model-of-the-month. Have
the candidates draw themselves up in .LDR format and submit
the files...
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
>
> > I'm tempted to say a week - 3 days would miss people that can only deal
> > with such stuff on weekends, or weekdays...
>
> A week sounds good. I'd even go 10 days maybe, including two weekends
> (believe it or not,people go on vacation in the summer and not all of them
> are deranged like me and take their laptops with them and check email and
> LUGNET each day anyway)... not much more than that though, ne?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
>
> -Tim
I agree with Tim and have no objection to vote limitation.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> > Key Dates
> > =========
> >
> > Initial Charter
> > ---------------
> >
> > July 1, 2003 - Call for nominations for 1st LSC
> > July 20, 2003 - 1st LSC Elections
>
> This needs to be changed - voting should be open for longer than one day, to
> give everyone the opportunity to vote. What do people think? I think it
> should be open 5 days or less, probably something like 3. Thoughts?
>
> -Tim
I like 5 days. Start the votes on Wednesday and end on Sunday.
As far a people on vacation, the vote is the same time every year and there
are enough public terminals to facilitate voting
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> [...]
> The LSC shall have a mailing list or other communication method where only
> members can post to, but the entire community can read. [...]
Hi Tim,
Give me a hollar if you would like a special group for this on LUGNET. If you
have a list (either static or dynamic) of email addresses whom you want to
grant posting access, it would be fairly easy for me to set things on LUGNET
such that anyone could follow along but only selected people (whom you
define) could post to it. It would also automatically prevent accidental
cross-posting.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> > [...]
> > The LSC shall have a mailing list or other communication method where only
> > members can post to, but the entire community can read. [...]
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Give me a hollar if you would like a special group for this on LUGNET. If you
> have a list (either static or dynamic) of email addresses whom you want to
> grant posting access, it would be fairly easy for me to set things on LUGNET
> such that anyone could follow along but only selected people (whom you
> define) could post to it. It would also automatically prevent accidental
> cross-posting.
Great, thanks!
Ultimately, the means of communication should be up to the elected LSC
members to decide for themselves.
If I had my say, I like the idea of a mailing list on LDraw.org, which posts
messages automatically to a LUGNET group for convenience. Perhaps similar to
how lugnet.robotics is set up, but where only specific people have posting
privileges?
I'll keep it in mind and suggest it to the LSC when they are elected.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > I'd rather the LSC be selected by people who are familiar with
> > > the other programmers and potential members, as
> > > well as the issues the LSC will be dealing with. I think this is a very
> > > important concern, which minimizes the risk of the LSC being a dud if
> > > non-technically inclined LDraw.org members cast votes for who should be on
> > > the LSC. A handful of people have expressed this idea to me.
> >
> > I'm actually half and half on it. I do see reasons why to limit it, but
> > for some reason I'm a little wary of accepting it without discussion.
there are reasons why I put stress on a restriction.
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2356
it took me almost a year to get a deeper understanding
of the stuff I was dealing with and feel comfortable with cond. line,
BFC, bad vertex sequences and the like. 'til one hasn't struggled
with the code it's nearly impossible to be aware of its limitation or
in which way it should be expanded. part designer use to know each
other (or at least their work) and know who will bring the whole
story to a happy ending.
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky writes:
> I like 5 days. Start the votes on Wednesday and end on Sunday.
>
> As far a people on vacation, the vote is the same time every year and there
> are enough public terminals to facilitate voting
5 days sounds good ... which time-zone are we talkin'
about, Tokyo, Servertime in DK, GMT, NY or LA ;-)?
w. (GMT +01:00)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Willy Tschager writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky writes:
> > I like 5 days. Start the votes on Wednesday and end on Sunday.
> >
> > As far a people on vacation, the vote is the same time every year and there
> > are enough public terminals to facilitate voting
>
> 5 days sounds good ... which time-zone are we talkin'
> about, Tokyo, Servertime in DK, GMT, NY or LA ;-)?
I dunno - that depends on the tech guys who create the voting system. GMT or
EST (New York) sounds good to me.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
I personally feel the restriction is a good idea. However, playing devil's
advocate, I feel obliged to point out that since it would increase my voting
power (since I am eligible as a software author), it's in my best interests
to be in favor of the restriction.
Having said that, I think that if we don't get any strong objections from
the people who would be prevented from voting, it should be left alone.
--Travis Cobbs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Travis Cobbs writes:
> I personally feel the restriction is a good idea. However, playing devil's
> advocate, I feel obliged to point out that since it would increase my voting
> power (since I am eligible as a software author), it's in my best interests
> to be in favor of the restriction.
