Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:49:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2695 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Willy Tschager wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
>
> > > "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?
>
> > itlug.org (italian lego® users group) has solved this
> > problem in a (you might call it radical) simple way.
> > people who pay their bills with money they got from the
> > company can't get a ruling position, ‘cos any kind of
> > employees can't even be members: we or them.
>
> 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.
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 independently of a mild or strict solution. ldraw.org is moving towards a
more and more formal organisation (personally I still feel a little bit
uncomfortable about this ‘cos I don’t like the idea that my hobby gets ruled)
and sooner or later this topic will pop up again. we might skip it now, but we
will have to face it some day.
> Since I don't know what Tim's position at LEGO is, I can't
> say if I find that a problem or not. And I think it is
> really more in LEGO's interest than in LDraw.org's interest
> to formalise that LEGO doesn't control LDraw.org. After
> all; what damage could LEGO do by having somebody on the
> LDraw.org steering committee?
>
> But if the general view in Europe is that LEGO staff
> shouldn't be allowed to be members of the LUG's, then I can
> see that we have a problem to solve.
it also is not an european/american thing or what damage the company could do.
in my view the bylaws are in some ways an constitution, an expression of a will.
a statement how far/close ldraw is positioning itself from the company. will we
lip-read every word coming from an e-mail address signed lego.com or do we not
even allow them to rise the hand in order to ask if they might dare asking a
question?
> Do you think it would
> be acceptable if LEGO staff was allowed as non-voting
> members?
IHO we should first vote on this particular issue, trying to find out what is
the will of the majority and then add the result to the bylaws. the poll/vote
would go from:
no member/no steering committee
member no vote/no steering committee
member vote/no steering committee
member vote/steering committee
and the poll should also include this part-time, student, non-career,
professional, careerist issue. I have to admit that this comes a little bit
late, is in no way practical, it is also time consuming and ... but the fact
that this is the only point people commented on, showes that it is a critical
one.
my 0.02 euro :-)
w.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
