LDraw (www.ldraw.org) : 2797


CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 2797	2796 \| 2798

Subject:	Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
Newsgroups:	lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date:	Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:33:55 GMT
Viewed:	3059 times

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 07:16:41PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote: > 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 object, for the record. I think the point isn't if someone can influence TLC policy, but if they can influence LDraw's policy. In my optinion, if you get a paycheck from LEGO, you might have a conflict of interest. -- Dan Boger dan@peeron.com

Message has 5 Replies:

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
Quoting Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com>: (...) I agree. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) While I agree that someone in that situation might have such a conflict of interest, then again,they might not. It's pretty far fetched to see how someone in Tim's position could possibly have any conflict of interest (except in a good way for (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) I think the views are so different that it is unlikely that we can reach a consensus. There may be a majority for either of the two opinions, but I doubt it will be possible general agreement about what is the right solution. (...) Uhm. Right. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) Why not turn the clause 180 degrees? If you get your paycheck from Lego, you can only be eligible after community discussion/approval? I suppose being payed by MegaBloks, or any other clone maker would need the same treatment. -- Anders (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) [...] (...) Fair enough. (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

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

Custom Search