>
> Having said that, I think that if we don't get any strong objections from
> the people who would be prevented from voting, it should be left alone.
>
> --Travis Cobbs
I would be one of those who would be prevented from voting (at least this
year), and I don't have a strong objection to not being able to vote. The
restriction is designed to make the LSC a technical group voted on by
technically involved members. At the moment, while I've been playing with
LDraw for about 3 years now, I've only started to delve into the technical
side (as a parts author) in the past few months, and am usually discovering
something new every month (skewing primitives was my latest discovery). I
expect after a year of part authoring, I should have the technical
experience to understand the concerns of the candidates, but until then, I'd
be uncomfortable voting. Technical experience would be validated by getting
my parts into an official update (Others would have their experience
validated by reviewing parts or by authoring software).
While it's a restriction, it's not difficult to get into the voting body
given enough time. The restriction is just a protection to ensure that the
LSC is a competent technical body. I hope others who would not be elgible
to vote have similar views, and would work hard to get into the voting body
in future years.
Also, in other news, Parts Tracker is starting to kick again. I got an
email today with automatic notices for some new primitives I had submitted
back in April. PT's still not available to the public, yet, but at least I
know it's alive now and flexing its muscles.
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
I feel voting for LSC members should be open to the general group. I've
got 2 reasons for this:
1. I trust people enough that they'll deal with their own capabilities
for discernment in this area.
2. I don't want to have to sort out who gets to vote, and who doesn't.
I'm guessing there are people who are qualified to select the LSC
members, even though they might not fit the outline we've described for
eligibility.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> As far a people on vacation, the vote is the same time every year and there
> are enough public terminals to facilitate voting
You must not go to the same places I do for vacation. Public terminals?
Not where I've been.
OTOH, if we're going to play the vacation game, some people go for
longer than 2 weeks. Heck, some people are basically offline all
summer.
I'd say a week is good.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
>
> I feel voting for LSC members should be open to the general group. I've
> got 2 reasons for this:
>
> 1. I trust people enough that they'll deal with their own capabilities
> for discernment in this area.
> 2. I don't want to have to sort out who gets to vote, and who doesn't.
> I'm guessing there are people who are qualified to select the LSC
> members, even though they might not fit the outline we've described for
> eligibility.
I see your points and agree with 2 and 3, but only partially with 1.
Anyways, there's about equal response for or against limitations. Not
totally sure on what to do - I'll let it simmer for a bit.
(I should note that if there was no limitation on who could vote for the LSC
members, I would be able to vote, and if there were, I would not)
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> If I had my say, I like the idea of a mailing list on LDraw.org, which
> posts messages automatically to a LUGNET group for convenience. Perhaps
> similar to how lugnet.robotics is set up, but where only specific people
> have posting privileges?
Aha -- yes, that would work too -- and is extremely easy to set up.
In fact, if you wanted to make it read-only on LUGNET (so that the only way
to post is via the mailing list on ldraw.org), all we need to do is subscribe
an address <something@lugnet.com> to the <ldraw-tech@ldraw.org> mailing list.
LMK,
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> (I should note that if there was no limitation on who could vote for the LSC
> members, I would be able to vote, and if there were, I would not)
I would rephrase that... under the most prevalent current limitation scheme
being floated, (LSC eligible==LSC voting eligible) you would not be able to,
and I would barely squeak by. Certainly other schemes could be floated, with
different qualifications for voting than for LSC membership, that would have
that not be true, or even reversed.
|
|
| |
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:19:41PM +0000, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> > If I had my say, I like the idea of a mailing list on LDraw.org, which
> > posts messages automatically to a LUGNET group for convenience. Perhaps
> > similar to how lugnet.robotics is set up, but where only specific people
> > have posting privileges?
>
> Aha -- yes, that would work too -- and is extremely easy to set up.
>
> In fact, if you wanted to make it read-only on LUGNET (so that the only way
> to post is via the mailing list on ldraw.org), all we need to do is subscribe
> an address <something@lugnet.com> to the <ldraw-tech@ldraw.org> mailing list.
we can easily also tell mailman to post each email to the mailing list
to a group on the NNTP server.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> > In fact, if you wanted to make it read-only on LUGNET (so that the only way
> > to post is via the mailing list on ldraw.org), all we need to do is subscribe
> > an address <something@lugnet.com> to the <ldraw-tech@ldraw.org> mailing list.
