Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:27:28 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
881 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:25:01PM +0000, Dan Boger wrote:
> > 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.
>
> here's a (manually) marked up version:
>
> http://peeron.com/tmp/lsc06a.html
>
> Dan
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 thing, trying to fix it at the
ratification step is not likely to succeed. The correct way to fix
a broken or misguided technical committee is to vote the current
members out and replace with people who will do more reasonable
things. Indeed, the new committee can retract the previous committee's
work.
Rather than have a formal proposal ratification vote, which winds
up being pretty much a formality, you are much better off having
a process that requires that the technical committee make a
formal proposal and request final comments. This is a far
more effective form of oversight than a formal proposal ratification
vote. The technical committee is required to log and respond
to every final comment.
By way of example, the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) was off
formulating their strategy for dealing with intellectual propery
(i.e. patents.) They ultimately decided on a strategy called
"Reasonable and non-discrimanitory" royalties (RAND for short.)
When last call came, they got swamped with people objecting to
the strategy. The committee got repopulated, the committee
reconsidered, changed their recommendation and the RAND policy
was dropped in favor of "royalty free".
If the LDraw.Org community is really concerned that the LSC will make
a bogus proposal, I would recommend formalizing "final comments"
instead of "ratification vote." It is way more effective.
-Wayne
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
