 | | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Elections and Membership in ldraw.org
|
|
With 0.7 of the LSC proposal getting generally good reviews so far, it's likely that we're close to a final draft on the LSC proposal and it's time to start thinking about the things needed to make it happen. Since 0.7 replaces a temporary appointed (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DModeler status
|
|
LD4DModeler is awesome! Keep up the good work. -Mike (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
Everyone - This has been a very good discussion on the LSC proposal so far. I have drafted a new version, 0.7, which attempts to clear up the confusion and ambiguity, and also adds in many peoples' suggestions. I've changed the references regarding (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Part updates are currently every two months. 0303 (due to come out in about a week, I think?) will probably be a small update, since the Tracker hasn't been up for weeks. . . -- TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
