Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:37:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3198 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:47:50AM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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
> LDraw, and even that's a stretch)
...
> I'll repeat the pragmatic metric I'm using here. If the wording we
> arrive at here excludes Tim from eligibility, given his current
> employment status, it's unacceptable to me, and I would vote against
> ratification.
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 exceptions, we can talk about that. But does anyone
disagree that there _might_ be a conflict, and that LDraw would probably
be better off selecting others for the SC? Again, not specifically Tim,
but Joe Random LEGO Employee?
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
