Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:46:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3198 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Don Heyse wrote:
> It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will
> tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck
> coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into
> bankrupcy, or cause it to look more like clone bricks than the clones
> themselves, I'd like to see ldraw.org able to make the move to
> whatever Lego-like toy is best. I don't think that's likely with Lego
> employees running the show at ldraw.org. Remember, Jake may not be
> high up the corporate ladder, but he managed to get a significant
> number of LDRAW developers to sign an NDA not too long ago.
He's high enough up (and his job description is focused in such a critical
direction) that I think almost everyone would agree that there was a conflict of
interest in his case. LEGO is his career now, after all.
> Was that
> his idea, or did it come from above? The point is, even the lowest
> level employees are under the influnce of the folks who sign their
> paychecks. I think we should try very hard to avoid any hint of that
> sort of influence in the future leadership of ldraw.org.
>
> That said, I'm not opposed to making special exceptions when warrented.
> Given Tim's history with ldraw.org, this is a reasonable case for an
> exception. But the exception should be publicly noted, voted on, and
> periodicly up for review.
The problem with special exceptions is that they're special, and they're
exceptions.
Therefore subject to politicisation.
All it takes is one person with a grudge against Tim (or whowever) using the
review process to stir up trouble, and there you are, trouble. And that's not
hypothetical, in my view, as we've seen examples of people cloaking themselves
in all sorts of mantles while stirring up trouble. BL just went through (an
entirely unrelated to LDraw) incident like that and it was over a less important
issue than this but still ugly.
So I'd rather try to get this right rather than say we're going to make
exceptions. Even codified ones.
Get the wording right, or let it be a disclosure requirement and a campaign
issue.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
68 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
