 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) That reads better to me. (...) Well maybe we need such a mechanism anyway, in case other unknown conflicts or questions arise in future? ROSCO (20 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't call it radical (I thought about it too). I think it is the most practical solution. Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (20 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?) (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) If we write in a mechanism for determining the eligibility of candidates I agree (see my response to Ross). -Tim (20 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Conflicts of Interest —Wayne Gramlich
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
