 | | LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
Hi Everybody - In the ongoing effort to formalize LDraw.org into a democratic organization, I'd like to present draft documents for the organization Bylaws and Policies and Procedures. Please see my two follow-up posts; FTX versions of both (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
As a follow-up to my previous post, introducing the Bylaws and Policies and Procedures documents, here is the draft of the proposed LDraw.org Bylaws. Tim Courtney Bylaws of the LDraw Organization ===...=== Article 1: Name How we are known, web (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Policies and Procedures Draft
|
|
As a follow-up to my previous post, introducing the Bylaws and Policies and Procedures documents, here is the draft of the proposed LDraw.org Policies and Procedures. Tim Courtney LDraw Organization Policies and Procedures ===...=== 1 Introduction (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) The text generally looks good, but ... (...) [...] (...) This distinguishing between part-time and full-time employees seems very artificial to me in this context. I think that all the organisations that I have been employed by here in Europe (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) Your reasoning is sound and your edits seem reasonable to me at first read. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a part-time retail employee of the LEGO Company, and a full-time student. I'm not involved in any strategy decisions as a part (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
I put my reply at the top on purpose... I think we're all agreed on the intent but I'm not sure we have the wording nailed. "professional" is a harder word to define and agree on the definition of, than "student" or "part-time"... So while I'm OK (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
I think this is a good thing and would really turn LDraw into a machine that gets more things done. I've been heavily involved with Mac OS X Labs Org ((URL) for the last year. The steering committee for that group has had weekly conference calls and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) Well put! (...) Typically if there is no explicit bar, the interpretation is that multiple terms are OK. That could be added if it's really unclear. As to the term length, ILTCO went with 2 year terms for the executive committee for reasons (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Its been just over a week since these documents were posted. I saw one suggested change (Jacob), and no other objections to the documents as they are written. Has everyone had the chance to read through these and comment on them? I am sensing (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I can't find anything I don't like about the Bylaws. I support ratification. -Orion (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) With the change Jacob was proposing, assuming there are no other changes from the document we discussed before you posted, I have no problems with the document. Are there any other changes from the original document? (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan --Ryan (URL) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) The only change made between the last posting of the document to the mail list and the posting here was in the clause Jacob addressed. Jacob's edits still leave some ambiguity - is that what we want? If in the future there is a candidate who's (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Jacob said: "No professional employee of The LEGO? Company or any affiliated or subsidiary company shall be eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer." Is the ambiguity in the word "professional"? Ok, so if we say "No employee of TLC..." (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, the point is to make a distinction between employees who have influence on strategy decisions within the company, and low-level employees who do not. Example, I currently work part time at a LEGO store, while attending school. I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Tim here. I think there is ambiguity and I would like it removed but I do not want Tim to be barred from standing for election as a result of removing it. The issue here is that of conflict of interest. While I think Jake McKee is (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for the support, Larry! (...) OK, lets settle on a wording then. It should appear in the bylaws, because the bylaws are written to be difficult to change, where defining in the P&P would make the definition of 'professional' easy to (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That reads better to me. (...) Well maybe we need such a mechanism anyway, in case other unknown conflicts or questions arise in future? ROSCO (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the last sentence should be omitted as fluff. For example, the foreman of the molding plant in Billund is clearly eligible under the definition of "professional employee", as is a LEGOLAND Master Builder and the lower-level (or all?) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Well, I've mulled over in my head the possibility of another body to determine eligibility to the StC - but, it goes against my gut as adding too much bureaucracy to the org. Perhaps the bylaws should allow for a public discussion on a (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) If we write in a mechanism for determining the eligibility of candidates I agree (see my response to Ross). -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) We seem to be making something convoluted in this area no matter what we do... Here's a radical idea... drop the clause completely. If someone stands for election that has a conflict of interest that would hinder their carrying out their (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't call it radical (I thought about it too). I think it is the most practical solution. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I can go with this solution also. Headed off to work for now, but I'll be back with this thread sometime this weekend to re-post the drafts. Ratification will take place once technical concerns have been addressed. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) part-time, student, non-career, professional, careerist ,steering committee, fellow member, active member ... there is a german saying: den wald vor lauter bäumen nicht sehen (not spotting the forest because of too many trees ;-) I remember (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.2
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, omitting paragraph 3 of Section 6.02, per the discussion here: (URL). This copy of the draft supercedes the draft this message is in reply to. If there are any modifications to the draft before it goes to a (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That (both the itlug and Dan's solutions) is definitely a nice and easy solution. The problem here is that Tim would like to keep his job at LEGO and have a go at being on the LDraw.org steering committee. Since I don't know what Tim's (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I'm a sales associate at a Brand Retail store, part-time. (...) I don't see a conflict with my current job description. Like Larry, I say let it be a campaign issue. That seems to me the simplest solution. -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I wouldn't expect that to conflict with any responsibilities you might get on the LDraw.org board. (...) Agreed. But it seemed - from Willy's message - like we might run into trouble with the views of a majority of the European LEGO fans using (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) it’s not the point if Tim has/has not a conflict of interest or is/is not eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer. I posted the comment just to show that the membership of LEGO employees in fan clubs is an issue and it has to be solved (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) [...] (...) Fair enough. (...) My position is this - there are certian levels of employment in an organization that don't allow influence over company policy, and those levels of employees should not be excluded from eligibility to be elected (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) My second reply to this post - this time I'm addressing the issue from a personal perspective, rather than the less partial process-oriented viewpoint in my previous post. I am concerned that a blanket provision to ban TLC employees will (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I object, for the record. I think the point isn't if someone can influence TLC policy, but if they can influence LDraw's policy. In my optinion, if you get a paycheck from LEGO, you might have a conflict of interest. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
