[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Apr 3 17:38:45 CST 2003

>> I think Peter's made a good case that additional steps
>> should be taken. The whole discussion is aimed at making the Jabber
>> community the strongest and most active community possible -- it's 
>> not about
>> locking people out.
> Exactly... It seems to me that the JSF should not _BE_ the community, 
> it should
> _LEAD_ the community.

Im not really sure if it shouldn't be a community but I do think that 
people who contribute in some way should have the right to be a JSF 
member and in so doing have a vote and influence of the path the jabber 
community takes, I think a better compromise is more of half way 
between a democracy and meritocracy. Also I thought that it was the job 
of the JSF council and board to lead the community not the JSF 
membership itself necessarily, I am not really sure what is wrong with 
how things are now if there is a problem with the value of being a 
member then I think that value is having a say in the direction of the 
community. I get the feeling that people are wanting the JSF to just be 
the leaders only but isn't that what the council should really be?? 
That is where the real meritocracy is, to be able to be on the council 
you have to show enough merit to get people to vote you there, that is 
where the real leaders should be. I see the JSF members as being like 
supporters of a political party having a vote to choose the real 
leaders the council, and the council as being the political candidates 
who are voted in to make most of the day to day decisions, isnt this 
how it really should work?? Why is there this worry about the 
membership increasing in size?? surely that is good as it brings in a 
wider range of views which can help make jabber even better.

> Everyone who writes an apache module isn't a member of the Apache 
> Software
> Foundation. I think moving the JSF towards a more leadership and 
> driving role
> would be good for the community and help spure growth. Folks who want 
> to just
> "innovate" don't have to be tied down with the responsibilities of 
> being a JSF
> member.

That ok but I dont necessarily think it is a good idea comparing 
ourselves to Apache since we are fundamentally different since what the 
JSF really does is develop a protocol and not really just an 
implementation of a protocol, and as such IMO needs a wider range of 
few points from more than just the coders and people who solely work on 
jabber in their working lives, to make sure the protocol is useful and 
feature complete enough to be useful to the widest range of people and 

Also if people are willing to shoulder the responsibility of being a 
JSF member why not let them?? instead of placing barriers to their 
entry and in doing so possibly loose their view point due to them being 
put off by the policies.


More information about the Members mailing list