 | | bylaws —Brian B. Alano
|
| | | Bylaws? We don't need no stinkin' bylaws! Well, we could get along without them, but then we'd keep forgetting our lessons learned and our past decisions and either re-invent things or make costly mistakes. Basically, any policy decisions should be (...) (21 years ago, 26-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.us.indylug)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: bylaws —Mark Peterson
|
| | | | | (...) These are very good and i believe we have discussed all of these and we need to make final decisions at the next meeting. We can proably come up with more of these is we think about it. mark (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.us.indylug)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | LTC Practices and Specs —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | (...) Several months ago, I poked around several LTC Websites looking for information on how the clubs operate, both as organizations and as layout developers. What I found was a dearth of data. Some Websites did have some interesting and (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LTC Practices and Specs —John Gerlach
|
| | | | (...) Well, fyi, the GMLTC doesn't really follow any of these types of layout organization. We would be something more like "layout modularity", since our layout is designed so that structure, themes, look & feel - all flow from one module onto the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.trains.org, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LTC Practices and Specs —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | (...) I usually think of the GMLTC as using a form of baseplate modularity---but without the modules (since GMLTC 'modules' are artefacts of building and transportation issues, rather than representing contributions by distinct members). (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | |
