 | | LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
I think it's time to post the 0.99 draft of the LSC proposal. I've pasted it below with mo revision marks. You can see an HTML document _with_ revision marks here: (URL) think we're 99% of the way there to having a final draft - and if there are no (...) (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) This is new? Only the committee and people who are eligable for membership in the LSC can vote? I thought we were defining the general membership in LDraw.org so that everyone can vote? I think this paragraph should say: LDraw.org Members will (...) (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I don't believe the beginning part is new (eligible LSC members can vote) it is new, but I added the ad-hoc group in there for those in the ad-hoc who are ineligible for LSC membership. Track Changes didn't highlight it in Word. I am for that (...) (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) That statement (aside from the ad-hoc addition) was in Version 0.6, the first version I posted publicly. I found it in my local text file, as well as in the post here: (URL) strongly in favor of at least restricting the vote to only those (...) (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) huh. (...) you're supporting that only LSC-eligable can vote, or that the ad-hoc group can vote? I think everyone can vote - but if we say that's not so, then I think the ad-hoc part should be removed. Why the special treatment? On Mon, May (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Both, but moreso that only LSC-eligable. I'd rather the LSC be selected by people who are familiar with the other programmers and potential members, as well as the issues the LSC will be dealing with. I think this is a very important concern, (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I'm actually half and half on it. I do see reasons why to limit it, but for some reason I'm a little wary of accepting it without discussion. (...) Well, at least I haven't noticed it before, otherwise I would have probably mentioned it. But (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Ok :-) (...) Cool. Anyone else care to add their .02? -Tim (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I've been thinking about this and I think I mildly favor LSC elections open to all ldraw.org members. But I waver on it. (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) This needs to be changed - voting should be open for longer than one day, to give everyone the opportunity to vote. What do people think? I think it should be open 5 days or less, probably something like 3. Thoughts? -Tim (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I'm tempted to say a week - 3 days would miss people that can only deal with such stuff on weekends, or weekdays... Dan (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) A week sounds good. I'd even go 10 days maybe, including two weekends (believe it or not,people go on vacation in the summer and not all of them are deranged like me and take their laptops with them and check email and LUGNET each day (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
Here's an idea: treat it like Model-of-the-month. Have the candidates draw themselves up in .LDR format and submit the files... (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I agree with Tim and have no objection to vote limitation. -Orion (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I like 5 days. Start the votes on Wednesday and end on Sunday. As far a people on vacation, the vote is the same time every year and there are enough public terminals to facilitate voting -Orion (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Hi Tim, Give me a hollar if you would like a special group for this on LUGNET. If you have a list (either static or dynamic) of email addresses whom you want to grant posting access, it would be fairly easy for me to set things on LUGNET such (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Great, thanks! Ultimately, the means of communication should be up to the elected LSC members to decide for themselves. If I had my say, I like the idea of a mailing list on LDraw.org, which posts messages automatically to a LUGNET group for (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) there are reasons why I put stress on a restriction. (URL) took me almost a year to get a deeper understanding of the stuff I was dealing with and feel comfortable with cond. line, BFC, bad vertex sequences and the like. 'til one hasn't (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) 5 days sounds good ... which time-zone are we talkin' about, Tokyo, Servertime in DK, GMT, NY or LA ;-)? w. (GMT +01:00) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I dunno - that depends on the tech guys who create the voting system. GMT or EST (New York) sounds good to me. -Tim (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) UTC of course! ;-) Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I personally feel the restriction is a good idea. However, playing devil's advocate, I feel obliged to point out that since it would increase my voting power (since I am eligible as a software author), it's in my best interests to be in favor (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I would be one of those who would be prevented from voting (at least this year), and I don't have a strong objection to not being able to vote. The restriction is designed to make the LSC a technical group voted on by technically involved (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I feel voting for LSC members should be open to the general group. I've got 2 reasons for this: 1. I trust people enough that they'll deal with their own capabilities for discernment in this area. 2. I don't want to have to sort out who gets (...) (22 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) You must not go to the same places I do for vacation. Public terminals? Not where I've been. OTOH, if we're going to play the vacation game, some people go for longer than 2 weeks. Heck, some people are basically offline all summer. I'd say a (...) (22 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I see your points and agree with 2 and 3, but only partially with 1. Anyways, there's about equal response for or against limitations. Not totally sure on what to do - I'll let it simmer for a bit. (I should note that if there was no (...) (22 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | mailing list linkage
