Subject:
|
Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:10:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2102 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> GREAT input Wayne. (now, can we twist Wayne's arm to be on the SC?)
>
> Yes, we should learn from orgs but not adopt everything. The proper balance
> is key. What follows is some ILTCO organizing committee experience.
Definitely. I think it's important to draw from ILTCO's experience forming
as well as Wayne's experience on the W3C.
> On the topic of conference calls, back before the dotcom bubble popped, it
> wasn't unheard of for companies to donate their conference call facilities
> complete with 800 numbers to call in on. Those days are over. But LD is
> cheap, and there is a free service that does conference calls for you, first
> come first served, you just have to make an LD call to their switchboard.
> (so each caller is paying LD to that number)
Good idea. While I'm not going for a position on the SB myself, I can attest
for the value of voice conversations over chat.
> The ILTCO organizing committee uses this to great effect, along with a
> parallel AIM or Y! chat session where notes are taken and URLs (to samples
> etc) can be posted for quick reference during the meeting.
Cool. One thing about a chat session, or email list is this: Some people
type faster than others, and by that can end up dominating discussion. Where
over voice, it's a bit easier to ensure eveyrone is heard. Thoughts on this?
It doesn't negate email or chat as an option, but it is something the SB
should be conscious of.
> 5 to 7 people feels right to me for the size of the SC.
I'd go for the smaller number, myself. We haven't had too many volunteers,
the ones who have volunteered are the right people IMO, and it's easier to
get stuff done with a smaller group. If anyone can read the SB discussion
and talk about it here, I don't see making the SB 5 people as an issue. It
will streamline things a bit.
> Piggybacking meetings onto fan events is sort of OK but there are always
> some people missing, we have found. But it's better than nothing and there
> certainly is no budget for special meetings.
Yup, much better than nothing.
> If the SC is self selecting, (this is a community consensus thing, I'm
> assuming but not asserting that the community is OK with that) we have 3
> members already and at least one of the members (me) wants Wayne in on this
> for his previous standards body experience. That would be 4. Steve B is a
> must, that's 5.
I think the individuals up for this are the right people. To recap, the 3 we
had already are Orion, Kevin, and Lar, plus Wayne and Steve Bliss (assuming
he'll want to be in, I think he's a critical person to have on).
> 5 is a good number. So is 7, but 6 is not as good, odd is better than even.
Yep.
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
| GREAT input Wayne. (now, can we twist Wayne's arm to be on the SC?) Yes, we should learn from orgs but not adopt everything. The proper balance is key. What follows is some ILTCO organizing committee experience. On the topic of conference calls, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
