 | | 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)
| |
