 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) There had been discussion previously about differentiating true comments from meta-statements. The LSC agreed that it seems like a good idea to start prefixing meta-keywords with a punctuation mark, and we chose !. And !COLOUR is shorter than (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I was considering the possibility of (patterned) parts including custom color definitions, which would only apply to that part. (...) That's a good question. Think about this: what if file A also has some surfaces hard-coded to color (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) I don't think we could list which companies to watch out for, and which not to, and be comprehensive. That's why there's a general removal clause in 6.04 to enable the members to remove a SteerCo member in cases of documented, serious (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) What about MegaBloks, or any other company that may have an interest? Why pointing the finger on TLC only? Why not have a more general clause about conflict of interest? -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for your confidence. Based on my experience in the company so far, working relationships I have with Community Development people, and experience in the hobby in general, I do not believe the pressure you hypothesize about is likely to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the bylaws discussion. These are important issues, and in my view the opinions put forth have been by and large well thought out and productive. I think we've covered the lion's share of the possible (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I see. I wasn't clear on what role the LSC has. I've gone back over the posts dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still think it was a valid question. (...) Not really. It's less to do with the way I worded (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Perfectly. Thanks. As I said originally, I don't doubt your integrity or devotion to ldraw.org, TLC employee or not. I was just hypothesising to myself about what a conflict of interest might entail and thinking, perhaps unreasonably, that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Apologies for not making the timeframe - they're *just* about ready and they should be ready to go tomorrow. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I do apologise if I misinterpreted your words, but I would suggest that my interpretation is an extremely reasonable one given the word choices you used. (...) I would think not, but I look to the steering committee to do a lot more than make (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
