 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, 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
| | | | | | |
