Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 05:50:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3403 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
I understand that you want to be a member, and that many other agree, and
indeed that it would probably bring no harm to Ldraw if you were, but is it
necessary? It seems to me that this whole discussion is centred around
the issue of whether or not you in particular will be precluded from the
committee. Would it be so bad to not be a member, but still an active
participant?
|
I don’t see this discussion as about Tim at all, except as a test case. As
I’ve said before, he’s a handy metric. Any rule that excludes him (based on
his current employment situation) is wrong, and worse, it is in my view bad
for the organization.
|
I agree.
| |
Jake put it pretty well, professional and technical organizations are rife
with potential conflicts of interest if you look hard enough to find them.
What matters are actual ones.
To ignore that and suggest that Tim is merely selfishly insisting on being
able to stand for the StC and should stand aside in order to move things
forward... is to, I feel, completely miss the point here.
|
I suggested nothing. I was merely asking a question.
|
I do apologise if I misinterpreted your words, but I would suggest that my
interpretation is an extremely reasonable one given the word choices you used.
| |
Can you just answer it
without reading motives into it that don’t exist?
|
| |
Is it really necessary to
be a member of the steering committee in order for suggestions on the
direction of the organisation to be heard and judged fairly?
|
I would think not, but I look to the steering committee to do a lot more than
make (or hear) suggestions. It’s a deliberative body but also it needs to be a
decision making body.
| |
That said, Jake’s post made a lot of sense (it came through just after I
wrote mine). It’s probably the most pragmatic approach presented thus far.
For what it’s worth, I have no emotional investment in the final wording one
way or the other. Like I said, I was just asking a question. I figured
someone would take it the wrong way despite my best efforts at being
diplomatic, I just didn’t think it’d be you Larry.
|
Well if you didn’t think it would be taken the right way by some of the
audience, in advance, then maybe it did need a little more rewording, wouldn’t
you agree?
That’s the problem with words I guess, they’re mushy. And the more words you
use, sometimes, the more complexity you introduce, and the more opportunities
for misinterpretation you introduce. So I’m coming around to thinking that less
is more, in this area of the bylaws, at least.
I’ll go back to what I challenged Dan with... if you want a blanket ban on LEGO
employees (and not on any other employees of any other entity) show that all
LEGO employees automatically have a conflict of interest so large as to be
irreconcilable, and that no employees of *any* other entity have any other
conflict of interest. (1)
Frankly, I’d vote FOR a LEGO exec (even with apparent huge conflicts of
interest) before I’d vote FOR a MB exec who was at a corresponding level within
MB. Or MS, or Intel, or etc... Not that I’d actually vote for either a LEGO or
MB exec, that’s just making the point.
Else I think we should go with what’s been suggested by Wayne, by Jake, by
others and by myself. Full disclosure of interests, then make it a campaign
issue.
1 - I work for a company that creates tools to transform data and integrate
applications. About 2 years ago, at the time I was developing MTW-4001 for
release, I used our technology to create a type tree (a metadata model) that
understands the file format well enough to be able to create a map (a set of
transform rules) that can re-sort the elements in the model along an arbitrary
normal vector (which is useful when creating instructions from models that were
captured in random layered order, as it helps you layer things better).
Does the fact that I used a commercial product to do this work mean that I have
an insurmountable conflict of interest in any decision even remotely related to
the file format? I would say no, but I would also say that I have more of such a
chance than some poor schlub that waits on customers in a retail store...
I also design and sell custom kits. I’m a heavy user of LDraw tools for that.
Does that mean I have a conflict of interest? Improvements in LDraw might give
me the ability to design sets more efficiently. I would say, yes, I do have such
a conflict of interest. But it’s a GOOD conflict, because what helps me out
helps everyone else out too.
So the point is that there are conflicts and there are conflicts. Not all
conflicts are real, some are just imaginary, and not all real ones actually
matter.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
