Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:17:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2607 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:11:37PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > > 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 eligibility is questioned, who
> > > > makes the final decision for eligibility?
> > >
> > > 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..." does that correct the problem?
> >
> > 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.
Thanks for the support, Larry!
> But I liked the older wording of part time/student employees better than
> "professional". It seemed easier to spot. If someone is part time and has
> another job (Scott Lyttle for example) it ought not to preclude him. If someone
> is in school to get trained for a non LEGO career, it ought not to preclude him
> even if he is currently full time interning at LEGO.
>
> Get the ambiguity out somehow and make sure everyone's clear about intent and
> we're good.
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 change.
I think Larry's wording made sense, but maybe people are getting tripped up on
reading it in the sentence structure. What if we reworked it to read:
"No professional employee of The LEGO? Company or any affiliated or subsidiary
company shall be eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer. A 'professional
employee' is defined as; a full-time, career employee, involved firsthand in
strategy decisions within the Company. Part-time, student, or non-career intern
employees shall be eligible to be Steering Committee Officers."
Also, should we add in a mechanism for determining eligibility (ie. the current
StC votes if there are questions about a candidate being eligibile)? Or, is the
above wording clear enough that we don't need that?
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
68 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
|
|
|
|
