Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 03:56:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3165 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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 disclosure of that person's
> employment status on LDraw.org x amount of time prior to the election? Require a
> footnote to be added to the final list of nominees and/or ballot that notes who
> is employed by TLC, what their title is, and a summary of their responsibilities
> and powers.
>
> Make measures to ensure the community is reasonably informed, and then let the
> community decide on a case-by-case basis who they trust to lead LDraw.org.
>
> -Tim
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 from the shift
supervisers (or equivilent) down is elegible.
I think the above is specific enough to satisfy the nay-sayers. It may need a
small amount of refining since I wrote this off the top of my head.
-Orion
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
68 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