Quoting Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com>: (...) I agree. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I strongly object to a blanket exclusion. I do not believe every position would pose a conflict of interest. Here is a thought: What about instead of having an exclusionary clause, require that if someone is employed by TLC, there be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) This is the best I can come up with: Any person who works in a retail outlet (including kiosks, mall stores, and theme park centers) from the store manager position down or any worker in manufacturing, shipping, or goundskeeping/housekeeping (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) While I agree that someone in that situation might have such a conflict of interest, then again,they might not. It's pretty far fetched to see how someone in Tim's position could possibly have any conflict of interest (except in a good way for (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the views are so different that it is unlikely that we can reach a consensus. There may be a majority for either of the two opinions, but I doubt it will be possible general agreement about what is the right solution. (...) Uhm. Right. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) ... (...) So let's separate the issues. I think we all agree that a LEGO employee should not be in the SC (if only for the appearance of impropriety). If you want to make a special case for Tim, or make a more generic way of allowing (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree there _might_ be a conflict. I don't believe it would be true in every case. I have suggestions for generic ways of allowing exceptions [1] and will consolidate them and post them later today. -Tim [1] IMO the exception process should (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, I do not think we all agree that. (...) Yes, someone does so disagree. In fact I'd go farther, I think most of us do disagree, at least for the case of people that have little or no practical influence within LEGO (people who work in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Why not turn the clause 180 degrees? If you get your paycheck from Lego, you can only be eligible after community discussion/approval? I suppose being payed by MegaBloks, or any other clone maker would need the same treatment. -- Anders (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with this. It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into bankrupcy, or (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) He's high enough up (and his job description is focused in such a critical direction) that I think almost everyone would agree that there was a conflict of interest in his case. LEGO is his career now, after all. (...) The problem with special (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) All, I hope you don't mind if I chime in on the discussion. I just caught up on the thread, and there are a lot of very good things being tossed around. Personally, I tend to like the idea of Larry's to exclude any mention of LEGO employee (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I for one certainly don't doubt your devotion to the hobby, nor do I doubt that you will do anything but behave with the utmost integrity as a member of the committee. However, despite this it does concern me that there is nonetheless a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I don't see this discussion as about Tim at all, except as a test case. As I've said before, he's a handy metric. Any rule that excludes him (based on his current employment situation) is wrong, and worse, it is in my view bad for the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Conflicts of Interest
|
|
(...) All: While the goal of avoiding conflicts of interest is a laudable one, in practice large numbers of committees operate with members who have them. It is far more important that potential conflicts be disclosed as they crop up. If the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I concur. :) I haven't been following this thread at all up until now, but Jake's post caught my eye. And I agree with what he said - only I want to go a little further. Couldn't anybody that even has association with TLC possibly have a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I suggested nothing. I was merely asking a question. Can you just answer it without reading motives into it that don't exist? Is it really necessary to be a member of the steering committee in order for suggestions on the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Hi Allister - Thanks for that clarification. Actually, I was at a momentary loss for how to approach the answer, but now after thinking it through I have something to say. I would hope that whoever is elected to the Steering Committee would (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I do apologise if I misinterpreted your words, but I would suggest that my interpretation is an extremely reasonable one given the word choices you used. (...) I would think not, but I look to the steering committee to do a lot more than make (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Apologies for not making the timeframe - they're *just* about ready and they should be ready to go tomorrow. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Perfectly. Thanks. As I said originally, I don't doubt your integrity or devotion to ldraw.org, TLC employee or not. I was just hypothesising to myself about what a conflict of interest might entail and thinking, perhaps unreasonably, that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I see. I wasn't clear on what role the LSC has. I've gone back over the posts dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still think it was a valid question. (...) Not really. It's less to do with the way I worded (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the bylaws discussion. These are important issues, and in my view the opinions put forth have been by and large well thought out and productive. I think we've covered the lion's share of the possible (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for your confidence. Based on my experience in the company so far, working relationships I have with Community Development people, and experience in the hobby in general, I do not believe the pressure you hypothesize about is likely to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) What about MegaBloks, or any other company that may have an interest? Why pointing the finger on TLC only? Why not have a more general clause about conflict of interest? -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) I don't think we could list which companies to watch out for, and which not to, and be comprehensive. That's why there's a general removal clause in 6.04 to enable the members to remove a SteerCo member in cases of documented, serious (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) After giving some thought to this - I can't think of alternate wording that would really do the issue justice, and not end up unnecessarily lengthy and awkward. If we start looking for CoI under every rock, I think that's taking it too far. My (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) Not sensing any disagreement here - so if no one's spoken up by the end of the weekend, I'm going to add these clauses to the drafts and call for ratification. -Tim (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, adding a new Section 6.02 and 6.05 (causing some clauses to be re-numbered), per discussion here: (URL) This copy of the draft supercedes the draft this message is in reply to. If there are any modifications to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
(...) I believe this should be 6.05? (...) ROSCO (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
(...) Thanks for catching this, Ross. -Tim (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, correcting the (URL) oversight Ross Crawford pointed out>, and correcting a mistake I caught in Subsection 6.03(e). In that section, we neglected to change "Executive Committee" to "Steering Committee," after (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
The bylaws look good, sorry if this has been asked before. In the stearing committee election can you vote more than once for the same candidate?. This is a feature you sometimes see in "elect a group" type elections. Perhaps the bylaws should (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
(...) The election will be run similarly to the LSC election last year: the pool of candidates will be presented and you will vote for your top 5. -Orion (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
