 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the programming side of the community. :) Dan (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone - programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers, parts authors, or (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree that the slots should be open to everyone but I'd like to weed out those who are the "rainy day" LDrawers. In other words, you need to have proven your competency and commitment. We could go on and on about what qualification someone (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) That was the intent of the minimum requirements. I'd like this to be as open as possible too, without risking the integrity and competency of the decision making body by allowing someone to walk in off the street and get in. (...) Yep. I'm (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I could gather): Jacob: parts author, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Hi Dan, (...) Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of setting up how the Standards (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) You're mostly right. I suppose the proposal/message wasn't clear enough (and this is the part I was afraid of it not being clear enough in, so I tried to disclaim it). A couple years ago, the four of us posted this message: (URL) - sometime (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you're misunderstanding, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the proposal. The leaders who set up the LSC are only setting it up, they aren't the initial members of the LSC. These people were self-selected two years ago, based on the fact (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Sorry, I should have said, "how LDraw.org should function as an organization in the future." -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Dan, there seems to be some confusion here on your part. Hopefully other posters have cleared it up for you, but I want to go on record here on what the vision was. If it wasn't clear from the proposal, that's at least partly my fault since I (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I don't think that what Kyle is describing is what I have in mind. LDraw.org is the natural group to designate that their will be an LSC committee. The committee is made up of "technically qualified" members. Only members of LDraw.org that are (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) [snip everything else, good stuff] I think I wasn't clear enough. As you read it, I don't agree either. I meant - this proposal is yet another catalyst to the issue of further organizing and defining LDraw.org. It isn't the LSC's job, but the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Me either. Snipped the next bit because it's a good summation of the roles... (...) And thanks muchly for that! progress on overall org goals had stagnated. a good sharp poke was a good thing. <more snippage> (...) What I think Tim meant here (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