>
> we can easily also tell mailman to post each email to the mailing list
> to a group on the NNTP server.
Cool. Hmm, which to choose... It makes less work for me doing it the
mailing list way, because of the incoming gateway translations at the
e-mail level. What do we want to call it here? lugnet.cad.ldraw-tech?
lugnet.cad.ldraw.tech?
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger writes:
> > > In fact, if you wanted to make it read-only on LUGNET (so that the only way
> > > to post is via the mailing list on ldraw.org), all we need to do is subscribe
> > > an address <something@lugnet.com> to the <ldraw-tech@ldraw.org> mailing list.
> >
> > we can easily also tell mailman to post each email to the mailing list
> > to a group on the NNTP server.
>
> Cool. Hmm, which to choose... It makes less work for me doing it the
> mailing list way, because of the incoming gateway translations at the
> e-mail level. What do we want to call it here? lugnet.cad.ldraw-tech?
> lugnet.cad.ldraw.tech?
>
> --Todd
I think lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw.tech is long but it fits in with the
existing scheme
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Todd Lehman writes:
> Give me a hollar if you would like a special group for this on LUGNET. If you
> have a list (either static or dynamic) of email addresses whom you want to
> grant posting access, it would be fairly easy for me to set things on LUGNET
> such that anyone could follow along but only selected people (whom you
> define) could post to it. It would also automatically prevent accidental
> cross-posting.
This sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think there's a need for it right
now. The techies list is kinda low-interest -- it's good to have a public
archive of the list (which we've already got), but I don't see a burning
need to mirror it onto LUGNET.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky writes:
> I think lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw.tech is long but it fits in with the
> existing scheme
Oh, that's a good point. Yes, it's a bit long, but as Steve points out,
it's a relatively low-interest group. Putting it as .ldraw.tech instead
of .ldraw-tech also makes it cleaner if other lists (such as, say, Tim's
ldraw-siggraph list) wanted to be mirrored here as well.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> This sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think there's a need for it right
> now. The techies list is kinda low-interest -- it's good to have a public
> archive of the list (which we've already got), but I don't see a burning
> need to mirror it onto LUGNET.
I think both LDraw.org and the community at large would benefit from
it being mirrored.
And another beauty of mirroring an archive like this is that it's so easy
to set up that even if there's not a perceived burning need for it, the
long-term benefits easily outweigh the short-term effort involved. At
the ldraw.org server end, it's as trivial as adding a new e-mail address
to the distribution list.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Todd Lehman writes:
> I think both LDraw.org and the community at large would benefit from
> it being mirrored.
>
> And another beauty of mirroring an archive like this is that it's so easy
> to set up that even if there's not a perceived burning need for it, the
> long-term benefits easily outweigh the short-term effort involved. At
> the ldraw.org server end, it's as trivial as adding a new e-mail address
> to the distribution list.
Never mind... It sounds as though the LDraw-tech folks really don't want
their list mirrored here.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Todd Lehman writes:
> > I think both LDraw.org and the community at large would benefit from
> > it being mirrored.
> >
> > And another beauty of mirroring an archive like this is that it's so easy
> > to set up that even if there's not a perceived burning need for it, the
> > long-term benefits easily outweigh the short-term effort involved. At
> > the ldraw.org server end, it's as trivial as adding a new e-mail address
> > to the distribution list.
>
> Never mind... It sounds as though the LDraw-tech folks really don't want
> their list mirrored here.
>
> --Todd
What are you talking about Todd? I for one would like the list mirrored here.
-Orion
|
|
| |
This is a re-post of the LSC proposal 0.99 with two changes:
- I removed the stipulation under ‘voting’ about the ad-hoc committee per this thread.
- I changed the dates for voting from one day (July 20) to five days, July 17-22. This covers both weekdays and a weekend, so it should maximize everyone’s chances of being available to vote.
So, I’m reposting it as 0.99a. No revision marks this time, and no separate HTML
page on another server, but fancy new FTX :o)
-Tim
PS - I’m milling over the idea of the call for nominations and will get that out
hopefully soon. Plus more info on membership and voting, but that will come a
little later. Not too much, hopefully...
--
LDraw.org Standards Committee Proposal
Draft Version 0.99a
Written by: Tim Courtney
Contributors: Kevin Clague, Wayne Gramlich, Paul Gyugyi, Larry Pieniazek,
Orion Pobursky, Dan Boger
July 1, 2003
Preface
This document specifies is a proposal for an LDraw Standards Committee,
presented for discussion and suggestions for improvements from the LDraw
community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Overview
Proposed is a Standards Committee to endorse and shape an Official LDraw.org
file format spec document, consisting of the original LDraw spec (0.2.7)
plus meta-commands developed by various LDraw-compatible LEGO CAD programs.
