 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) This is the best I can come up with: Any person who works in a retail outlet (including kiosks, mall stores, and theme park centers) from the store manager position down or any worker in manufacturing, shipping, or goundskeeping/housekeeping (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I strongly object to a blanket exclusion. I do not believe every position would pose a conflict of interest. Here is a thought: What about instead of having an exclusionary clause, require that if someone is employed by TLC, there be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
Quoting Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com>: (...) I agree. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I object, for the record. I think the point isn't if someone can influence TLC policy, but if they can influence LDraw's policy. In my optinion, if you get a paycheck from LEGO, you might have a conflict of interest. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) My second reply to this post - this time I'm addressing the issue from a personal perspective, rather than the less partial process-oriented viewpoint in my previous post. I am concerned that a blanket provision to ban TLC employees will (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) [...] (...) Fair enough. (...) My position is this - there are certian levels of employment in an organization that don't allow influence over company policy, and those levels of employees should not be excluded from eligibility to be elected (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) it’s not the point if Tim has/has not a conflict of interest or is/is not eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer. I posted the comment just to show that the membership of LEGO employees in fan clubs is an issue and it has to be solved (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I wouldn't expect that to conflict with any responsibilities you might get on the LDraw.org board. (...) Agreed. But it seemed - from Willy's message - like we might run into trouble with the views of a majority of the European LEGO fans using (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I'm a sales associate at a Brand Retail store, part-time. (...) I don't see a conflict with my current job description. Like Larry, I say let it be a campaign issue. That seems to me the simplest solution. -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
