 | | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Well, at least I haven't noticed it before, otherwise I would have probably mentioned it. But (...) (21 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Ok :-) (...) Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02? -Tim (21 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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. (21 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I agree with Tim and have no objection to vote limitation. -Orion (21 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) there are reasons why I put stress on a restriction. (URL) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I agree. Everyone should be able to vote. (...) Well, I think we could make an exception to the rule on this point ... ;) Steve (21 years ago, 8-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Assuming they comply with the base self selection criteria for LDraw.org membership. (...) Exceptions to rules are a dangerous precedent to set, even when (as in this case) they are done with the best of intentions. :-) (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Of course. (...) LOL :P -Tim (21 years ago, 9-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
