 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
