Subject:
|
Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:09:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@geocitiesSPAMLESS.com
|
Viewed:
|
1066 times
|
| |
|
|
(Repost, to fix a lugnetter ID problem I was having yesterday. :-)
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Does anyone agree with a suggestion that appeared in lugnet.admin.general to
> the effect of Jonathan being formally be asked by the group to take a break
> from this or lose his posting privileges?
(I knew I said that I'd stay out of this, but argh argh argh argh fooey.)
I like Jacob's suggestion, for him to volunteer to mentor Johnathan for a
month on a trial basis. People tend to listen better when it's one-on-one,
and this seems to be a rare case where someone has the time to invest.
Here's another thought: Is it so bad that JW is posting his MOPs (1) to
.cad.dat? What if someone posts a mockup that is useful but not worthy of a
parts update? No, it seems that attitude is the greater problem -- which
mentoring may help to fix.
If the .cad.dat group were segregated into .cad.dat.parts (or whatever :-),
with the intention that the .cad.dat.parts is just for LDraw parts updates,
then I would go along with the suggestion of removing his posting privs from
that group until his mentor okays it. JW could still be allowed to post his
MOPs, but not as offical parts until the group agrees on it.
Hey, this could actually be applied across the board, to grant posting privs
to that group only when a core group votes upon inclusion. (2) Terry's
headaches could be lessened, if he would accept new parts from just
.cad.dat.parts .
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. My Own Part -- hey, did I come up with a new TLA? :-P
2. The notion of being a card-carrying member of the LUGNET Parts Authoring
Cabal has a certain ring to it, too. :-,
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
"The world will not perish for want of wonders but for want of wonder"
-- British scientist J. B. S. Haldane (1892-1964)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
| (...) Is this an attempt to model part #30014? If so, it is incorrect in at least three very obvious ways -- (a) the vertical placement of ARM1.DAT, (b) the use of ARM1.DAT in the first place, and (c) the use of 3004.DAT, where a new element should (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
