 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That reads better to me. (...) Well maybe we need such a mechanism anyway, in case other unknown conflicts or questions arise in future? ROSCO (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for the support, Larry! (...) OK, lets settle on a wording then. It should appear in the bylaws, because the bylaws are written to be difficult to change, where defining in the P&P would make the definition of 'professional' easy to (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Tim here. I think there is ambiguity and I would like it removed but I do not want Tim to be barred from standing for election as a result of removing it. The issue here is that of conflict of interest. While I think Jake McKee is (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, the point is to make a distinction between employees who have influence on strategy decisions within the company, and low-level employees who do not. Example, I currently work part time at a LEGO store, while attending school. I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Jacob said: "No professional employee of The LEGO? Company or any affiliated or subsidiary company shall be eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer." Is the ambiguity in the word "professional"? Ok, so if we say "No employee of TLC..." (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) The only change made between the last posting of the document to the mail list and the posting here was in the clause Jacob addressed. Jacob's edits still leave some ambiguity - is that what we want? If in the future there is a candidate who's (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan --Ryan (URL) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) With the change Jacob was proposing, assuming there are no other changes from the document we discussed before you posted, I have no problems with the document. Are there any other changes from the original document? (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I can't find anything I don't like about the Bylaws. I support ratification. -Orion (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Its been just over a week since these documents were posted. I saw one suggested change (Jacob), and no other objections to the documents as they are written. Has everyone had the chance to read through these and comment on them? I am sensing (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