|
|
(...) Aha -- yes, that would work too -- and is extremely easy to set up. In fact, if you wanted to make it read-only on LUGNET (so that the only way to post is via the mailing list on ldraw.org), all we need to do is subscribe an address (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I would rephrase that... under the most prevalent current limitation scheme being floated, (LSC eligible==LSC voting eligible) you would not be able to, and I would barely squeak by. Certainly other schemes could be floated, with different (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: mailing list linkage
|
|
(...) we can easily also tell mailman to post each email to the mailing list to a group on the NNTP server. Dan (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: mailing list linkage
|
|
(...) Cool. Hmm, which to choose... It makes less work for me doing it the mailing list way, because of the incoming gateway translations at the e-mail level. What do we want to call it here? lugnet.cad.ldraw-tech? lugnet.cad.ldraw.tech? --Todd (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: mailing list linkage
|
|
(...) I think lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw.tech is long but it fits in with the existing scheme -Orion (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) This sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think there's a need for it right now. The techies list is kinda low-interest -- it's good to have a public archive of the list (which we've already got), but I don't see a burning need to mirror it (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: mailing list linkage
|
|
(...) Oh, that's a good point. Yes, it's a bit long, but as Steve points out, it's a relatively low-interest group. Putting it as .ldraw.tech instead of .ldraw-tech also makes it cleaner if other lists (such as, say, Tim's ldraw-siggraph list) (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I think both LDraw.org and the community at large would benefit from it being mirrored. And another beauty of mirroring an archive like this is that it's so easy to set up that even if there's not a perceived burning need for it, the long-term (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Never mind... It sounds as though the LDraw-tech folks really don't want their list mirrored here. --Todd (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) What are you talking about Todd? I for one would like the list mirrored here. -Orion (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Orion, Sorry for getting your hopes up. What I mean above is that I jumped the gun. Yesterday, I misunderstood Tim Courtney and Dan Boger in what they wrote here: (2 URLs) was proceeding under the general impression that it would occur, (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
This is a re-post of the LSC proposal 0.99 with two changes: I removed the stipulation under 'voting' about the ad-hoc committee per (URL) this thread>. I changed the dates for voting from one day (July 20) to five days, July 17-22. This covers both (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | formatting errors in FTX?? (wa Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote: I like this draft a lot however there seem to be some word lossages here and there... the tail end of some phrases are missing, and I think it may be due to the FTX formatting??? for example: On the (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) ... (...) Since the requirement says we want "active contributors", should this be clarified to say "5 reviews in each of the last two updates"? I don't think that I qualify to be on the LSC, just because I reviewed 20 files back in early (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) Yes, it makes sense. I think given this point it's best to keep it to people who have reviewed in the last two updates - what does everyone else think? (...) I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or 'dumber') (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing with the dats easier. $0.02 Dan (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I agree - Current rules say I qualifiy, and Steve will tell you, getting me to review is like pulling teeth! :) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify --Orion (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) Works for me. -Tim (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) Nah, that's not true. I've had teeth pulled -- it was easier than getting you to review! ;) Steve (21 years ago, 6-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Well, it's simmered a bit. There's been no outcry one way or another. I think for simplicity's sake, the proposal should change to allow anyone to vote for who is on the LSC, not just those who are LSC eligible. I don't think the stakes are (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) I agree. Everyone should be able to vote. (...) Well, I think we could make an exception to the rule on this point ... ;) Steve (21 years ago, 8-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Assuming they comply with the base self selection criteria for LDraw.org membership. (...) Exceptions to rules are a dangerous precedent to set, even when (as in this case) they are done with the best of intentions. :-) (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
|
(...) Of course. (...) LOL :P -Tim (21 years ago, 9-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
