 | | 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)
| | | | | 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: 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)
| |
