 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That (both the itlug and Dan's solutions) is definitely a nice and easy solution. The problem here is that Tim would like to keep his job at LEGO and have a go at being on the LDraw.org steering committee. Since I don't know what Tim's (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.2
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, omitting paragraph 3 of Section 6.02, per the discussion here: (URL). This copy of the draft supercedes the draft this message is in reply to. If there are any modifications to the draft before it goes to a (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Dual Winners for LDraw.org's January Model Of The Month, February Voting Open
|
|
Yes, that's right, there is a tie for January Model of the Month. The competition was fierce and we came within 1 vote of a tie in the SOTM and missed a 3 way win in the MOTM by 1 vote as well. Congratulations to the winners: MOTM, Jorgen Andersson, (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) part-time, student, non-career, professional, careerist ,steering committee, fellow member, active member ... there is a german saying: den wald vor lauter bäumen nicht sehen (not spotting the forest because of too many trees ;-) I remember (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I can go with this solution also. Headed off to work for now, but I'll be back with this thread sometime this weekend to re-post the drafts. Ratification will take place once technical concerns have been addressed. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
