[Foundation] Draft Jabber Software Foundation Membership Qualification Requirements
Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
heg at imissary.com
Fri Mar 29 12:23:01 CST 2002
Michael,
I like the term "Provisional Member". I should have used the phrase
commit "consistently" instead of "constantly" or both, that is what
happens when you depend on a spell checker and do not pay attention. :-)
I was unclear about your statement of the change in By-laws, adding a
new member type or the requirements for membership or both concepts need
a legal change to By-laws.
If someone could define the legalities of this process that we are going
through I would appreciate that so I can address the issues and coat for
us to consider in accepting this proposal. TIA
I think that this type of structure will lead our organization towards a
point where we could defend a Trademark issue that might arise from any
TM's owned by the foundation.
heg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-admin at jabber.org
> [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Michael Bauer
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:35 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Draft Jabber Software Foundation
> Membership Qualification Requirements
>
>
>
> Ah, I was a little confused. When you said "members that are
> unable to
> commit constantly" seemed to assume that someone was already
> a Member and
> had reached a point where they couldn't commit anymore. Hence the
> confering of an Emeritus status. If you're talking about someone who
> hasn't been confirmed as a member yet, then I understand. We had
> considered someone like this to be a "Provisional Member"
> which seemed to
> more accurately represent their, well, provisional status.
>
> I understand and appreciate the kind of structure you're
> advocating, Heg.
> Just as a philosophical point, we tried to keep things as simple as
> possible. We weren't sure what other benefits would accrue to these
> Associate/Provisional Members. The point was that someone
> worked on a
> project, whether related to the Foundation or not, then they
> had something
> to put on their application for Membership. Besides, as
> Peter can attest,
> it's hard enough to keep track of just the Members
> themselves. Also, such
> a change would constitute an ammendment to the By-Laws which
> is a hassle
> in and of itself.
>
> Documenting the membership requirements is great (still wonder what
> happened to the original statements). I'd just caution on
> going overboard
> in putting more structure in place. We tried to take the
> best of Apache
> and Gnome and do only that which was sufficient and necessary
> with respect
> to the requirements of a legally incorporated not-for-profit
> organization.
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:
>
> > I think that "Emeritus Members" is an honorary membership for doing
> > goods works for the organization as a former member or
> non-member. I
> > see an "Associate Member" as one that may be involved on a project
> > related to the foundation and working towards the voting member
> > status.
> >
> > heg
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: members-admin at jabber.org
> > > [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Michael Bauer
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:33 PM
> > > To: members at jabber.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Foundation] Draft Jabber Software Foundation
> > > Membership Qualification Requirements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The "Associate Member" catagory is already accounted for as
> > > "Emeritus
> > > Members".
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Barry,
> > > > I have the nominating requirement on the issues to resolve
> > > list, so we
> > > > have that seconded to resolve.
> > > >
> > > > I like the "Continuing" word instead of Renewing. The voting
> > > > requirement is our current policy which I find it is fine
> > > as a part of
> > > > a comprehensive set of requirements to continue your
> membership.
> > > > I
> > > > think that a bi-yearly review of a members participation is
> > > valuable
> > > > for the foundation and the member. It places a larger
> > > commitment on a
> > > > member and would therefore assist the foundation by adding
> > > > expectations of the membership.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we should have two kinds of members, current
> members become
> > > > voting members, members that are unable to commit to
> the foundation
> > > > constantly could be associate members. What do you Barry
> > > and the rest
> > > > of the group think of that?
> > > >
> > > > Great Input, Thanks
> > > > heg
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: members-admin at jabber.org
> [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]
> > > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Barry G. Lee
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:08 AM
> > > > To: members at jabber.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [Foundation] Draft Jabber Software Foundation
> > > Membership
> > > > Qualification Requirements
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well done Harold
> > > >
> > > > I would like to put forward two changes for consideration.
> > > >
> > > > 1: In the who is eligible section. Remove "nominated by an
> > > > existing
> > > > member and then". If there is a membership committee, they
> > > will weed
> > > > out people who are simply joiners and no potential
> contribution to
> > > > JSF. This would not preclude recommendations from an
> > > existing member
> > > > at time of voting.
> > > >
> > > > 2: Replace the entire "Renewing your membership" with the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > "Continuing your membership
> > > >
> > > > Membership in the Jabber Software Foundation is ongoing
> > > as long as
> > > > the member stays active. An active member is one who
> does not miss
> > > > three consecutive votes in the Jabber Software
> Foundation. If the
> > > > member misses three consecutive votes, their membership in
> > > the jabber
> > > > Software Foundation will be automatically terminated.
> > > Former members
> > > > may file a new application for membership".
> > > >
> > > > Note: The process for renewal as first suggested would be very
> > > > time
> > > > consuming for a membership committee and by using the
> > > proposed change
> > > > would give participation to only active members. The membership
> > > > committee would be dealing only with new applications.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Barry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: members-admin at jabber.org
> [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]
> > > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:28 PM
> > > > To: members at jabber.org
> > > > Subject: [Foundation] Draft Jabber Software Foundation
> Membership
> > > > Qualification Requirements
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have completed the first draft of the membership requirements.
> > > > Please find it on
> http://www.jabber.org/proposed/heg-idea.html > for
> > > > your
> review. I took the basic text from Gnome and added some of our
> > > > discussions to it.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see some constructive criticism, additions, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your assistance in helping us define such a policy.
> > > >
> > > > heg
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Michael Bauer me at michaelbauer.com
> http://www.michaelbauer.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>
More information about the Members
mailing list