 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't call it radical (I thought about it too). I think it is the most practical solution. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) We seem to be making something convoluted in this area no matter what we do... Here's a radical idea... drop the clause completely. If someone stands for election that has a conflict of interest that would hinder their carrying out their (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) If we write in a mechanism for determining the eligibility of candidates I agree (see my response to Ross). -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Well, I've mulled over in my head the possibility of another body to determine eligibility to the StC - but, it goes against my gut as adding too much bureaucracy to the org. Perhaps the bylaws should allow for a public discussion on a (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I think it's a good idea! The only thing I think needs looking at is the naming - should it be dedicated to L3P or to the renderer, eg: RENDERPARTS\POVRAY RENDERPARTS\BRYCE etc. That way, people can provide their own program to do (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
I Like it :) It is a great solution to a sticky problem. -Chuck (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the last sentence should be omitted as fluff. For example, the foreman of the molding plant in Billund is clearly eligible under the definition of "professional employee", as is a LEGOLAND Master Builder and the lower-level (or all?) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That reads better to me. (...) Well maybe we need such a mechanism anyway, in case other unknown conflicts or questions arise in future? ROSCO (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for the support, Larry! (...) OK, lets settle on a wording then. It should appear in the bylaws, because the bylaws are written to be difficult to change, where defining in the P&P would make the definition of 'professional' easy to (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Thanks. I implemented it that way, and it seems to be working so far, so I believe that everything is fine. (...) You're too right. Unfortunately, I can go for a while and do a really good job of commenting, and then I'll slack off for one (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
