Subject:
|
Re: Call for Nominations: 2007/2008 LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 05:42:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > The wording is ambiguous about whether the five have to come in the
> > "one year period" or the "term as a parts reviewer period".)
> >
> > --Travis Cobbs
>
> I do agree it is ambiguous (and can't actually remember what was meant even
> though I believe I drafted that statement...) and the wording should be
> tightened. Given the non-exceptional rules I assume it means for the duration of
> being a parts reviewer.
I would like to think that it meant "5 in the last one year", since we want
people who are CURRENTLY active in the LDraw community. That is also the way
that I naturally read the sentence. But it can definitely be read either way.
And given that it's already been posted with the given wording, I would lean
towards using the broader interpretation, personally. You (the steerco) should
probably consider tightening the wording for the future (although hopefully
those clauses will never be needed again).
For that matter, the "software author" requirement could potentially be
tightened to require a release of said software within the last x amount of
time. However, software being what it is, 1 year would probably be too tight
there. LDView releases are around a year apart if you ignore the betas, and I
consider it to be getting fairly active development and updates. And on the
flip of that, I think Lars is a very valuable member of the current LSC, and as
far as I know his last software release was quite some time ago.
--Travis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
