Subject:
|
Sounds good, however... (from an LDRAW neophyte)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:26:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
832 times
|
| |
|
|
FORWARD: Please accept my comments in the civil spirit in which they were
intended, and not an attempt to start some sort of conflict. I asked some
very tough questions because the proposal seemed to advocate it. This is
also a somewhat long response, but in the end it is only because this sounds
like a decent idea that just needs a good bit of discussion.
---------------------------------------------
That sounds like a good slice of the LDraw population to start this off.
One of the goals I would like to see set by this group is a serious effort
to simplify the entire gamut of the LDraw universe. Details:
- Offer a step-by-step procedure to new users on how to install LDRAW
and its various siblings (i.e. MLCAD) to their PCs, explaining the
difference between each. I am still having trouble determining which is
which and whether one is the "main" program and another is an "add-on", etc.
Plus, there are a plethora of bugs out there.
- Form an approved glossary, defining such off-world terms as
"Ray-Tracing" and DAT files among others, and what these things mean in
relation to the whole LDraw concept. Given a quiz on the subject, I'd get a
Z minus.
Personally, I find myself overwhelmed and even a little repelled by the
endless variety of LDraw sites and the different methods of installation. To
me, there is little effort to coordinate these sites except by random links.
I don't mean some type of catalog listing every site; that of course is
impossible, but rather, a directory of information that organizes and adds
links overtime, showing such things as "New Users: Start Here" and "Finished
Installing? Now add Your Parts Lists" (followed by links).
I find it irksome that a version of the program that is known to cause
run-time errors in most modern PCs has not been improved to alleviate this
error. The whole idea behind a patch is a <<temporary>> fix that will be
folded into improved versions of the program. Plus all the maddening
business with parts lists and home-brewed add-ons. Where does one begin? And
with what version of what program?
I guess the one thing I don't want to see an organization like this become
is an inner-circle type of group where veteran LDraw users can meet to
congratulate each other on how imaginative they all are while the neophytes
sit outside wondering what's going on. (For the record, this is in no way
intended to reflect any attack on LUGNET or the sharing of ideas through
MOCs). I'd just be really...discouraged...if I was to ask a simple question
regarding LDraw in the LDraw newsgroup and be told "Well, you really should
take this up with the LDraw Committee". No Big Brother, thank you.
I am encouraged by such efforts as Shiri Dori's LEGO acronym listing: easy
to access and use, and open to feedback.
I am aware that LDraw in all its infinite forms is generally available to
anyone. Please let this focus drive the formation of this organization.
Additional concerns follow.
==================================================
> There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style CAD fan
> organization. Although an informal organization usually serves us pretty
> well, there are some things an informal group can not do, such as deal well
> with keeping a treasury, or establishing license agreements.
Why a treasury? Why license agreements?
> Also, an informal organization sometimes has a hard time establishing and
> reaching goals, because no one has the responsibility to reach those goals.
> Finally, a formal organization can receive a certain level of respect and
> recognition from other groups and organizations.
Please provide some examples of goals that a formal LCAD group might wish to
establish, just for the sake of argument.
> In the last month or so, some of us have had more in-depth, offline
> discussions about forming a 'real' LCAD/LDraw group, and what would be the
> best approach to reach that goal.
I take "real" to mean 'formal'.
> What needs to happen is a small group -- an organizational committee --
> needs to accept the charge of getting the LEGO CAD fan group through the
> organizational process. "Getting through the process" means the committee
> would gather input from the members, research standard (and non-standard)
> methods of organization, write a charter (or adapt/adopt an existing
> standard group charter), and finally run a ratification process (probably
> by voting) to accept the charter and bylaws.
That charter sounds like the first real step towards forming the group. Ask
yourself "Why are we forming this organization?" In order to...
> To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> That's these people:
>
> Tim Courtney
> Jacob Sparre Andersen
> Terry Keller
> Steve Bliss
>
> Additionally, we've also asked Larry Pieniazek to 'sit in' on the
> committee's communication, to lend us his expertise in volunteer/fan
> organizations and general knowledge of group functioning.
>
> Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
> community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
Perhaps you should add one more representative -- a person from the general
LUGNET population who is not necessarily a LCAD or LDraw expert but can
translate the groups activities to the other LUGNET members. Sort of a liasion.
> We've also established the following short-term goals. Each of these goals
> is very important for the group, and needs to be handled as soon as
> possible.
>
> 1. Spearhead the establishment of a formal LEGO CAD fan group.
> 2. Implement a process to formally register members of the group.
> 3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library.
Now that (3) I'd like explained in greater detail.
> 4. Implement a permanent parts-submission process.
>
> There has been some discussion about what type of organizational
> 'government' would work best for our group. Since we don't often get
> everyone together for meetings, it would probably be best to follow a
> representative style -- the group elects officers to handle group business.
> Except for large questions of group direction, the officers handle
> descisions. Large decisions would be handled by group decision/voting. If
> the officers don't do a good job, the group would have to choose to evict
> the officer(s), and replace them.
>
> That's about all the ground we've covered so far. There is a lot more to
> be done, but right now, we need to hear what you think about this. All
> comments are welcome, but especially answer this question:
>
> Do you agree with the selection of the ad hoc committee, and the short-term
> goals for the ad hoc committee?
Selection of members: Yes. Goals: Not without some answers. I mean, it
sounds frighteningly like you're attempting to tighten control over
something I thought was public domain. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Peace,
Pat
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
