[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Iain Shigeoka iain at jivesoftware.com
Thu Apr 3 22:21:53 CST 2003


On 4/3/03 15:47, "Ryan Eatmon" <reatmon at jabber.org> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 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 agree. The logo thing is actually an interesting case study. There was a
very small number of people working for a relatively long time. We tried to
get people involved but there wasn't much interest and the few people
involved ended up pushing it through 'solo'. Then, at the end, a lot of
sniping by a small but vocal bunch of people that came out of the woodwork,
took their shots, then immediately submerged again.

When I think about it now, I have a feeling that we need 'JSF members' that
are focused on the JSF (and that doesn't seem to be the case for a large
number of current JSF members). This is distinct from "community members"
who contribute to and are a part of the Jabber community, who are focused on
the protocol, etc. Just because you create a Jabber implementation (open
source or otherwise), or want to enhance the protocols, doesn't mean you're
actually helping with the operation and goals of the JSF. You're
contributing to the community by helping to develop and spread the
technology.

The JSF is designed to foster and assist the Jabber community members and
support standardization efforts so the community and the JSF are closely
associated entities, and may share members. However JSF members should not
necessarily be members of the community. For example say the JSF hires a
lawyer. That lawyer becomes a member of the JSF but isn't necessarily a
member of the community. And logically, some/most community members may not
need or want to be members of the JSF.

These are only half formed thoughts but I think there is a need to make this
distinction and break apart our current membership along these lines (or
create levels, or something).

Thanks for reading my rant

-iain




More information about the Members mailing list