[Foundation] Draft Jabber Software Foundation Membership Qualification Requirements

Michael Bauer bauer at michaelbauer.com
Fri Mar 29 12:06:44 CST 2002


On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:

> 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

 
The process to make changes to the By-Laws are defined in the By-Laws
themselves.  It will take a vote by a majority of the Members and the
Directors to become effective.  If you're going to advocate that being a  
Provisional Member is required first to become a Member then the section  
2.1 on Admission of Members would have to be ammended to reflect that.
  

> 
> 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.
> 

Not sure how this will help us with the TM, heg.  I'm praying for an act 
of God to help us out in this.

> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bauer        me at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com




More information about the Members mailing list