Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:48:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
988 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:05:10AM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > http://peeron.com/tmp/lsc06a.html
>
> Thank you for providing the marked up version. It makes abundantly clear
> 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
> highlighted.
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.
> In your preface, you say "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."...
>
> There are two misconceptions there, I think, and they're critical, and a
> serious process problem as well.
>
> First, this is not the first step toward an official ldraw.org body. That
> step was taken some time ago, (as outlined here:
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183) and activity continues,
> although not at the pace some would like. Community input got us to the
> point Steve outlined in 1183 and community input has been important since then.
Perhaps, but since that post is over 2 years old, I think the community
should review what the committee came up with, especially considering
the short term goals of it weren't really achieved. Which is why I feel
that while that post was an attempt to move forward in the right
direction, it didn't really go anywhere. Which is why we need a fresh
start now.
> Second, it's not a step towards an (overall) official LDraw.org body at all.
> It's a realisation of a standards committee *within the framework of the
> existing temporary official LDraw.org body*. That standards committee is
> not, repeat NOT the entire LDraw.org body.
I agree 100%. However, since it will be the first FORMAL part within
the eventual ldraw.org body, it is a step in that direction. This
committee, once set up, will continue to function once we do figure out
the rest of the organization.
> Clearing up those misconceptions about where we are at this point and what
> this proposal is about is, I feel, important as it has bearing on the way
> your proposal is structured.
>
> Also the notion that the entire community can successfully design an
> organisation, which you allude to, has not proved itself to be realistic in
> practice, at least not with this community, not in my view. Successful
> organization efforts have not used the committee of the whole approach.
I'm not saying the entire community can, or should, design the
organization. However, I do think the committee that designs it should
be ratified by the community.
> I think I have two major concerns that I have with your draft itself that
> are not present in the one that we developed, and they are as follows. I
> shall be brief because others have touched on them already.
>
> First the process by which the LSC is chosen seems very ill defined. It
> makes a lot of reference to the community carrying out things but since you
> have cut away any reference to the current Steering Committee, there is no
> way to ensure the process will function successfully, other than via a great
> number of posts here, or worse, secret emails.
I'm not sure why you think that? After the initial set up of the LSC,
wouldn't it be their job to ensure the election would occur on schedule?
> The LSC is properly a creation that is chartered from LDraw.org and to cut
> it away from the existing structure is bad on the face of it, and further,
> it does not have the benefit of driving additional structure into LDraw.org
> by forcing it to set up voting and discussion mechanisms.
My problem is that currently, as far as I can see, there is no LDraw.org
structure. So how exactly can it charter anything? Is it done just by
Steve's say so? Why steve? Since Jacob was the one running the only
real LDraw resource, isn't HE ldraw.org?
> This is a serious concern. Having the LSC float in space with no anchor is
> not good for the community in my view.
I agree. And as an LDraw.org body is formed, the LSC should, and will,
be part of it. But since we're setting it up before the rest of the
body, it doesn't have anything to connect to.
Perhaps we should talk about setting up the official body before the
LSC? Seems right, except that it's a step backwards on all the work
already done on the LSC.
> But the second concern is, if anything, more serious.
>
> The 0.6 draft proposes that the LSC solicit input, document work, and draft
> standards that it has the power to approve. This is a very common way for
> standards to be created. It allows for the LSC to structure the work so that
> standards can be approved in pieces but still remain logicially coherent.
> Votes on standards (or parts of standards) would be frequent as there is a
> lot to decide. But the standards would be technically sound and would be
> flexible as there would be a well defined and efficient mechanism to develop
> them
>
> You have changed the LSC from a group that proposes and determines
> standards, with a great deal of community input, to a group that merely
> proposes standards. At that point a community vote has to be held to
> determine them. A simple up and down vote is all that would be practical, as
> votes cannot be held very often if you have a huge (self selected) voting
> body to consult with. Further, by allowing standards to be voted on by all
> comers, you remove an important sanity check on them. Perfectly good
> standards may get voted down by people that don't understand why they are
> important. The proposal as written removes this serious risk by ensuring
> that the people that vote on them are technically competent.
I agree that democracy isn't a very good way to set up standards. I'm
just not sure how to improve on it. I do think that Wayne's idea,
giving the LSC the power to approve, but only after presenting a final
draft for comments could work.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
| (...) 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)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
