 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) it was semi-automatic - I used vimdiff to find all the differences, and marked them up manually. Didn't take long. But since it is manual, it's theoretically possible that I missed some - I promise, nothing was left out intentionally. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I guess I'm worried about the LSC defining a standard that has no meaning. Without the community accepting the standard, what's the point in having it defined? I do agree with later posts, especially wayne's - the vote is likely to become a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed with creating parts
|
|
(...) I know it's not a good idea, but it's for the trainposter and detail isn't priority there; the trains are about 200 pixels high. Again, I can send high-res scans of the BI and pictures of the parts. If you are really intrested in doing it I (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed with creating parts
|
|
jeroen de haan <info@digitalbricks.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:HDtI4o.14K6@lugnet.com... (...) I can only speak for me, but making parts (no patterns) only from pictures isn't a good idea. Maybe that this is sufficient for mock-ups. Which (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) This is more what I was considering... a way for those who may or may not have been authoring Lego Parts to get a chance to be on the standards body. After all, its possible, but unlikely that another use for the program could overshadow the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Yep, I agree 100%. Tomorrow I'm going to work on an 0.7 draft version of the proposal, taking in the useful comments made by all. It should tighten it up considerably from 0.6, eliminate the confusion, and add stuff like Wayne's recommendation (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I'm completely opposed to removing the voting power for the LSC. If the LSC can't set any standards why have it the first place. As the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. -Orion (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) How about this: Requirements for LSC Membership To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following requirements: - Authored an LDraw part subsequently (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) All: While a ratification vote is fairly common for technical committee proposals, I don't think I've ever heard of a ratification vote that did not sustain a technical committee's recommendation. If a technical committee is doing the wrong (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle Masks
|
|
(...) They're available to whom ever wants to do the work coding them. They're all my extras from trying to collect all the variations of the original masks. I could even send a few of each so that one can be cut one way and another can be cut in (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
