 | | | | | |
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:
> 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:
> > > 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, 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, 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:
> (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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
