Subject:
|
Steering Committee Recommendations (was: Re: Call for Nominations to LDraw.org ...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:54:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1333 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Dan -
Thanks for posting your thoughts. Please see mine interspersed.
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
| |
As we get nearer to the election, I wanted to post my thoughts on what • I
think the steering committee should look like.
We’re electing the SC to lead the LDraw organization. To codify it,
define what it really is, and how it works. In the past we have all
worked in a somewhat random manner. Decisions were “reached” when the
|
| |
arguments about them stopped - often, taking weeks, or even months and
|
| |
years.
With the powers we’ve given the SC, most decisions will be made by • these
5 people. And since it’s a much smaller group, a busy discussion over • a
weekend might yield a policy - and all that with little oversight from
|
| |
the community.
This isn’t a bad thing, that’s how we can move forward. I just want • to
make sure everyone is aware of the trust we have to have in the SC
members - we’re electing them to decide the future of this • organization,
so we should make sure they steer us in the right direction.
|
Good summation. I agree, it is important people realize the trust they are
putting into these elected individuals. It is critical the community put their
faith in people who are going to intelligently do the right thing, while giving
their best consistent effort to the cause. I hope people see this election as
bestowing responsibility upon individuals, in a serious manner.
| |
And what’s the right directions? Glad you asked :)
In my opinion, the following goals are what we should be aiming for:
- Continue development of the LDraw library and file format
- Figure out the licensing issue, while keeping LDraw open-sourced
|
I am for open-sourced development. The library should always remain open-source.
When considering software development, it is important to encourage open- as
well as closed-source development. I would like the committee to encourage
developers to write open-source, however, they should not be disallowed from
writing and releasing closed-source LDraw software by any policy.
| |
- Develop the actual organization
- Expand the reach and use of LDraw
|
I would like to add to your last point, I think it was understated. In my view,
yes, the parts library is critical to LDraw and needs to be properly developed
and cared for. Just as important (if not moreso) is creating an environment that
encourages new and collaborative software development. I would like the
committee to serve the existing developer community as well as work to grow this
community by inviting outsiders in. This will bring in fresh ideas, fresh blood,
and fresh energy which will yield advancements the system needs to grow.
The elected officials should reflect this goal in their orientation, in my view
even more than they reflect an emphasis on the parts library.
| |
And one thing we should try to avoid - reduce the amount of politics • and
behind-the-scenes cabals that exist today.
|
I agree, this should be avoided.
I believe we now have the system in place where the sort of activities you
describe are no longer needed to get things done. Until now, change has been
primarily affected by small groups of individuals getting together and making
decisions by general consensus, or by default when there are no objections.
Because of the semi-ambiguous nature of LDraw.org, it was a necessity to move
forward. I hope the new system discourages people from actively or passively
blocking progress.
I would like to see energized, focused, consistent, and active leaders elected
to the committee, so this does not happen. The committee should be in touch with
the community and the desires of constituents, and not afraid to act on policies
that are necessary to grow LDraw.
| |
So who do I think would do a good job at these goals?
- Tim Courtney
- Jacob Sparre Andersen
- Steve Bliss
- Chris Dee
- Tore Eriksson
I think this group would cover all of those goals I mentioned above
(with a special emphasis on the parts library, since I really do think
|
| |
that’s the core). And a group with very little politics interest - • why,
almost all of them didn’t even post one of those “Mission statements”
|
:)
Thank you for your endorsement. :-)
You pick a good group of people. I have respect for all of the others you
endorsed, they are principled contributors who have done much for LDraw over the
years.
I’d like to partially deviate from your recommendations, here are mine:
- Tim Courtney
- Orion Pobursky
- Kevin Clague
- Larry Pieniazek
- Chris Dee
I believe this group provides a better cross-section of interests that will make
the committee more rounded and able to address organizational and developer
issues. Here’s why:
- It retains an emphasis on the parts library - Chris as a librarian, and Orion as an avid Parts Tracker reviewer and author.
- Kevin is added to represent developers - Kevin has made great strides developing software and maintains a forward-focus. I think his perspective will help when dealing with issues of encouraging new development.
- Larry focuses on maintaining relationships across the vast community resources, and is skilled at creating and fostering organizations. He will help greatly when the committee discusses needs with other community groups, and will be valuable for keeping focused and on track with goals.
- Orion is crucial in my opinion [1]. He has labored tirelessly on the web site, carries with him a consistent and well-reasoned approach to parts and developer issues, and has enthusiastically embraced evangelizing LDraw to potential developers at events (something I consider rather important). He’s also quite good at arguing with me constructively :-)
The above is my opinion. I welcome comments and questions on my recommendations;
please feel free to either post them or email me.
-Tim
[1] I like Greg Overkamp’s words about Orion in this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=3000
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
70 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
|
|
|
|
