[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Apr 3 18:01:11 CST 2003


> I think the following questions need to be answered:
>
> What is the JSF?
> What is its purpose?
> What are its goals?
>
> If it is a social club where anyone and everyone who is interested 
> (not active) can come together to chat, discuss, comment on, vote, 
> etc... then what we are doing is fine.  But that's all that is going 
> on right now.  Chatting.  Discussing.  Lots of comments.  No progress. 
>  We sit around debating the issues till we are blue in the face, and 
> then someone else will pop up and reopen a can of worms and off we go 
> again.

Not really, when we work together we produce great things, all we 
really need is leadership for each particular issue, just look at how 
well the MUC JEPs proceeded, I think this was primarily due to strong 
leadership of the subject concerned by PSA, and this is the kind of 
thing we really need to get things going along instead of getting stuck 
in limbo, its all about project management, not really a lot to do with 
the current structure of the JSF.
Although I do think the subject of being active is perfectly valid in 
that you must remain active to remain within the membership, but 
doesn't the existing 3 votes and you are out clause pretty much solve 
this problem?? Or maybe it just needs to be slightly extended in scope 
somehow.

> If on the other hand it is a technical organization, that is seeking 
> to maintain, extend, and shepard the larger technical Jabber community 
> as a whole, then we are failing.  We have mulitple JEPs on the same 
> topics instead of working towards a single one.  We have bickering, 
> fighting, name calling over stupid issues like logos.

I certainly agree that the bickering and fighting over the logo issue 
was bad, but things like that always have the potential of happening, 
thats a fact of life and I fail to see how the suggested changes to the 
membership will actually help in this regard, what needs to be 
introduced to reduce things like that is some sort of disciplinary 
procedure, which IMO if its not there already might not be a bad idea 
to introduce.

Richard





More information about the Members mailing list