Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:50:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:47:50AM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > 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?
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 be generic. I wouldn't want a clause in the
bylaws making an exception only for me, but not allowing an exception process
for anyone else down the road.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
