To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 2400
2399  |  2401
Subject: 
Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Tue, 6 May 2003 03:23:18 GMT
Viewed: 
2277 times
  
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



Message has 5 Replies:
  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 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

50 Messages in This Thread:
















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR