 | | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7 —Dan Boger
|
| | | (...) absolutely! (...) I like this proposal a lot better, with one exception: (...) organization for LDraw, and then step down. Administrating the website, Parts Tracker and server are all separate technical functions, and do not fall under the (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) Yep. (...) Right. So are you trying to say something like; the individuals involved with the specific tasks are responsible/have the authority to make decisions regarding each technical task? That makes sense to me for the most (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7 —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) currently, since there is no formal organization (and we're starting to push for one, woo!), there really isn't an authority issue. There's only the ability. If Steve decides he's turning off the parts tracker, he can. If you (Tim) decide to (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7 —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) The thing is, right now they are LDraw.org. Do you prefer that we just refer to LDraw.org, without the names? I think it is important that LSC is under the LDraw.org umbrella. I invite you to start a new topic on moving from ad-hoc LDraw.org (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7 —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) I agree. That's what I meant when I said the LSC is the first step twards an official LDraw.org body. The 4+1 are not really LDraw.org - they act in what they believe is it's best interest, but so do quite a few other people, who are just as (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
