Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:10:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1062 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> > Here's how I see it: if we reduce the requirements to guidelines, then who
> > decides when we want to bend the rules? That opens it up to politics. By
> > having defined guidelines, we have a standard people must meet, and then
> > decisions on who is able to run for LSC membership aren't decided individually.
> >
> > This is a tough call. I think there need to be some minimum standards, so
> > that we only have technically capable people on the LSC. I'm torn on this
> > issue. Other input?
>
> 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?
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
