[Foundation] jabber.com for president

Jeremie jeremie at jabber.org
Wed Jun 27 16:28:12 CDT 2001


> Please note I mean no offence to any person involved on the council.

None taken :)

> As you know I have tried to attend all the meetings and given you my input ,
> but was busy today and when I did try to connect s2s was messed (again).

The server was maxing out for client connections, and although s2s has
been a bit laggy/flaky (due to server load bursts, new boxes coming soon I
hope) there were others participating in the room over s2s, maybe it was
just an isolated incident that you couldn't connect.  We do need to have
an alternating schedule for the meetings though, so others can join in
off-hours in some of the meetings.

> I noticed that you did mention our offer to host but by the looks of
> the meeting you have found someone else.

Found someone else to host what?  The conference?  Except for the problems
above, which are being corrected, the foundation conferences should
appropriately be hosted on the foundation's servers :)

> I also noted that you will be working on tigris with James (consultant
> to jabber.com and foundation board member, with how many other
> jabber.com employees? I think it was you and jer and James and an exec
> at jabber.com so far right?)

Just myself, James, and a jabber.com dude (likely bauer) so far, two
positions open yet.  James's relationship to jabber.com is one where he
advises them, not vice-versa... and although I'm an employee, my
relationship is similiar, I'm not directed or told what to do w.r.t.
jabber.org activities (and have a sign-on contract saying so back from
when I started in '99).

> so I will also ditch the tigris project (it is very beta and unstable
> at this point anyway) and I'm sure jabber.com would rather have the
> control. 

I guess whatever the "tigris project" is in reference to, is something
that is not public or I just haven't been keeping up, so I don't know what
that is supposed to mean.

> With a council made up of over 50% of jabber.com employees it would
> seem that if jabber.com wanted something they should be able to get
> it.

Nope, it only takes one person to veto (-1) any vote in the council.

> It would appear the best thing to do is let jabber.com run the board, the
> council and anything else they want to run and I'll just vote as a member if
> I have the chance, good luck with it all.

I'm sorry things have come across that way, but I'm quite sure it's not
the case and have hopefully helped show that.  Let me know if there's
anything else I can help w/ or confusion to clear up.

Jer




More information about the Members mailing list