 | | Re: Elections and Membership in ldraw.org
|
|
(...) I think something Parts Tracker-like would do the job. You email the system admin, he puts you in the system. This puts a human element into voter registration instaed of some blind webbot. This also requires you to keep a current Email (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Elections and Membership in ldraw.org
|
|
With 0.7 of the LSC proposal getting generally good reviews so far, it's likely that we're close to a final draft on the LSC proposal and it's time to start thinking about the things needed to make it happen. Since 0.7 replaces a temporary appointed (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) The thing is, right now they are LDraw.org. Do you prefer that we just refer to LDraw.org, without the names? I think it is important that LSC is under the LDraw.org umbrella. I invite you to start a new topic on moving from ad-hoc LDraw.org (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DModeler status
|
|
LD4DModeler is awesome! Keep up the good work. -Mike (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Yep. (...) Right. So are you trying to say something like; the individuals involved with the specific tasks are responsible/have the authority to make decisions regarding each technical task? That makes sense to me for the most (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) absolutely! (...) I like this proposal a lot better, with one exception: (...) organization for LDraw, and then step down. Administrating the website, Parts Tracker and server are all separate technical functions, and do not fall under the (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
Everyone - This has been a very good discussion on the LSC proposal so far. I have drafted a new version, 0.7, which attempts to clear up the confusion and ambiguity, and also adds in many peoples' suggestions. I've changed the references regarding (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Every time I've seen Qualification 2, I've thought it needed clarification. How about: "Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker and posted at least 5 reviews for each of at least 2 official updates." After all, just because someone only (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Part updates are currently every two months. 0303 (due to come out in about a week, I think?) will probably be a small update, since the Tracker hasn't been up for weeks. . . -- TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree that we have to avoid that risk you refer to, and I would suggest that be part of the LSC charter. As for the steering committee, I'm not sure the post from 2 years ago is really valid anymore, and would suggest the community start (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:27:28AM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote: [snip very good points] (...) Wayne, this is a great idea, and I would support this kind of process. Dan (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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. (...) (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) All: I'm little behind the curve on this overall discussion, but I think I can speak to this issue. I think the proposed rules for LSC inclusion are quite reasonable. My reading of the rules is that I do not qualify for LSC membership (and I (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:20030423205226....ron.com... (...) retaining (...) I have been watching this thread from the sidelines. While I use a number of the tools (notably ML-CAD, L3P, L3PAO, LDAO, and LPub) I would not (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) That sounds good to me. If someone can further think this through, I can include it in a re-draft of the proposal sometime in the future. -Tim (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Not to overcomplexify but perhaps two nomination paths? One path if you are qualified under the criteria given already, and another, petition based, in which some number of qualified people vouched for you as a viable candidate? (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) what the differences are, which is a good thing. How did you generate it? (I know your aversion to MS and suspect you didn't use MS Word for the generation :) ) Hopefully some automatic way so we can be sure all the differences are (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I believe this proposal should make reference to the current steering committee, the only legitimate steering committee thus far. If it does not, there is a risk that the LSC could be misconstrued as _the_ governing body for all LDraw.org (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Thanks for the marked up version. It makes it clear that you want the community to have the deciding vote, not the LSC. May I ask why? Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Right. (...) I'm not sure here. If we make those requirements guidelines, it further weakens the LSC. BUT, as duly noted, we have two cases who could qualify, Dwayne and Wayne. I wouldn't want them excluded from the possibility of being LSC (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Putting on my legal hat: Notice that the draft proposal refers to "the LDraw Community", not the LEGO community. LDraw stands for LEGO Draw, which is the only time the word LEGO is used in the entire draft, so I'm not sure where you think that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
If I might ask a question... I see that this whole project is geared specificly toward Lego uses of the program. From my understanding, it will not be restricted to just Lego uses. Clone brands, as well as other things (there is a couple of block (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) here's a (manually) marked up version: (URL) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think it had many good ideas in it, indeed! (...) While I agree in general, I think the leadership of LDraw.org should not be part of this proposal. The LSC can easily start it's work, while the community works out the whole official org (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I'm sorry for the confusion here - Lar corrected me offline on the definition of 'subcommittee' (which technically typically means members drawn from the parent body [1], not the intent here). I didn't mean to imply that the 4+1/steering (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolution
|
|
(...) Hi Steve-- Thanks for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not modelling official elements! Clone brands have quite a few odd cones, arcs, and domes that just don't fit the official primitives, and if I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Yep. Steve and I have talked before about a voting mechanism. Basically, anyone who signed up to vote can vote. This mechanism hasn't been set up yet, but it can be discussed and set up in the relative near future - according to the proposal, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Everyone who is interested in LDraw related stuff is part of the community. The LDraw community has some official organizations like LDraw.org and soon to be the LSC. It is my understanding that anyone who wants to vote for the nominees (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Me either. Snipped the next bit because it's a good summation of the roles... (...) And thanks muchly for that! progress on overall org goals had stagnated. a good sharp poke was a good thing. <more snippage> (...) What I think Tim meant here (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) hmm ... probably it's due to a non-proper knowledge of the english language but now I'm even more confused! as far as I understand we have Ldraw members, which are not part of the community, community members which are not Ldraw members, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) [snip everything else, good stuff] I think I wasn't clear enough. As you read it, I don't agree either. I meant - this proposal is yet another catalyst to the issue of further organizing and defining LDraw.org. It isn't the LSC's job, but the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I don't think that what Kyle is describing is what I have in mind. LDraw.org is the natural group to designate that their will be an LSC committee. The committee is made up of "technically qualified" members. Only members of LDraw.org that are (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) formats. (...) ... (...) I interpret the "set in stone" statement to refer to the language as defined in 027 version of LDraw/LEdit. It is my belief that all the nuances (nucances :^) you mentioned should be described in the 0.27 document. The (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes: hi tim, (...) could you please sort this out in more detail? does it mean that the "Ldraw.org" file format will support, say 256 colors, no longer required to put dithered colors in subfiles, "set in (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
