 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Dan Boger
|
| | | (...) here's a (manually) marked up version: (URL) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Dwayne Miller
|
| | | | | If I might ask a question... I see that this whole project is geared specificly toward Lego uses of the program. From my understanding, it will not be restricted to just Lego uses. Clone brands, as well as other things (there is a couple of block (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | (...) Putting on my legal hat: Notice that the draft proposal refers to "the LDraw Community", not the LEGO community. LDraw stands for LEGO Draw, which is the only time the word LEGO is used in the entire draft, so I'm not sure where you think that (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | (...) Right. (...) I'm not sure here. If we make those requirements guidelines, it further weakens the LSC. BUT, as duly noted, we have two cases who could qualify, Dwayne and Wayne. I wouldn't want them excluded from the possibility of being LSC (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not to overcomplexify but perhaps two nomination paths? One path if you are qualified under the criteria given already, and another, petition based, in which some number of qualified people vouched for you as a viable candidate? (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That sounds good to me. If someone can further think this through, I can include it in a re-draft of the proposal sometime in the future. -Tim (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | (...) How about this: Requirements for LSC Membership To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following requirements: - Authored an LDraw part subsequently (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Dwayne Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) This is more what I was considering... a way for those who may or may not have been authoring Lego Parts to get a chance to be on the standards body. After all, its possible, but unlikely that another use for the program could overshadow the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Part updates are currently every two months. 0303 (due to come out in about a week, I think?) will probably be a small update, since the Tracker hasn't been up for weeks. . . -- TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Timeframe for Next Parts Update (was Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It would be better to say they are approximately every two months. I'll start working on 2003-02 sometime after I've got the PT back online, and I've got some time for it. I think it's going to be two weeks before I can get to it. Steve (22 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Every time I've seen Qualification 2, I've thought it needed clarification. How about: "Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker and posted at least 5 reviews for each of at least 2 official updates." After all, just because someone only (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Wayne Gramlich
|
| | | | | | (...) All: I'm little behind the curve on this overall discussion, but I think I can speak to this issue. I think the proposed rules for LSC inclusion are quite reasonable. My reading of the rules is that I do not qualify for LSC membership (and I (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | (...) Thanks for the marked up version. It makes it clear that you want the community to have the deciding vote, not the LSC. May I ask why? Kevin (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) I guess I'm worried about the LSC defining a standard that has no meaning. Without the community accepting the standard, what's the point in having it defined? I do agree with later posts, especially wayne's - the vote is likely to become a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) what the differences are, which is a good thing. How did you generate it? (I know your aversion to MS and suspect you didn't use MS Word for the generation :) ) Hopefully some automatic way so we can be sure all the differences are (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) it was semi-automatic - I used vimdiff to find all the differences, and marked them up manually. Didn't take long. But since it is manual, it's theoretically possible that I missed some - I promise, nothing was left out intentionally. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | | "Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:20030423205226....ron.com... (...) retaining (...) I have been watching this thread from the sidelines. While I use a number of the tools (notably ML-CAD, L3P, L3PAO, LDAO, and LPub) I would not (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Wayne Gramlich
|
| | | | | (...) All: While a ratification vote is fairly common for technical committee proposals, I don't think I've ever heard of a ratification vote that did not sustain a technical committee's recommendation. If a technical committee is doing the wrong (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:27:28AM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote: [snip very good points] (...) Wayne, this is a great idea, and I would support this kind of process. Dan (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.cad.dev, Wayne Gramlich wrote: [snip] (...) I think this sounds like an effective check on 'committees gone wild'. I would definitely support implementation of this process. Steve (22 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) It's in the 0.99 draft, which realistically could be finalized at any time. www.zacktron.com/tem...SC099.html -Tim (22 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) I'm completely opposed to removing the voting power for the LSC. If the LSC can't set any standards why have it the first place. As the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. -Orion (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) Yep, I agree 100%. Tomorrow I'm going to work on an 0.7 draft version of the proposal, taking in the useful comments made by all. It should tighten it up considerably from 0.6, eliminate the confusion, and add stuff like Wayne's recommendation (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
