 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't call it radical (I thought about it too). I think it is the most practical solution. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) We seem to be making something convoluted in this area no matter what we do... Here's a radical idea... drop the clause completely. If someone stands for election that has a conflict of interest that would hinder their carrying out their (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) If we write in a mechanism for determining the eligibility of candidates I agree (see my response to Ross). -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Well, I've mulled over in my head the possibility of another body to determine eligibility to the StC - but, it goes against my gut as adding too much bureaucracy to the org. Perhaps the bylaws should allow for a public discussion on a (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the last sentence should be omitted as fluff. For example, the foreman of the molding plant in Billund is clearly eligible under the definition of "professional employee", as is a LEGOLAND Master Builder and the lower-level (or all?) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) Well put! (...) Typically if there is no explicit bar, the interpretation is that multiple terms are OK. That could be added if it's really unclear. As to the term length, ILTCO went with 2 year terms for the executive committee for reasons (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
I think this is a good thing and would really turn LDraw into a machine that gets more things done. I've been heavily involved with Mac OS X Labs Org ((URL) for the last year. The steering committee for that group has had weekly conference calls and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
I put my reply at the top on purpose... I think we're all agreed on the intent but I'm not sure we have the wording nailed. "professional" is a harder word to define and agree on the definition of, than "student" or "part-time"... So while I'm OK (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) Your reasoning is sound and your edits seem reasonable to me at first read. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a part-time retail employee of the LEGO Company, and a full-time student. I'm not involved in any strategy decisions as a part (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) The text generally looks good, but ... (...) [...] (...) This distinguishing between part-time and full-time employees seems very artificial to me in this context. I think that all the organisations that I have been employed by here in Europe (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
