[LSC] Proposed changes to the LDraw part header to support theContributor Agreement - Version 6

[Ross Crawford]

Travis Cobbs wrote:
> There was one thing brought up that we should probably decide on.  There 
> was an alternative proposal to how we should wrap history lines.  Do we 
> do it like in the proposal (0 //  <spaces> wrapped text), or do we do it 
> like in KEYWORDS and HELP, e.g:
> 
> 0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [UserName] Free text description of change
> 0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [UserName] Second row simulating formatting
> 
> The above format has the advantage of being consistent with keywords and 
> help.  However, given the nature of the history lines, it might be more 
> confusing.  Despite the fact that it's inconsistent with keywords and 
> help, my personal opinion is that the way it is in the v6 document is 
> easer to read.  But I don't have a strong opinion.

I lean towards repeating the META tag as per example above, but I'd be 
easily swayed either way. WRT monospaced font requirement, yes it is a 
restriction, but I think most authors are probably still using 
monospaced fonts in their editor anyway, and most text-only viewers 
still use them, so it's not a big issue for me.

> As for William's question, my reading of the LSC charter says that we 
> get to decide how to discuss and vote on things.  We're already 
> discussing via his list, and I'd guess we'll just want to vote via this 
> list.  It doesn't say what constitutes a yes vote, but I would lean 
> toward a simple majority of LSC members (not a simple majority of votes; 
> not voting would then be the equivalent of a no vote).

I agree, a majority of members is probably easiest.

ROSCO