Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 07:13:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
I see. I wasn’t clear on what role the LSC has. I’ve gone back over the posts
dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still
think it was a valid question.
| |
| |
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?
|
Not really. It’s less to do with the way I worded it, and I did try to avoid
this, and more to do with the nature of online forums and the participants
thereof. Given the lack of emotional clues in a text only environment, there is
a tendency to assume certain nonverbal content when it may not exist, or be
entirely different from that which is assumed. I realise this happens no matter
how carefully or diplomatically a post is worded, so I chose to give the benfit
of the doubt and deal with any misinterpretations if they arise.
| |
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.
|
Like I said, I’m not that heavily invested one way or the other, but this seems
to be the most pragmatic approach.
| |
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.
|
I would call that a convergence of interest, wouldn’t you?
Cheers,
Allister
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
68 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
