[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Russell Davis rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Tue Apr 1 22:57:03 CST 2003

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 23:05, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> In order to thrive, the JSF needs two things:
> 1. Active contributors to key projects and initiatives
> 2. Enough money to pursue important opportunities

definatly alot of both 

> 1. Charge representatives of commercial entities some modest yearly 
> fee for JSF membership. $200 sounds about right to me. Because such
> people don't lead open-source projects, we'd need to figure out some
> other way to determine if they really deserve to be members. I'm not
> yet sure what that method might be -- JEPs, mailing list posts, and
> other contributions might help. Or if your company's products are
> significant to the growth of Jabber (so far undefined) and you are 
> a key contributor to those products (validated how? I don't know yet),
> then we'd accept you (as long as you pay your $200). But we need to
> institute a hurdle of merit here. (BTW, if companies are paying to
> have their employees be members, they may want some proof that 
> "membership has its privileges" -- I'm not sure how to address this
> yet either.)

just to nitpick and to find fault somewhere i'd say $250 as I seem to
remember that being the amount to become a member of a few other open
source foundations. it was also the amount that most companies i've
worked at allowed their project leaders/officers to self-signoff on

> 2. If a company is a sponsor of the JSF, waive the fee. Perhaps
> institute a sliding scale: sponsors at the $1k level may have 1
> membership fee waived, $5k sponsors may have 5 fees waived, $10k
> sponsors may have 10 fees waived (or whatever, perhaps fewer than 
> that for the larger sponsors). All companies would still be subject
> to the limitations in the Bylaws regarding the percentage of members 
> who may be accepted from any one company. No one is buying influence
> here (it's that whole meritocracy thing again -- each member whose
> fee is waived would still need to prove merit).

sounds good to me

> 4. Membership is free for Jabber Council members, leaders of JSF work 
> teams (e.g., Compliance and Marketing), and leaders of active Jabber 
> open-source projects (how we define "leader" and "active project" is
> open to debate, but CVS checkins and release schedules, and maybe 
> protocol compliance / JEP support, should help us create objective 
> measures).

don't forget the board, who if I remember correctly don't even need to
me jsf members but would make life alot more consistant if they became
automatic members.

> 5. All members must be actively affiliated with a company or an
> open-source project. If you like Jabber but don't contribute, we
> still love you but you can't be a member. If you once led a project
> but dropped out, you can't be a member. If your project is dead,
> you can't be a member. If you are a corporate member and your company 
> goes out of business or fires you or whatever, you can't be a member 
> (unless you meet the criteria in #4).
> As I said, this is controversial. I'm not wedded to everything I 
> suggest above, but I *am* committed to making JSF membership an 
> honor and a privilege. And I wouldn't mind raising a little money 
> from corporate members of the Jabber community in the process. 
> After we discuss this thoroughly, I will put together a more formal 
> proposal (I hate to think what the Bylaws changes will look like).
> Let the flames begin!

it's not that controversial although I do foresee alot of minute
revisions to JEPS, a myriad of new clients (none of which offer much new
or special) and alot off faffing around preserving the life of dead
projects. but all in all it definatly seems ok to me.

bst rgrds

> Peter

More information about the Members mailing list