 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I strongly object to a blanket exclusion. I do not believe every position would pose a conflict of interest. Here is a thought: What about instead of having an exclusionary clause, require that if someone is employed by TLC, there be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Dishes are Round (Cornbread are Square)
|
|
(...) 1. Will they still be considered part of the Round category? (I.e., will they then need a "0 CATEGORY Round" meta-statement?) 2. Won't they need "Space", "radar", and "round" added to their lists of KEYWORDS? Thnx, Franklin (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Dish 2 x 2 (4740.dat)
|
|
(...) After some offline discussion with Steve Bliss we have decided that the dish parts will all be named "Dish ...". I'll be fixing the names of the parts on the PT and searching out any that remain to be fixed on the official library. Chris (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
Quoting Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com>: (...) I agree. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
