 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