This group’s participants will discuss, vote on, and adopt
community-developed commands as Official LDraw.org standards. The goal of
this body is to foster increased coordination and direction in our common
community effort to develop a better 3D LEGO file format. This proposal is
based on previous industry experience establishing standards bodies.
Background
The LDraw community has existed as a minimally organized group of users,
programmers, and parts authors since James Jessiman’s LDraw became widely
used in the mid 1990’s. This community originated solely online and
continues to use the internet as it’s primary medium of communication. LDraw
standards have until this point only been semi-organized as well, with
individual leaders in file format issues, but no defined processes for
format evolution. This has caused confusion among both newcomers and long
time participants, and the community recognizes the need for a group charged
with adopting official standards and publishing official documentation.
Detail
Responsibilities of the Standards Committee
The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) will be responsible for maintaining
semi-regular internal discussions on pending file format issues, the overall
progress of the LDraw file format and new or proposed developments made by
different LDraw-based software authors. Initially, this group will be
responsible for developing their own internal procedures on how to process
and vote on proposals and how to write and publish documentation. The
Committee will also be responsible for updating the greater LDraw community
periodically of progress within the group. The Standards Committee will
adopt new official
standards by voting on them, and publish documentation on LDraw.org
following such a decision. The LSC will document past, current and future
LDraw File Formats.
Procedures
The procedures shall be determined by the initial membership of the LSC.
Items that shall be attended to are:
- Call for internal discussion on a proposal made internally (by another LSC
- Request for Final Comments (RFC) from the community before a vote
- Call for a vote to ratify a proposal as standard
- Drafting, reviewing, and publishing spec documents
- Procedure for filling an early vacancy of a member
- Number of votes needed to accept a proposal as a standard
- Appointing sub-committees
Voting
Each LSC member can cast one (1) vote on any issue brought up within the LSC.
Membership
Membership of the LSC shall be limited to 5 people, unless LSC members vote
to create additional vacancies for a future election.
The LSC may also define a procedure for voting to eliminate seats added in
the future. The minimum number of seats on the LSC shall be 5.
Requirements for LSC Membership
To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible to
become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following
requirements for nomination:
- Authored at least two LDraw parts subsequently released in an Official
- Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
- Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
- Petition for nomination as an LSC candidate approved by 2 current LSC members
- Petition for nomination as an LSC candidate made to the LSC by at least 5
LSC Discussion
The LSC shall have a mailing list or other communication method where only
members can post to, but the entire community can read. This allows the
community to keep tabs on what is being discussed, and discuss LSC issues in
public forums such as LUGNET’s CAD.* groups. The LSC should encourage this
discussion, and should draw ideas and suggestions from non-LSC members in
the community, ensuring everyone’s voice is heard. However, the LSC shall be
the only group that votes to ratify a proposal as a standard.
Annual Summary
The members of the LSC will be responsible for publishing an annual summary
to the community following elections for the next year’s term. This document
must be published several weeks before elections, on the first of July of
that year. This summary shall outline the progress of the previous term,
note all versions of the spec ratified during the term, and summarize the
future goals and ideas of the current LSC members.
Determining LSC Membership
Members of the first LSC will be nominated and voted upon in the same manner
as in subsequent terms, with the exception that the first election shall be
overseen by the ad-hoc LDraw.org organizing committee and subsequent
elections shall be overseen by the then current LDraw.org governing body.
Initial Charter
The LSC will be chartered under the aegis of the overall LDraw.org.
The ad-hoc committee charged with organizing LDraw.org is responsible for
establishing a system for “LDraw.org Membership” in order to create a
legitimate group of voters. This membership will be open to anyone who wants
to declare themselves a member, provided they own a valid email address.
Information on this membership system will be posted to LDraw.org and
LUGNET. This membership will have the opportunity to ratify future
referendums on LDraw.org as presented by the ad-hoc committee or such
subsequent governing body as shall be determined or developed. The principle
of “one man, one vote” shall apply and any person determined to be using
multiple identities to secure multiple votes shall be banned from further
voting or membership. (We talk about membership/voting and organizational
details because they are necessary to carry out the first vote for LSC
members. Additional organizational details will be developed by the
organizing committee and are not properly the subject of this proposal.)
Terms
Terms on the Standards Committee shall last one year.
