Hi,
Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 11:07 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/10/6 Daniel James [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Right - I think its a great idea as long as LGM:SCALE-2009 is not
advertised as LGM4 :-)
It could be a way of generating interest for the actual LGM4, or at least
giving a
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 10:39 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
Jon Phillips wrote:
There are a few ways we can figure out which one to go with above.
What
do you all think?
1.) EASIEST: Let the last 3 organizers of LGM's to make the decision
and
be in complete agreement over the
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 10:39 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
Jon Phillips wrote:
There are a few ways we can figure out which one to go with above. What
do you all think?
1.) EASIEST: Let the last 3 organizers of LGM's to make the decision and
be in complete agreement over the decision
Am 07.10.08, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Craig Bradney:
From: Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A non-LGM-branded graphics track was what I was thinking. No harm
reinforcing the LGM brand if it'll get us some money next year, but the
two should be independent.
Would it not be worthwhile to find the
2008/10/7 adam hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I like idea of the committee of the aboce to review...committee
folks, what do you think? And, on the timeline?
I'm happy to be a part of the committee. I think I would suggest Peter is
also on it as he has work closely with Louis and
Hi,
Jon Phillips wrote:
There are a few ways we can figure out which one to go with above. What
do you all think?
1.) EASIEST: Let the last 3 organizers of LGM's to make the decision and
be in complete agreement over the decision for next year.
I've previously proposed a committee made up
