 | | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) My mistake. I realized this after I submitted the post. -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Thank you, I accept. Note, however, that my first name is *Lars*, not to be confused with Larry Pieniazek :-) /Lars (off to Norway for week ;-)) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) 'Evil' is a bit too strong of a word here, and I think it's an unfair labeling. The checkbox doesn't say that the author (not user) forsees the changes they're agreeing to, rather it says that they put their trust in the SteerCo to guide the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
Hi Steve, In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote: <SNIP> (...) <SNIP> (...) <SNIP> (...) Thank you for nominating me. But because of dramatic missing time, I would like to decline. I believe I was no big help the past year, and therefor (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I accept. --Travis Cobbs (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) snip (...) I Andrew Allan accept this nomination Andrew... (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think that's a good idea, and it makes sense to me. Abstain becomes not exactly no (since it doesn't count against the measure), instead it means "I need more information" - which is a valid response, IMO. Oh, and I agree that the checkbox (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Another thought - don't treat the 'no responses' and 'abstain' as identical. The actual abstain votes could be counted toward a total count, and the ayes would have to exceed a given fraction of that total. For example, we could require a 33% (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Well, it's not really voting about my copyright, it's voting about retroactively accepting changes to the agreement between myself and LDraw.org. My issue is the checkbox pretty much invalidates the entire 'making changes' section of CA. If a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I like it. :) That's almost like what I asked for before (URL) Steve (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I like that. I'll tkae that into consideration with the new draft I'm writing. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That kind of makes sense. I'm writing a new CA draft and I'll take that into consideration. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I admit my turnout values may have been optimistic :) But I still feel that a greater than 50.00000something percent positive vote ought to be needed to move away from something as good as the ShareAlike license. (...) What, at the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Wouldn't putting something in the CA, with the whole section explaining how the license can be changed in the future, something like this: While the library's license can be changed in the future using this procedure, any new license will have (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree with the timeout, and that the authors need to maintain their email addr on record updated. I'm not sure we should discount Peter's note though, that right now we're setting up a system that by default will accept change - that is not (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) OK - this is a timing thing - we can fine tune the qualification criteria. What I was trying avoid was people who have expressed a desire to author parts, yet never got around to doing so, having a strong influence in the distribution license. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Whilte you make a good argument, I think you're leaving out something. It's the author's responsibility to maintain an address where LDraw.org can contact them on organizational business. Plus, LDraw.org announces important things like this (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) No reponse isn't a response ;) but you cover it below in how they become abstentions. (...) I'm not sure I agree with a simple majority has enough weight behind it given the importance of the outcome of the vote. Imagine this outcome Abstains (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) That seems a little harsh to an author under this kind of situation ... 1) Person A submits part to parts tracker, agrees to CA. 2) Part has small issue with it preventing it from being approved quickly 3) Ldraw SteerCo (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) The entire "Contributor's agreement". If I accept the "Contributor's agreement" in its current form, I will probably also check the "auto-approve changes checkbox". Voting about my copyright doesn't make sense to me. Either I accept the risk (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
