 | | 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 (...) (21 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 (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (21 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 (21 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?) (...) (21 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 (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
