[Foundation] Reset: Back to business | Criteria, Voting, Membership What does it mean?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Mar 12 18:31:12 CST 2002


I'd prefer to leave the rules as-is for those who have applied already.
New rules will mean we need to gather much more targeted information from
applicants in order to decide whether they will be accepted.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:

> >
> >
> > You can't make this retro-active to the current vote.  You have
> > to let the
> > vote complete with the current criteria.  I'm all for voting on an
> > improved membership criteria.  I've posted my suggestion already.
> >
> 
> I disagree that the vote is a retro-active situation given it has not closed
> yet, the criteria may be late. I am willing to move forward with the current
> voting situation regardless even as I pose the following questions.
> 
> What is the general opinion of the group on suspending the vote? Does it
> make sense to or is it just wrong to change the rules mid stream?
> 
> heg
> 
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Wow!
> > > Lots of good suggestion here and all around.  I started this thread
> > > originally to address my own inability to make a decision on
> > how to vote on
> > > the candidates.  My criteria was pretty lame, if someone was from an
> > > existing organization already in the membership you lost my
> > vote.  Something
> > > like that, well that is not good enough. Then I said to myself what is
> > > required of me? That's how this got going.
> > >
> > > I like the suggestion of the deadlines and something to work towards.
> > >
> > > I would like to volunteer to compile the information for
> > membership into a
> > > document that we can review and vote on.  I agree with Mike Lin
> > that we can
> > > only apply this moving forward.
> > >
> > > I would suggest not allowing the new members to join prior to
> > any changes so
> > > that they can review the requirements and we can evaluate accordingly.
> > >
> > > Here is the schedule I am proposing:
> > >
> > > March 26,2002 Complete Draft
> > > April 2,2002  Final Document Release for Review by members
> > > April 9,2002 Vote on Acceptance of Document
> > > April 15,2002 Tally votes
> > >
> > > Please let me know if this is reasonable.
> > > heg
> > > Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Iain Shigeoka
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:03 AM
> > > > To: members at jabber.org
> > > > Subject: [Foundation] Reset: Back to business
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > Looks like I luckily went offline while all the dust went flying.  I
> > > > laughed, I cried, I kissed my girl and said, "everything is gonna be
> > > > alright".  My BA in psychology yearns to study the group
> > dynamics further.
> > > > But I think most of us really just want to get things taken
> > care of so we
> > > > can get back to whatever brought us to Jabber in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Despite all the discussion, we have made no headway on resolving the 2
> > > > issues put forth: membership criteria/responsibilities, and
> > the trademark
> > > > issues.  Peter suggested some criteria and it received very
> > > > little feedback.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to propose we take a first, procedural step to make something
> > > > happen.  I noticed during the IETF effort that deadlines really
> > > > helped.  So
> > > > let's start by setting deadlines for things to happen.
> > Someone (or anyone
> > > > that wants to) create a strawman document for a solution to
> > each problem.
> > > > If the deadline comes without resolution, we'll just use the
> > > > strawman as the
> > > > final document (which can be revised in a later draft if it is
> > > > unacceptable
> > > > to enough people).
> > > >
> > > > We can take Peter's proposal for membership as the membership
> > > > strawman, and
> > > > one of us can throw something together for the trademark
> > issue.  I've got
> > > > ideas on that one (but they probably won't be that popular)
> > so I can throw
> > > > together the trademark strawman unless someone else wants to.  I
> > > > also think
> > > > we need to put these strawman docs onto a web space to create a better
> > > > target for discussion and revision.  I propose setting up a
> > JabberStudio
> > > > project or something similar.
> > > >
> > > > -iain
> > > >
> > > > #####################
> > > > Warning, controversial proposals follow.  They are intended to take an
> > > > extreme position so that they may be criticized, corrected,
> > discussed, and
> > > > flamed.  They are "strawmen" so take out your pitchforks and
> > start poking!
> > > > #####################
> > > >
> > > > JSF Membership strawman document (v. 02/03/12)
> > > >
> > > > I propose we dissolve JSF membership...dump the whole thing.  It's a
> > > > distraction, seems to be causing bad experiences, and hasn't
> > done a damn
> > > > thing for us.  If members only responsibility is to vote, and
> > we only vote
> > > > on who gets to be a member, then this is _really_ lame.
> > > >
> > > > We retain the JSF council.  Anyone in the members at jabber.org
> > mailing list
> > > > may vote on new JSF council members during the yearly
> > re-election period.
