Subject:
|
Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:15:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2227 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> >
> > [Section 6.02: Eligibility for LEGO Company Employees]¬
>
> What about MegaBloks, or any other company that may have an interest? Why
> pointing the finger on TLC only?
I don't think we could list which companies to watch out for, and which not to,
and be comprehensive. That's why there's a general removal clause in 6.04 to
enable the members to remove a SteerCo member in cases of documented, serious
allegations.
I'd be interested in hearing your suggested solutions for expanding these
proposed clauses to be more general though.
> Why not have a more general clause about conflict of interest?
Its possible, and I think we should hear it out. Please make some suggestions
for changes to the clauses ... I'll think on wording also.
It looks to me like the online discussion of this has pretty much wrapped up.
Hopefully pending a brief exchange about this and a possible edit, we can tie up
the ends, finalize the draft, and prepare for ratification.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
| (...) After giving some thought to this - I can't think of alternate wording that would really do the issue justice, and not end up unnecessarily lengthy and awkward. If we start looking for CoI under every rock, I think that's taking it too far. My (...) (20 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
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
|
|
|
|
