Subject:
|
Re: Steering Committee Recommendations (was: Re: Call for Nominations to LDraw.org ...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:40:37 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:54:00PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I agree - while I have a preference for open-sourced programs, it's the
> licensing of the library that I'm more concerned about.
I agree that the library license is important, and I have stated(1) that it's
going to be a primary focus of mine to get a good license structure in place for
*all* the components that go into making up the LDraw System.
But I think it is rather too narrow focused to see the library as the only, or
even primary, reason for the existence of LDraw.org. Hence the slate of
candidates that Tim supports is rather different than yours, he's got the big
picture more firmly in mind, and has posited a slate that draws from a much
wider constituency, and (based on discussions with most of the candidates on
it), a slate that also has the bigger picture in mind.
> I'm surprised (no, actually amazed) that you do not have Steve Bliss on
> that list. To paraphrase Larry, "Any list that does not include Steve
> shouldn't even be considered".
To be clear here, this "paraphrase" is a quote about an entirely different
matter, and about a different person. There are several posts where I said
similar things , but they were about the potential exclusion of *Tim* due to
bylaws provisions, not about the suitability of Steve as a candidate.
Here are the cites I assume that you had in mind for reference:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2779
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2802
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2812
I think it may be a bit disingenious to twist my words around so, and
potentially leave false impressions with the voters.
> Steve, being such an integral part of
> the LDraw community, cannot be excluded.
I guess I have somewhat the opposite view. Steve has been a great asset to the
library, parts reference, the Parts Tracker and the other tools that help
further the library portion of the LDraw System. But I was surprised that he
didn't decline the nomination. I had gotten the impression that his heart really
isn't in the organisational stuff and that the demands on his time and energy
are such that he would not want to be on the SteerCo.
His responses on the lists (bylaws, tech, content, and on the 4+1 list) when
organizational stuff have come up have sometimes been not as timely as they
could be, sometimes short, and sometimes not really showing a lot of time
devoted to thinking through the issues.
For those reasons I am not convinced that Steve is the best choice for the
Steering Committee which is primarily organizational in nature, not technical.
Make no mistake. I think his contributions to the library, the parts tracker,
the parts review process and in other technical areas are without compare and I
hope he wants to continue to contribute in those areas. That's not exclusionary,
it's inclusionary.
So, voters, I think this raises a broader issue you need to think about.. is
this organization about a library, or is it about more than that. I think it's
about a LOT more than a library and I suggest that voters ought to be looking
for the big picture candidates that have demonstrated the ability to work on
larger issues. For that reason I support Tim's slate.
++Lar
1 - In my backgrounder and position statement...
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=2891 which I note in passing is,
(contrary to Dan's view) an important thing for each candidate to have put
forth, as it gives voters some frame of reference and something to measure
performance against. I would suggest that not having put forth a position
statement by now is a minor drawback rather than a virtue.
In fact, it's denigrating to the candidates that chose to take the time to think
about the issues and share their views by posting position statements to say
(even in jest) that *not* posting them is a virtue, and, in my view, voters
should carefully consider the positions outlined in their voting, and carefully
consider the quality of advice given by those that advocate that position
statements ought to be disregarded.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
