Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:00:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
965 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:26:26AM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> 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 issues. The LSC is designed to be limited to technical
> file format standards only. That said, community can and should discuss the
> future of LDraw.org leadership in conjunction with this steering committee.
I agree that we have to avoid that risk you refer to, and I would
suggest that be part of the LSC charter. As for the steering committee,
I'm not sure the post from 2 years ago is really valid anymore, and
would suggest the community start defining who should be in that
committee.
> The LSC can easily start it's work without a permanent leadership body. But,
> the proposal should acknowledge the current, temporary, leadership body
> which does exist, if only so there is no confusion on the limitations of the
> LSC's authority.
Does it exist? In what form? Are there meeting, notes, mailing lists?
Maybe it's just me not following .cad 2 years ago, but this 4+1 came as
a complete surprise to me. Should I assume that everyone else knew all
this?
> Decisions on file format standards are of a different scope than decisions
> about the direction of an organization, allthough they are remotely related,
> the bodies which administrate either should be defined separately.
Agreed. Which is why I think the LSC proposal should be seperate from
any LDraw.org leadership definitions.
> I agree the reference made in my proposal to the 4+1/leadership group might
> have complicated things a bit much. I still believe that group needs to be
> recognized as the group chartering the LSC's creation. I also believe the
> proposal should reference this body as the group responsible for leading
> discussion and guiding the formation of a permanent leadership group for
> LDraw.org.
Since I don't think of this group as the an official leadership group
for LDraw.org, I don't think the LSC should reference it - I just don't
think it the 4+1 (as a group) has the authority to speak for LDraw.org.
> Posting the revision marks was useful. I think your version is too simple
> and removes too much of the punch of the LSC, but perhaps my proposal was
> too complex. I can draft an in-between version.
Great, looking forward to it :)
> > Again, this is a draft, hoping to draw comments and discussion about
> > this committee. 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.
>
> Yes, I agree. I also believe strongly we can't undermine the group that's in
> place right now, provided they do their job. Once the voting mechanism is in
> place, that can prompt further resolutions which move towards a permanent
> leadership structure for LDraw.org. Until then, there has to be someone
> leading. If we're a committee of the whole, nothing will get done.
Agree that there should be a steering committee. Just not sure the one
formed 2 years ago as a temporary one is it.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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) !!
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