The ad-hoc LDraw.org committee will issue the first call for nominations to the
Standards Committee on July 1, 2003. Each subsequent call for nominations
will be issued on the first day of July of that year, and shall be issued by
the then current LDraw.org governing body. Nominations must be received and
recorded by the 15th of July. Elections will be held on the 20th of July.
Elections
The LDraw.org Members who are 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 initially by the ad-hoc committee
(and subsequently by a permanent LDraw.org governing body), who will be
accountable to each other and to the community 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.
Current LDraw.org leadership will announce the results of the election
within 5 days of the election, on or before July 25.
Inauguration
Elected members of the LSC will take office on August 15. This gives
downtime between elections on July 20th for outgoing members and incoming
members to discuss the published Annual Report and ensure a smooth transition.
Key Dates
Initial Charter
July 1, 2003
| | Call for nominations for 1st LSC
|
| | July 17-22, 2003
| | 1st LSC Election
|
| | August 15, 2003
| | 1st LSC Members take office
|
Recurring Dates
July 1
| | Annual Summary published
|
| | July 15
| | All nominations must be received and recorded
|
| | July 20
| | LSC Elections
|
| | On or before July 25
| | Ad-hoc organizing committee/permanent LDraw.org governing body announces election results
|
| | August 15
| | New LSC Members take office
|
Glossary
Ad-hoc LDraw.org Organizing Committee
Jacob Sparre Andersen, Steve Bliss, Tim Courtney, Terry Keller, and
Community Advisor Larry Pieniazek. This group is responsible for forming a
charter organization for LDraw.org. (see:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183)
LDraw.org Membership
Defined, opt-in group of LDraw community participants who will have the
right to vote on resolutions put forward by the LDraw.org Leadership.
LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC)
Group of 5 parts authors, Parts Tracker reviewers, or LDraw-compatible
software authors elected by peers within the LDraw.org Membership to ratify
and publish the Official LDraw.org File Format Spec.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
I like this draft a lot however there seem to be some word lossages here and
there... the tail end of some phrases are missing, and I think it may be due to
the FTX formatting???
for example:
On the screen I saw:
* Authored at least two LDraw parts subsequently released in an Official
but the ftx source code said
> * Authored at least two LDraw parts subsequently released in an Official
> LDraw.org Parts Update
Something is not quite right here. It's not a major loss because the original
text is there but it reads funny...
I'm switching to plain text in my post, and XFUT to admin.general which is where
I think ftx stuff goes. Admins, please go upthread to see what I am talking
about... either there's a bug or a misuse of formatting codes, or there is
something wrong with my browser or ?? But I don't think text should just
completely disappear.
Apologies for the block of gafla at the bottom. I want to cite the ENTIRE
ARTICLE and the quote percent filter is blocking me.
> This is a re-post of the LSC proposal 0.99 with two changes:
>
> * I removed the stipulation under 'voting' about the ad-hoc committee per
> <http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2392&t=i&v=b this thread>.
> * I changed the dates for voting from one day (July 20) to five days, July
> 17-22. This covers both weekdays and a weekend, so it should maximize
> everyone's chances of being available to vote.
>
> So, I'm reposting it as 0.99a. No revision marks this time, and no separate
> HTML page on another server, but fancy new FTX :o)
>
> -Tim
>
> PS - I'm milling over the idea of the call for nominations and will get that
> out hopefully soon. Plus more info on membership and voting, but that will
> come a little later. Not too much, hopefully...¬ --
>
> LDraw.org Standards Committee Proposal
> ======================================
>
> Draft Version 0.99a¬
> Written by: Tim Courtney¬
> Contributors: Kevin Clague, Wayne Gramlich, Paul Gyugyi, Larry Pieniazek,
> Orion Pobursky, Dan Boger¬
> July 1, 2003
>
> Preface
> -------
>
> This document specifies is a proposal for an LDraw Standards Committee,
> presented for discussion and suggestions for improvements from the LDraw
> community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
>
>
> Overview
> --------
>
> Proposed is a Standards Committee to endorse and shape an Official LDraw.org
> file format spec document, consisting of the original LDraw spec (0.2.7)
> plus meta-commands developed by various LDraw-compatible LEGO CAD programs.
> This group's participants will discuss, vote on, and adopt
> community-developed commands as Official LDraw.org standards. The goal of
> this body is to foster increased coordination and direction in our common
> community effort to develop a better 3D LEGO file format. This proposal is
> based on previous industry experience establishing standards bodies.
