Subject:
|
Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:48:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2437 times
|
| |
|
|
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > [{Requirements for LSC Membership}]¬
> > > To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors are eligible • to
> > > become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the • following
> > > requirements for nomination:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > * Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker through at least 2 official
> > > parts updates, and posted at least 5 reviews in at least two updates • since
> > > their initial participation
> >
> > 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
> > 2002. Does that make sense?
>
> 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 agree - Current rules say I qualifiy, and Steve will tell you, getting me to
review is like pulling teeth! :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
50 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
|
|
|
|
