Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:52:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2570 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:11:37PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > The only change made between the last posting of the document to the
> > > mail list and the posting here was in the clause Jacob addressed.
> > > Jacob's edits still leave some ambiguity - is that what we want? If in
> > > the future there is a candidate who's eligibility is questioned, who
> > > makes the final decision for eligibility?
> >
> > Jacob said:
> >
> > "No professional employee of The LEGO? Company or any affiliated
> > or subsidiary company shall be eligible to be a Steering
> > Committee Officer."
> >
> > Is the ambiguity in the word "professional"? Ok, so if we say "No
> > employee of TLC..." does that correct the problem?
>
> No, the point is to make a distinction between employees who have influence on
> strategy decisions within the company, and low-level employees who do not.
> Example, I currently work part time at a LEGO store, while attending school. I'm
> not involved with strategy decisions, and to make such a blanket statement in
> the bylaws would disallow me as a candidate to the Steering Committee.
>
> I have the support of several community members to stand for election. I don't
> believe my position in the Company is any conflict of interest to LDraw.org.
> However, in the future, should I advance, it might pose a conflict - and at that
> time my involvement on the Committee should be re-evaluated.
I agree with Tim here. I think there is ambiguity and I would like it removed
but I do not want Tim to be barred from standing for election as a result of
removing it.
The issue here is that of conflict of interest.
While I think Jake McKee is aces, knows a lot about LDraw and would otherwise be
a good candidate, I think there's a fairly clear conflict of interest because he
is a full time regular employee. Tim on the other hand is not conflicted, in my
view, (at this time) and the reasons/factors are because he's not a careerist.
Professional captures that if we're clear about documenting intent somewhere so
that language lawyers later can't trip us up.
But I liked the older wording of part time/student employees better than
"professional". It seemed easier to spot. If someone is part time and has
another job (Scott Lyttle for example) it ought not to preclude him. If someone
is in school to get trained for a non LEGO career, it ought not to preclude him
even if he is currently full time interning at LEGO.
Get the ambiguity out somehow and make sure everyone's clear about intent and
we're good.
( n.b. I plan to nominate Tim if I can get to it before anyone else does (there
may be a bit of a race on), I think he's almost uniquely well qualified for a
seat on the SteerCo.
That's my view. Any wording that excludes him isn't quite right. )
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Conflicts of Interest
|
| (...) All: While the goal of avoiding conflicts of interest is a laudable one, in practice large numbers of committees operate with members who have them. It is far more important that potential conflicts be disclosed as they crop up. If the (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
68 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
|
|
|
|
