Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:26:26 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
959 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> While I agree in general, I think the leadership of LDraw.org should
> not be part of this proposal. The LSC can easily start it's work,
> while the community works out the whole official org details.
I believe this proposal should make reference to the current steering
committee, the only legitimate steering committee thus far. If it does not,
there is a risk that the LSC could be misconstrued as _the_ governing body
for all LDraw.org issues. The LSC is designed to be limited to technical
file format standards only. That said, community can and should discuss the
future of LDraw.org leadership in conjunction with this steering committee.
The LSC can easily start it's work without a permanent leadership body. But,
the proposal should acknowledge the current, temporary, leadership body
which does exist, if only so there is no confusion on the limitations of the
LSC's authority.
Decisions on file format standards are of a different scope than decisions
about the direction of an organization, allthough they are remotely related,
the bodies which administrate either should be defined separately.
> > This isn't an "official LDraw.org" proposal, it's a draft. The goal is
> > to move forward and get closer to acting on a standards committee.
>
> Here's my revision to the draft. I think it makes it simpler, while
> retaining the key details. If anyone's interested, I can try to post a
> marked up version, with the changes underlined.
I agree the reference made in my proposal to the 4+1/leadership group might
have complicated things a bit much. I still believe that group needs to be
recognized as the group chartering the LSC's creation. I also believe the
proposal should reference this body as the group responsible for leading
discussion and guiding the formation of a permanent leadership group for
LDraw.org.
Posting the revision marks was useful. I think your version is too simple
and removes too much of the punch of the LSC, but perhaps my proposal was
too complex. I can draft an in-between version.
> Again, this is a draft, hoping to draw comments and discussion about
> this committee. Since this is really the first step twards an official
> LDraw.org body, I think it's very important to have the whole community
> design it.
Yes, I agree. I also believe strongly we can't undermine the group that's in
place right now, provided they do their job. Once the voting mechanism is in
place, that can prompt further resolutions which move towards a permanent
leadership structure for LDraw.org. Until then, there has to be someone
leading. If we're a committee of the whole, nothing will get done.
Note: Kevin did a really good job outlining the roles of 4+1 people (minus
Terry) in this post: http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=8815.
The community can work to outline a road map for the transition into a
permanent leadership system for LDraw.org. I believe we have a lot to learn
from groups like the ISOC (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/,
http://www.isoc.org/orgs/) on the professional end of things, and the ILTCO
on the LEGO community end of things. The ILTCO is a model of a loose group
of LEGO community members forming an organization with strong leadership.
Aside from the removing of any mention of LDraw.org leadership from the
proposal, I don't think it's a good idea to weaken the LSC to a group of
people who is only able to make recommendations. You yourself want more
representation from the programmers when deciding standards. The proposal as
I structured it achieved that goal - it only allows experienced LDraw
programmers and parts authors to make decisions about standards. These
people would be elected by the community and empowered to vote on standards
issues. The community would be encouraged to discuss the issues - everyone's
voice can be heard. It's a representative body.
If the LDraw community is going to grow [1] (I hope these efforts will lay
the foundation for it to grow upon), we can't have weak leadership in
standards or in organizational issues. If we do, progress will easily be
derailed, and in the long term we won't be solving any of the problems we
have right now.
The LSC should be the voting body on new standards issues. Perhaps the
community should be able to recommend new standards to the LSC. However,
only qualified people should be able to ratify a standard as official. Note
that my proposal encourages community participation and discussion, but
reserves decision making only to those qualified elected individuals,
helping ensure responsible decisions on standards are made.
-Tim
[1] By this I mean, encourage more people to use the tools as enthusiasts,
and also encourage more programmers to write new tools and improve on the
ones we have to develop a more cohesive, intuitive system.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) I agree that we have to avoid that risk you refer to, and I would suggest that be part of the LSC charter. As for the steering committee, I'm not sure the post from 2 years ago is really valid anymore, and would suggest the community start (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) I think it had many good ideas in it, indeed! (...) While I agree in general, I think the leadership of LDraw.org should not be part of this proposal. The LSC can easily start it's work, while the community works out the whole official org (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
