 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws: Call for Ratification
|
|
(...) If you having trouble with the poll link provided above, you can link to the poll via the article on LDraw.org: (URL) -Orion (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
(...) The election will be run similarly to the LSC election last year: the pool of candidates will be presented and you will vote for your top 5. -Orion (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
The bylaws look good, sorry if this has been asked before. In the stearing committee election can you vote more than once for the same candidate?. This is a feature you sometimes see in "elect a group" type elections. Perhaps the bylaws should (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws: Call for Ratification
|
|
Since the LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts have been posted and publicly discussed, and since by peoples' silence, there appear to be no more lingering objections, I hereby call for a community vote to ratify these drafts as the official Bylaws of the LDraw (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 11 Feb 2004
|
|
Section Totals 218 certified files. 270 files need admin review. 486 files need more votes. 493 have uncertified subfiles. 130 held files. Total Files: 1,597 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2004-02-11: 218 / 270 / 486 / 493 / 130 (1,597) 2003-12-30: (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, correcting the (URL) oversight Ross Crawford pointed out>, and correcting a mistake I caught in Subsection 6.03(e). In that section, we neglected to change "Executive Committee" to "Steering Committee," after (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | [request] filter for PT queue
|
|
I just tried going through the Queue on the Parts Tracker ("(URL) trying to find files I haven't already reviewed. I gave up after the first thirty to forty or so files that I'd already reviewed but had forgotten about. I gave up because I was out (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
(...) Thanks for catching this, Ross. -Tim (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
(...) I believe this should be 6.05? (...) ROSCO (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, adding a new Section 6.02 and 6.05 (causing some clauses to be re-numbered), per discussion here: (URL) This copy of the draft supercedes the draft this message is in reply to. If there are any modifications to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) Not sensing any disagreement here - so if no one's spoken up by the end of the weekend, I'm going to add these clauses to the drafts and call for ratification. -Tim (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) After giving some thought to this - I can't think of alternate wording that would really do the issue justice, and not end up unnecessarily lengthy and awkward. If we start looking for CoI under every rock, I think that's taking it too far. My (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) I don't think we could list which companies to watch out for, and which not to, and be comprehensive. That's why there's a general removal clause in 6.04 to enable the members to remove a SteerCo member in cases of documented, serious (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) What about MegaBloks, or any other company that may have an interest? Why pointing the finger on TLC only? Why not have a more general clause about conflict of interest? -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for your confidence. Based on my experience in the company so far, working relationships I have with Community Development people, and experience in the hobby in general, I do not believe the pressure you hypothesize about is likely to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the bylaws discussion. These are important issues, and in my view the opinions put forth have been by and large well thought out and productive. I think we've covered the lion's share of the possible (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I see. I wasn't clear on what role the LSC has. I've gone back over the posts dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still think it was a valid question. (...) Not really. It's less to do with the way I worded (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Perfectly. Thanks. As I said originally, I don't doubt your integrity or devotion to ldraw.org, TLC employee or not. I was just hypothesising to myself about what a conflict of interest might entail and thinking, perhaps unreasonably, that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Apologies for not making the timeframe - they're *just* about ready and they should be ready to go tomorrow. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I do apologise if I misinterpreted your words, but I would suggest that my interpretation is an extremely reasonable one given the word choices you used. (...) I would think not, but I look to the steering committee to do a lot more than make (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Hi Allister - Thanks for that clarification. Actually, I was at a momentary loss for how to approach the answer, but now after thinking it through I have something to say. I would hope that whoever is elected to the Steering Committee would (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I suggested nothing. I was merely asking a question. Can you just answer it without reading motives into it that don't exist? Is it really necessary to be a member of the steering committee in order for suggestions on the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I concur. :) I haven't been following this thread at all up until now, but Jake's post caught my eye. And I agree with what he said - only I want to go a little further. Couldn't anybody that even has association with TLC possibly have a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Conflicts of Interest
|
|
(...) All: While the goal of avoiding conflicts of interest is a laudable one, in practice large numbers of committees operate with members who have them. It is far more important that potential conflicts be disclosed as they crop up. If the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I don't see this discussion as about Tim at all, except as a test case. As I've said before, he's a handy metric. Any rule that excludes him (based on his current employment situation) is wrong, and worse, it is in my view bad for the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I for one certainly don't doubt your devotion to the hobby, nor do I doubt that you will do anything but behave with the utmost integrity as a member of the committee. However, despite this it does concern me that there is nonetheless a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) All, I hope you don't mind if I chime in on the discussion. I just caught up on the thread, and there are a lot of very good things being tossed around. Personally, I tend to like the idea of Larry's to exclude any mention of LEGO employee (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) He's high enough up (and his job description is focused in such a critical direction) that I think almost everyone would agree that there was a conflict of interest in his case. LEGO is his career now, after all. (...) The problem with special (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with this. It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into bankrupcy, or (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Why not turn the clause 180 degrees? If you get your paycheck from Lego, you can only be eligible after community discussion/approval? I suppose being payed by MegaBloks, or any other clone maker would need the same treatment. -- Anders (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, I do not think we all agree that. (...) Yes, someone does so disagree. In fact I'd go farther, I think most of us do disagree, at least for the case of people that have little or no practical influence within LEGO (people who work in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree there _might_ be a conflict. I don't believe it would be true in every case. I have suggestions for generic ways of allowing exceptions [1] and will consolidate them and post them later today. -Tim [1] IMO the exception process should (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) ... (...) So let's separate the issues. I think we all agree that a LEGO employee should not be in the SC (if only for the appearance of impropriety). If you want to make a special case for Tim, or make a more generic way of allowing (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the views are so different that it is unlikely that we can reach a consensus. There may be a majority for either of the two opinions, but I doubt it will be possible general agreement about what is the right solution. (...) Uhm. Right. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) While I agree that someone in that situation might have such a conflict of interest, then again,they might not. It's pretty far fetched to see how someone in Tim's position could possibly have any conflict of interest (except in a good way for (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
