[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Thu Apr 3 18:22:00 CST 2003

> >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.

Though you'd agree that that kind of leadership is not exactly in
abundant supply. I'm not finger pointing here, just saying there aren't
many people willing to step up to the plate.

> 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.

Three strikes and you're out is just a little easy to avoid. I don't
have to be active - I don't have to contribute to a project, I don't
have to post to any lists, I don't have to do anything except give an
automatic +1 any time that memberbot appears in my roster. I do that,
and I'm considered active.

> >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.

With a tighter and more focused membership, I would argue that most of
the time, this kind of bickering wouldn't happen. The people there are
there because they want to be there and they've worked for the right to
be there. Currently, we're really just handing out the right to an
opinion to folks who perhaps shouldn't have one. I'm not complaining - I
voted to accept people into the membership just as most of you did.

I agree with pgm - the JSF should exist to provide direction to the
community, not be the community.

(and _please_, no flames - I'm not having ago at anyone. Everyone
currently on this list does deserve to be here - the Bylaws and a vote
of the membership say so!)


Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20030404/faa9e21c/attachment.pgp

More information about the Members mailing list