 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:27:28AM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote: [snip very good points] (...) Wayne, this is a great idea, and I would support this kind of process. Dan (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) 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. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I guess I'm worried about the LSC defining a standard that has no meaning. Without the community accepting the standard, what's the point in having it defined? I do agree with later posts, especially wayne's - the vote is likely to become a (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Yep, I agree 100%. Tomorrow I'm going to work on an 0.7 draft version of the proposal, taking in the useful comments made by all. It should tighten it up considerably from 0.6, eliminate the confusion, and add stuff like Wayne's recommendation (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I'm completely opposed to removing the voting power for the LSC. If the LSC can't set any standards why have it the first place. As the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. -Orion (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) All: I'm little behind the curve on this overall discussion, but I think I can speak to this issue. I think the proposed rules for LSC inclusion are quite reasonable. My reading of the rules is that I do not qualify for LSC membership (and I (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:20030423205226....ron.com... (...) retaining (...) I have been watching this thread from the sidelines. While I use a number of the tools (notably ML-CAD, L3P, L3PAO, LDAO, and LPub) I would not (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) 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 (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) 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? (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Thanks for the marked up version. It makes it clear that you want the community to have the deciding vote, not the LSC. May I ask why? Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Right. (...) I'm not sure here. If we make those requirements guidelines, it further weakens the LSC. BUT, as duly noted, we have two cases who could qualify, Dwayne and Wayne. I wouldn't want them excluded from the possibility of being LSC (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Putting on my legal hat: Notice that the draft proposal refers to "the LDraw Community", not the LEGO community. LDraw stands for LEGO Draw, which is the only time the word LEGO is used in the entire draft, so I'm not sure where you think that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
If I might ask a question... I see that this whole project is geared specificly toward Lego uses of the program. From my understanding, it will not be restricted to just Lego uses. Clone brands, as well as other things (there is a couple of block (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) here's a (manually) marked up version: (URL) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I'm sorry for the confusion here - Lar corrected me offline on the definition of 'subcommittee' (which technically typically means members drawn from the parent body [1], not the intent here). I didn't mean to imply that the 4+1/steering (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolution
|
|
(...) Hi Steve-- Thanks for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not modelling official elements! Clone brands have quite a few odd cones, arcs, and domes that just don't fit the official primitives, and if I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Yep. Steve and I have talked before about a voting mechanism. Basically, anyone who signed up to vote can vote. This mechanism hasn't been set up yet, but it can be discussed and set up in the relative near future - according to the proposal, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Everyone who is interested in LDraw related stuff is part of the community. The LDraw community has some official organizations like LDraw.org and soon to be the LSC. It is my understanding that anyone who wants to vote for the nominees (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Me either. Snipped the next bit because it's a good summation of the roles... (...) And thanks muchly for that! progress on overall org goals had stagnated. a good sharp poke was a good thing. <more snippage> (...) What I think Tim meant here (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) hmm ... probably it's due to a non-proper knowledge of the english language but now I'm even more confused! as far as I understand we have Ldraw members, which are not part of the community, community members which are not Ldraw members, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) [snip everything else, good stuff] I think I wasn't clear enough. As you read it, I don't agree either. I meant - this proposal is yet another catalyst to the issue of further organizing and defining LDraw.org. It isn't the LSC's job, but the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I don't think that what Kyle is describing is what I have in mind. LDraw.org is the natural group to designate that their will be an LSC committee. The committee is made up of "technically qualified" members. Only members of LDraw.org that are (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) formats. (...) ... (...) I interpret the "set in stone" statement to refer to the language as defined in 027 version of LDraw/LEdit. It is my belief that all the nuances (nucances :^) you mentioned should be described in the 0.27 document. The (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes: hi tim, (...) could you please sort this out in more detail? does it mean that the "Ldraw.org" file format will support, say 256 colors, no longer required to put dithered colors in subfiles, "set in (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think this looks very comprehensive - and I think the idea of choosing a small group of dedicated people to actually take the proposal forward is the way to go. I think this proposal is definitely a step in the right direction. ROSCO (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolution
|
|
(...) For general features, the standard rule of thumb is to model details which are 1LDU or larger. To cleanly model some features, you certainly can run into decimal places -- I typically go to 2 or 3 decimal places in part files. Any use of the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Dan, there seems to be some confusion here on your part. Hopefully other posters have cleared it up for you, but I want to go on record here on what the vision was. If it wasn't clear from the proposal, that's at least partly my fault since I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Sorry, I should have said, "how LDraw.org should function as an organization in the future." -Tim (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you're misunderstanding, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the proposal. The leaders who set up the LSC are only setting it up, they aren't the initial members of the LSC. These people were self-selected two years ago, based on the fact (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) You're mostly right. I suppose the proposal/message wasn't clear enough (and this is the part I was afraid of it not being clear enough in, so I tried to disclaim it). A couple years ago, the four of us posted this message: (URL) - sometime (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Hi Dan, (...) Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of setting up how the Standards (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I could gather): Jacob: parts author, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Not to worry, combining things is more of a stretch goal (if you'll pardon the pun). Just one is good enough for now. (...) Maybe that's the way to go. I think actually I would go with Band and then hand edit away the 1/2 (of the synthesized (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Thanks Mike. Meanwhile I just installed make-3.79.1 and it makes lsynthcp OK without needing to install MSys. Gotta think about whether I want Cygwin or not... it's not like I don't have a bazillion other things I should be working on instead. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
