Restore "Preserving the integrity of the LDraw name"

[Willy Tschager]

Orion,

please restore:

Preserving the integrity of the LDraw name
Quality and brand

Best would be in a subpage in "About Us" along with moving the "About Us" to its own subpage.

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

Orion,

please restore:

Preserving the integrity of the LDraw name
Quality and brand

Best would be in a subpage in "About Us" along with moving the "About Us" to its own subpage.

w.

They're back.

I'd like to have a discussion about why these 13 fairly wordy and toothless paragraphs are needed. I feel that the best way to improve our "brand" is to ensure the our core documents and specs are the best they can be to attract more developers and authors. Right now I can't even drum up enough interest to do simple document revisions. Even the new documents I've proposed are simply consolidation of text from other parts of the website.

So sure, lets have those two documents. I'm fine with that. But they need to be combined and rewritten. At the moment, I'd rather focus on completing the other document revisions that are outstanding.

[Gerald Lasser]

They're back.

I'd like to have a discussion about why these 13 fairly wordy and toothless paragraphs are needed. I feel that the best way to improve our "brand" is to ensure the our core documents and specs are the best they can be to attract more developers and authors. Right now I can't even drum up enough interest to do simple document revisions. Even the new documents I've proposed are simply consolidation of text from other parts of the website.

So sure, lets have those two documents. I'm fine with that. But they need to be combined and rewritten. At the moment, I'd rather focus on completing the other document revisions that are outstanding.

I would reduce the number of paragraphs here, so that we end up with:

• Historical Context
  
• Definition of LDraw
  
• Use of LDraw (Name)
  Which is also partially regulated in the by-laws (https://www.ldraw.org/article/268.html#S...esentation)
  

[Willy Tschager]

Sorry for the fuss. Please remove them again. Looks like the community doesn't think we should care about branding altogether.

w.

[Gerald Lasser]

Sorry for the fuss. Please remove them again. Looks like the community doesn't think we should care about branding altogether.

w.

Willy, I think the approach is to branding is important, but concerning (standard) paths, as I mention in the chat as an example, there are sometimes path-names, where the the IP/licensing of the name is not anymore in place, I do not know if e.g. there is even a legal way to "keep brand/company names in  a path" even if I do not have the license anymore. In this example the IP was even split and two new companies kept using it. Changing them might bring unforeseen consequences. Now upper/lower for Windows it doesn't matter, but we should give consideration on what will happen with Linux (not being a user of it myself) Also may be Travis shall have a look at the Library Update function. to e.g. take care of the user-set path (which is in my case "./2_LDRAW/LIB/", so I cannot use it as well.

IMHO the pages you mentioned should be reworked, reflecting a more current stance (not forgetting the long and valuable history), with a focus on how LDraw is/shall be presented/used.

Gerald

[Willy Tschager]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/1999/n...ndcareers1

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/1999/n...ndcareers1

w.

I may have come off too strong earlier. I do think is this is an important topic and I appreciate your intentions. I agree this particular issue is now settled but I'd like your input on the larger statement. I've combined the two pages but left the wording intact. I'd like cut out some of the cruft where the 2 statements overlap.