Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:16:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
959 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> 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
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 released in an Official LDraw.org
Parts Update
- Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews per update
- Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw .2.7
spec or another spec published by the LSC
- Been nominated for membership by at least 2 members of the current LSC
Two thoughts:
I think 2 nominations is sufficient but maybe 3 would be prudent as it would
represent a majority of the members of the LSC
Dan suggested making the requirement of part authoring be 2 parts instead of
1. I'm leaning toward agreeing.
-Orion
-Orion
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
