[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Ralph Meijer jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Apr 2 05:24:15 CST 2003

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:06:57AM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > After we discuss this thoroughly, I will put together a more formal
> > proposal (I hate to think what the Bylaws changes will look like).
> Also what about the regular members that contribute to the mailing lists, if
> I am not mistaken only really a core few (relatively) of the membership
> actually contribute to the mailing lists assisting the development of
> protocols that go through. But often are not acknowledged in the JEPs for
> contributions they make, I don't thinks its very fair against them if you
> kicked them out for not contributing code but who greatly contribute to
> various JEPs, its all relative, you need to gauge peoples contributions
> generally not just measure them in code output, there are as I see it a lot
> of members who don't seem to contribute at all either in the mailing lists
> or coding. If they were no longer members I think that would reduce the
> membership numbers down by a lot, just look back at how many got gradually
> removed a while back because of not participating in the regular votes, what
> we really need is to extend the vote rule to include general contribution.
> Richard

Stpeter writes:

... (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)

Leader could be read as 'significant contributer'. This could also mean
people who are actively involved in enhancing protocols by discussion on
mailing lists, conference rooms or general wizardry, I think.


More information about the Members mailing list