>
>
> Background
> ----------
>
> The LDraw community has existed as a minimally organized group of users,
> programmers, and parts authors since James Jessiman's LDraw became widely
> used in the mid 1990's. This community originated solely online and
> continues to use the internet as it's primary medium of communication. LDraw
> standards have until this point only been semi-organized as well, with
> individual leaders in file format issues, but no defined processes for
> format evolution. This has caused confusion among both newcomers and long
> time participants, and the community recognizes the need for a group charged
> with adopting official standards and publishing official documentation.
>
>
> Detail
> ------
>
> [Responsibilities of the Standards Committee]¬
> The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) will be responsible for maintaining
> semi-regular internal discussions on pending file format issues, the overall
> progress of the LDraw file format and new or proposed developments made by
> different LDraw-based software authors. Initially, this group will be
> responsible for developing their own internal procedures on how to process
> and vote on proposals and how to write and publish documentation. The
> Committee will also be responsible for updating the greater LDraw community
> periodically of progress within the group. The Standards Committee will
> adopt new official
> standards by voting on them, and publish documentation on LDraw.org
> following such a decision. The LSC will document past, current and future
> LDraw File Formats.
>
> [{Procedures}]¬
> The procedures shall be determined by the initial membership of the LSC.
> Items that shall be attended to are:
>
> * Call for internal discussion on a proposal made internally (by another LSC
> member) or externally (by a member of the LDraw Community)
> * Request for Final Comments (RFC) from the community before a vote
> * Call for a vote to ratify a proposal as standard
> * Drafting, reviewing, and publishing spec documents
> * Procedure for filling an early vacancy of a member
> * Number of votes needed to accept a proposal as a standard
> * Appointing sub-committees
>
> [{Voting}]¬
> Each LSC member can cast one (1) vote on any issue brought up within the LSC.
>
> [{Membership}]¬
> Membership of the LSC shall be limited to 5 people, unless LSC members vote
> to create additional vacancies for a future election.
>
> The LSC may also define a procedure for voting to eliminate seats added in
> the future. The minimum number of seats on the LSC shall be 5.
>
> [{Requirements for LSC Membership}]¬
> To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible to
> become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following
> requirements for nomination:
>
> * Authored at least two LDraw parts subsequently released in an Official
> LDraw.org Parts Update
> * Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
> parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews in at least two updates since
> their initial participation
> * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> spec or another spec published by the LSC
> * Petition for nomination as an LSC candidate approved by 2 current LSC
> members
> * Petition for nomination as an LSC candidate made to the LSC by at least 5
> others eligible to be LSC candidates
>
> [{LSC Discussion}]¬
> The LSC shall have a mailing list or other communication method where only
> members can post to, but the entire community can read. This allows the
> community to keep tabs on what is being discussed, and discuss LSC issues in
> public forums such as LUGNET's CAD.* groups. The LSC should encourage this
> discussion, and should draw ideas and suggestions from non-LSC members in
> the community, ensuring everyone's voice is heard. However, the LSC shall be
> the only group that votes to ratify a proposal as a standard.
>
> [{Annual Summary}]¬
> The members of the LSC will be responsible for publishing an annual summary
> to the community following elections for the next year's term. This document
> must be published several weeks before elections, on the first of July of
> that year. This summary shall outline the progress of the previous term,
> note all versions of the spec ratified during the term, and summarize the
> future goals and ideas of the current LSC members.
>
>
> Determining LSC Membership
> --------------------------
>
> Members of the first LSC will be nominated and voted upon in the same manner
> as in subsequent terms, with the exception that the first election shall be
> overseen by the ad-hoc LDraw.org organizing committee and subsequent
> elections shall be overseen by the then current LDraw.org governing body.
>
> [Initial Charter]¬
>
> The LSC will be chartered under the aegis of the overall LDraw.org.
>
> The ad-hoc committee charged with organizing LDraw.org is responsible for
> establishing a system for "LDraw.org Membership" in order to create a
> legitimate group of voters. This membership will be open to anyone who wants
> to declare themselves a member, provided they own a valid email address.
> Information on this membership system will be posted to LDraw.org and
> LUGNET. This membership will have the opportunity to ratify future
> referendums on LDraw.org as presented by the ad-hoc committee or such
> subsequent governing body as shall be determined or developed. The principle
> of "one man, one vote" shall apply and any person determined to be using
> multiple identities to secure multiple votes shall be banned from further
> voting or membership. (We talk about membership/voting and organizational
> details because they are necessary to carry out the first vote for LSC
> members. Additional organizational details will be developed by the
> organizing committee and are not properly the subject of this proposal.)
