Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:16:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Willy Tschager wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> and sooner or later this topic will pop up again. we might skip it now, but we
> will have to face it some day.
Fair enough.
> 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?
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 to the Steering Committee.
I do see a conflict in say someone at TLC who works in marketing or community
development sitting on the Steering Committee. I do not see a conflict with a
retail employee (or a mold operator, supply chain manager, etc) holding the same
position. Its all based on what is in the person's job description - what they
are expected to do for the company.
> > 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.
I think before we take the step of creating a poll, we should allow this
discussion here to flesh itself out and see if we come to a consensus. That
process has worked well before. No one except you has explicitly disagreed to
omitting the clause Larry suggested - so I think its good to ask outright - does
anyone else disagree? Does anyone care to offer another solution?
I'm concerned that taking this immediately to a poll will invite people to vote
without fully considering the issue. If we let this discussion go a bit more,
then gauge if it is necessary, that would be more productive.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
