 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Dan Boger
|
| | | (...) 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. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Jennifer L. Boger
|
| | | | | 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 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) I strongly object to a blanket exclusion. I do not believe every position would pose a conflict of interest. Here is a thought: What about instead of having an exclusionary clause, require that if someone is employed by TLC, there be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | (...) This is the best I can come up with: Any person who works in a retail outlet (including kiosks, mall stores, and theme park centers) from the store manager position down or any worker in manufacturing, shipping, or goundskeeping/housekeeping (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) ... (...) So let's separate the issues. I think we all agree that a LEGO employee should not be in the SC (if only for the appearance of impropriety). If you want to make a special case for Tim, or make a more generic way of allowing (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree there _might_ be a conflict. I don't believe it would be true in every case. I have suggestions for generic ways of allowing exceptions [1] and will consolidate them and post them later today. -Tim [1] IMO the exception process should (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Apologies for not making the timeframe - they're *just* about ready and they should be ready to go tomorrow. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) No, I do not think we all agree that. (...) Yes, someone does so disagree. In fact I'd go farther, I think most of us do disagree, at least for the case of people that have little or no practical influence within LEGO (people who work in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | (...) I agree with this. It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into bankrupcy, or (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) He's high enough up (and his job description is focused in such a critical direction) that I think almost everyone would agree that there was a conflict of interest in his case. LEGO is his career now, after all. (...) The problem with special (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Jake McKee
|
| | | | (...) All, I hope you don't mind if I chime in on the discussion. I just caught up on the thread, and there are a lot of very good things being tossed around. Personally, I tend to like the idea of Larry's to exclude any mention of LEGO employee (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus —Mike Thorn
|
| | | | (...) I concur. :) I haven't been following this thread at all up until now, but Jake's post caught my eye. And I agree with what he said - only I want to go a little further. Couldn't anybody that even has association with TLC possibly have a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