>
>
> [Terms]¬
> Terms on the Standards Committee shall last one year.
>
> The ad-hoc LDraw.org committee will issue the first call for nominations to
> the Standards Committee on July 1, 2003. Each subsequent call for nominations
> will be issued on the first day of July of that year, and shall be issued by
> the then current LDraw.org governing body. Nominations must be received and
> recorded by the 15th of July. Elections will be held on the 20th of July.
>
> [{Elections}]¬
> The LDraw.org Members who are 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 initially by the ad-hoc
> committee (and subsequently by a permanent LDraw.org governing body), who
> will be accountable to each other and to the community 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.
>
> Current LDraw.org leadership will announce the results of the election
> within 5 days of the election, on or before July 25.
>
> [{Inauguration}]¬
> Elected members of the LSC will take office on August 15. This gives
> downtime between elections on July 20th for outgoing members and incoming
> members to discuss the published Annual Report and ensure a smooth
> transition.
>
>
> Key Dates
> ---------
>
> [Initial Charter]¬
>
> ~ {July 1, 2003}
> ~ Call for nominations for 1st LSC
>
> ~ {July _17-22_, 2003}
> ~ 1st LSC Election
>
> ~ {August 15, 2003}
> ~ 1st LSC Members take office
>
> [Recurring Dates]¬
>
> ~ {July 1}
> ~ Annual Summary published¬
> Call for nominations to the LSC
>
> ~ {July 15}
> ~ All nominations must be received and recorded
>
> ~ {July 20}
> ~ LSC Elections
>
> ~ {On or before July 25}
> ~ Ad-hoc organizing committee/permanent LDraw.org governing body announces
> election results
>
> ~ {August 15}
> ~ New LSC Members take office
>
>
> Glossary
> --------
>
> [Ad-hoc LDraw.org Organizing Committee]¬
>
> Jacob Sparre Andersen, Steve Bliss, Tim Courtney, Terry Keller, and
> Community Advisor Larry Pieniazek. This group is responsible for forming a
> charter organization for LDraw.org. (see:
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183)
>
> [LDraw.org Membership]¬
>
> Defined, opt-in group of LDraw community participants who will have the
> right to vote on resolutions put forward by the LDraw.org Leadership.
>
> [LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC)]¬
>
> Group of 5 parts authors, Parts Tracker reviewers, or LDraw-compatible
> software authors elected by peers within the LDraw.org Membership to ratify
> and publish the Official LDraw.org File Format Spec.
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
blah blah blah this is filler to make the quote monitor happy blah blah blah
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> [{Requirements for LSC Membership}]¬
> To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible to
> become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following
> requirements for nomination:
...
> * Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
> parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews in at least two updates since
> their initial participation
Since the requirement says we want "active contributors", should this be
clarified to say "5 reviews in each of the last two updates"? I don't think
that I qualify to be on the LSC, just because I reviewed 20 files back in early
2002. Does that make sense?
> * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> spec or another spec published by the LSC
Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
Also, once we get all the nominations, we should have the ad-hoc committee
publish the complete list of nominees, if they accepted or declined the
nomination, and under what clause do they qualify. That way, people will know
who they can cast their votes for.
:)
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > [{Requirements for LSC Membership}]¬
> > To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible to
> > become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following
> > requirements for nomination:
>
> ...
>
> > * Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
> > parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews in at least two updates since
> > their initial participation
>
> Since the requirement says we want "active contributors", should this be
> clarified to say "5 reviews in each of the last two updates"? I don't think
> that I qualify to be on the LSC, just because I reviewed 20 files back in early
> 2002. Does that make sense?
Yes, it makes sense. I think given this point it's best to keep it to people who
have reviewed in the last two updates - what does everyone else think?
> > * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> > spec or another spec published by the LSC
>
> Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or
'dumber') users. I think that understanding how the system is used by everyday
users is important. What do others think?
> Also, once we get all the nominations, we should have the ad-hoc committee
> publish the complete list of nominees, if they accepted or declined the
> nomination, and under what clause do they qualify. That way, people will know
> who they can cast their votes for.
Sounds good to me.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> > > spec or another spec published by the LSC
> >
> > Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
>
> I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or
> 'dumber') users. I think that understanding how the system is used by everyday
> users is important. What do others think?
I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the
file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing
with the dats easier.
