Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:15:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2960 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> 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).
No, I do not think we all agree that.
> 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?
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 Retail, in manufacturing on the line, in call centers and the like)
I think you have to clearly *make* that case before you can assume it's a given.
I am not so worried about appearances of conflicts of interest, as I am about
actual ones.
So I don't see it as coming down to a special exception for Tim, I see it as
getting the principles right. Which is why I think the original wording revolved
around "professional" or "careerist", etc. However no such wording has managed
to capture what most of us want while still being simple enough to be
satisfactory.
Making a special exception for one person is wrong.
I just use Tim as a handy metric, if he or anyone like him (a retail minion) is
out, the wording is wrong. If Brad Justus (before he transitioned) is in, and we
for some reason didn't think that would be a campaign issue causing everyone to
vote against him, the wording is wrong the other way.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
68 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