> > > > We can put all the pressure on the JSF council to take care of
> > > > standardization "approval" and review.
> > > >
> > > > JEP creation/standardization processes continue on standards-jig
> > > > (it doesn't
> > > > require membership now to create a JEP).
> > > >
> > > > Since the JSF council doesn't appear to have actually done
> > > > anything in their
> > > > capacity, we may need to better define the council's role.
> > The council
> > > > carries out their discussions on the members list, and anyone
> > > > subscribed to
> > > > the list may bitch and otherwise provide feedback to the
> > council on how
> > > > they're doing.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to also prose the ability of the membership (those
> > subscribed to
> > > > the members list) to take a vote of no confidence in the
> > council at any
> > > > time.  A 75% approval with a quorum of 50% of the current
> > > > subscribers of the
> > > > members list will force an immediate re-election of council members to
> > > > complete the remaining term.  That way, if the council is
> > just sitting on
> > > > their hands, we can kick them out, and get people who will do
> > things in
> > > > office.
> > > >
> > > > Deadline: Decide by April 15th, 2002
> > > >
> > > > #####################
> > > >
> > > > Trademark strawman document (v. 02/03/12)
> > > >
> > > > We must resolve the trademark issue in a reasonable amount of
> > time so that
> > > > both experimental and commercial Jabber projects may
> > continue.  Whoever
> > > > should have been helping to expedite matters has not been
> > able to within a
> > > > reasonable amount of time (cite.  A year?).  This proposal is
> > not to place
> > > > blame but to create a tenable solution quickly and fairly. [Note:
> > > > I'm trying
> > > > to put a little levity into this, not be legal-ish]
> > > >
> > > > We, the Jabber community, hold these truths to be evident;
> > that we cannot
> > > > rely on Jabber Inc. to resolve the issues regarding the Jabber
> > > > related marks
> > > > in a reasonable amount of time and, that we must have a recognizable
> > > > trademark to use for our own projects: private, personal, public or
> > > > commercial.
> > > >
> > > > We therefore must create a new, unattached mark for Jabber
> > > > related products
> > > > and projects.  This mark shall be (insert voted mark and logo)
> > > > and shall be
> > > > used to indicate a Jabber compliant application.
> > > >
> > > > Jabber compliant applications fall into 3 categories.  First,
> > > > they may be a
> > > > client participating in client-server Jabber interactions.
> > In which case,
> > > > the jabber compliant client must interact with the jabberd
> > > > reference server
> > > > v. 1.0 or later without generating any errors.
> > > >
> > > > Second, they may be a server participating in client-server Jabber
> > > > interactions. In which case, the Jabber compliant server must
> > > > interact with
> > > > at least 3 Jabber compliant clients (see definition above) without
> > > > generating any errors.
> > > >
> > > > Third, they may be a server participating in server-server Jabber
> > > > interactions.  In which case, the Jabber compliant server must
> > > > ineract with
> > > > the jabberd reference server v. 1.0 or later without generating
> > > > any errors.
> > > >
> > > > The level of compliance is determined by the number of Jabber
> > protocols
> > > > supported in this way.  So if you properly support
> > <stream:stream> you are
> > > > level 1 compliant; if you support <stream:stream> and
> > <message> you are
> > > > level 2 compliant, etc.
> > > >
> > > > The availability of future Jabber compliance test suites will cause a
> > > > re-evaluation of compliance testing (perhaps requiring a new mark).
> > > >
> > > > "Jabber" "JabberPowered" and the lightbulb logo may be
> > considered for the
> > > > Jabber community marks only if Jabber Inc. can arrange for
> > its legal use
> > > > under acceptable terms to the community by the deadline for
> > this proposal.
> > > > Otherwise, our new mark shall be used for this purpose and
> > the Jabber Inc.
> > > > trademarks can be reconsidered for this use at a future date
> > (pending vote
> > > > by members).
> > > >
> > > > Notice, this proposal is not intended to fragment the Jabber
> > community or
> > > > reduce the importance of Jabber Inc.'s contributions.
> > However, we have
> > > > waited over a (cite, year?) with no progress on this issue.  The
> > > > advancement
> > > > of the Jabber community and its members cannot be held up by trademark
> > > > related delays.  We hope that something can be worked out
> > with Jabber Inc.
> > > > to continue to use the "Jabber" related marks either now or
> > at some future
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Deadline: April 22, 20002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Members mailing list
> > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > >
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael Bauer        me at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list