$0.02
Dan
|
|
| |
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > [{Requirements for LSC Membership}]¬
> > > To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible • to
> > > become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the • following
> > > requirements for nomination:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > * Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
> > > parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews in at least two updates • since
> > > their initial participation
> >
> > Since the requirement says we want "active contributors", should this be
> > clarified to say "5 reviews in each of the last two updates"? I don't • think
> > that I qualify to be on the LSC, just because I reviewed 20 files back in • early
> > 2002. Does that make sense?
>
> Yes, it makes sense. I think given this point it's best to keep it to people
> who
> have reviewed in the last two updates - what does everyone else think?
I agree - Current rules say I qualifiy, and Steve will tell you, getting me to
review is like pulling teeth! :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > > * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> > > > spec or another spec published by the LSC
> > >
> > > Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
> >
> > I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or
> > 'dumber') users. I think that understanding how the system is used by everyday
> > users is important. What do others think?
>
> I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the
> file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing
> with the dats easier.
>
> $0.02
>
> Dan
I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple
text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify
--Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > > > * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> > > > > spec or another spec published by the LSC
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
> > >
> > > I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or
> > > 'dumber') users. I think that understanding how the system is used by everyday
> > > users is important. What do others think?
> >
> > I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the
> > file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing
> > with the dats easier.
> >
> > $0.02
> >
> > Dan
>
> I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple
> text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify
Works for me.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jennifer L. Boger wrote:
> I agree - Current rules say I qualifiy, and Steve will tell you, getting me to
> review is like pulling teeth! :)
Nah, that's not true. I've had teeth pulled -- it was easier than
getting you to review! ;)
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> >
> > > Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02?
> >
> > I feel voting for LSC members should be open to the general group. I've
> > got 2 reasons for this:
> >
> > 1. I trust people enough that they'll deal with their own capabilities
> > for discernment in this area.
> > 2. I don't want to have to sort out who gets to vote, and who doesn't.
> > I'm guessing there are people who are qualified to select the LSC
> > members, even though they might not fit the outline we've described for
> > eligibility.
>
> I see your points and agree with 2 and 3, but only partially with 1.
>
> Anyways, there's about equal response for or against limitations. Not
> totally sure on what to do - I'll let it simmer for a bit.
Well, it's simmered a bit. There's been no outcry one way or another. I think
for simplicity's sake, the proposal should change to allow anyone to vote for
who is on the LSC, not just those who are LSC eligible. I don't think the stakes
are high enough to need that measure, given the current climate of the
community.
Does anyone agree? Does anyone object?
> (I should note that if there was no limitation on who could vote for the LSC
> members, I would be able to vote, and if there were, I would not)
And ... as noted, this does gain me a vote where I wouldn't have had one.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> Well, it's simmered a bit. There's been no outcry one way or another. I think
> for simplicity's sake, the proposal should change to allow anyone to vote for
> who is on the LSC, not just those who are LSC eligible. I don't think the stakes
> are high enough to need that measure, given the current climate of the
> community.
>
> Does anyone agree? Does anyone object?
I agree. Everyone should be able to vote.
> > (I should note that if there was no limitation on who could vote for the LSC
> > members, I would be able to vote, and if there were, I would not)
>
> And ... as noted, this does gain me a vote where I wouldn't have had one.
Well, I think we could make an exception to the rule on this point ...
;)
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > Well, it's simmered a bit. There's been no outcry one way or another. I think
> > for simplicity's sake, the proposal should change to allow anyone to vote for
> > who is on the LSC, not just those who are LSC eligible. I don't think the stakes
> > are high enough to need that measure, given the current climate of the
> > community.
> >
> > Does anyone agree? Does anyone object?
>
> I agree. Everyone should be able to vote.
Assuming they comply with the base self selection criteria for LDraw.org
membership.
>
> > > (I should note that if there was no limitation on who could vote for the LSC
> > > members, I would be able to vote, and if there were, I would not)
> >
> > And ... as noted, this does gain me a vote where I wouldn't have had one.
>
> Well, I think we could make an exception to the rule on this point ...
> ;)
Exceptions to rules are a dangerous precedent to set, even when (as in this
case) they are done with the best of intentions. :-)
> Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > I agree. Everyone should be able to vote.
>
> Assuming they comply with the base self selection criteria for LDraw.org
> membership.
Of course.
> > Well, I think we could make an exception to the rule on this point ...
> > ;)
>
> Exceptions to rules are a dangerous precedent to set, even when (as in this
> case) they are done with the best of intentions. :-)
LOL :P
-Tim
|
|
|
