Subject:
|
Re: What is 'LDraw?'
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:06:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> At 11:19 AM 12/14/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > LDraw Group? LDraw Organization? LDraw Foundation?
> >
> > I'd prefer that the group and website both go by ldraw.org. When refering
> > specifically to the people, it would be 'ldraw.org group'. For the
> > webpages, it would be 'ldraw.org site'.
>
> I would have to disagree here. I clearly see 'ldraw.org' as a website,
> since that's the name the website has been given. But the group of people
> is an organization, who uses the site as its central resource for LDraw
> materials. The organization should have a separate name, because of the
> ambiguity of calling it as well 'ldraw.org.' Adding 'group' and 'site' to
> the end would add complexity to things. For example, every reference to
> 'ldraw.org' on ldraw.org refers back to the site itself.
Right now, the website pretty much *is* the organization. We don't have a
membership list, or a secret handshake, or even a definition of who's in the
group. I'm alright with this loose organization, but I feel that there isn't a
big point of making a distinction between the group and the site. Besides, if
the same name is used, normies (aka mundanes) will have a better shot at finding
the site, if they know the group.
> Is there something wrong with the above suggested names? Perhaps retaining
> L-CAD? (though this was mailing list-specific)
I was trying to cling to L-CAD for awhile, but no one else was using it. And
lugnet.cad.dev doesn't seem right.
> Anyways, I'm pretty much against referring to the group as 'ldraw.org.'
I noticed that.
So, Tim and I disagree. What do you other 'members' think?
> Another thought, I'm 'ldraw.org Project Coordinator,' Jacob is 'ldraw.org
> Site Administrator,' and you're 'ldraw.org Parts Update Manager,' all which
> refer to our specific roles as pertains to the website. My title doesn't
> mean I'm coordinating the *group*, Jacob isn't administrating the *group*,
> etc..
Check the title you've given Jacob. You say he's 'ldraw.org site
administrator'. That's ambiguous. I read it as "administrator of the ldraw.org
site".
And I'm administering (administrating?) the parts updates for the *group*. It
just happens that the updates are published on the site.
> > > > "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed (as maintained by TOFKALCAD)"
> > >
> > > Hmmm, original software only, or original software including our updates?
> >
> > Which updates? The new mklist.exe? Fixed versions of James' part
> > files? New parts we've written?
>
> All updates, including the new parts we've written that have been included
> in the official updates.
No, then just the original software. But my *intention* with this item, was
that it was James' original package, plus software and parts-file fixes (but no
new parts).
New parts are in next bit ("part files...").
Orig package + new parts is something else.
> > > > "part files for use with LDraw-Compatible tools, and sanctioned by • TOFKALCAD"
> > >
> > > Official ldraw.org Parts Updates.
> >
> > I thought ldraw.org was the site, not the group. ;)
>
> Why you little... ;) I am actually referring to the site in this
> name. The updates are officially sanctioned by the site, though they went
> through the group for approval.
Nope, doesn't wash. The site has no will, it can't sanction anything. The
*group* sanctions the updates. And the group publishes the updates on the site.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What is 'LDraw?'
|
| (...) I would have to disagree here. I clearly see 'ldraw.org' as a website, since that's the name the website has been given. But the group of people is an organization, who uses the site as its central resource for LDraw materials. The (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
