[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Fri Apr 4 00:31:32 CST 2003


Nothing personal, but that's nonsense.  You don't strengthen a community 
by inciting fees.  You do it by allowing in anyone who wants to 
participate.  Can someone please tell me how it's harmful having 
idlers?  As far as I see it many of these people will either get washed 
out from not voting or they are waiting around for something that sparks 
their interest.  Stupid to think that I'll need to come up with $200 
when something sparks my interest.

Can I ask why the JSF even needs to promote Jabber/XMPP?  Why don't we 
just let the commercial companies do this.  They after all have the most 
to gain from all this.  I don't care if no one uses Jabber.  It 
certainly doesn't hurt me in any way.  The server will still be 
available and I still have my clients and the clients of my friends.  I 
don't care if major ISP's start offering Jabber to their customers.  
What would I as an open source developer have to gain from this?  Jack 
squat is the answer to that one. 

Jabber always has been free and now you want to charge for it?  Sorry, 
but this is unacceptable.  JSF is a community, not an institution.  
Charging for it is a bad idea.

Just an FYI:  If JSF begins to charge a fee, I will be the first to 
start a new foundation aimed at doing what the JSF is supposed to do.  
That is to foster new ideas and offer a community where people can 
network and discuss. 


Matt Tucker wrote:

>Johannes,
>
>One of the core issues in this discussion is what it means to be a member of the JSF. Traditionally, it's meant "I'm interested in
>Jabber and may want to help out with some stuff in the future". If I understand the aim of Peter's proposal, the JSF membership
>responsibilities will be kicked up a few notches. So, it's not just members of the community, but the leaders of the community. As
>Iain and others have mentioned, there are also many ways to contribute to the community besides being a member. 
>
>  
>
>>Oh, I just wonder why I should have to apply!? I see no 
>>reason for this. I am already 
>>member in the JSF and I want newcommers that want to develop 
>>clients that do not 
>>have to be opensource.
>>    
>>
>
>Personally, the reason that I'm in favor of a fee for everyone is that it gives everyone a stronger stake in being a member. There
>should certainly be a smaller fee for personal applications as opposed to corporate ones, as well as a process by which fees can be
>exempted. Still, wouldn't you agree that you'd be more motivated to participate strongly in membership activities if you had a
>financial stake in it (even though it would be very meager one)?
>
>  
>
>>Of course you are a commercial one, 
>>you have the money. But 
>>that does not mean you deserve a place in the JSF. And 
>>esspecially I see no reason 
>>why WE SIMPLE HOBBY CODERS WILL HAVE TO BEG YOU ST**** FU***** 
>>COMMERCIALS FOR OUR JSF MEMBERSHIP IN FUTURE!
>>    
>>
>
>Of course the JSF membership shouldn't be dominated by commercial interests or limited to companies. Nobody is proposing that. For
>example, even though I'm from Jive Software, I applied and was accepted as a member largely based on my work on an Open Source
>Jabber client library. If you're interested in checking out this large and vibrant Open Source community, you can find it at:
>http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmpp/smack 
>
>  
>
>>Btw. can someone please check out if there are more then 5 
>>jivesoftware.com 
>>members in the mailing list? Iain Shigeoka is one and Matt 
>>Tucker - both want to 
>>restrict the membership to rich commercials and opensource ppl.
>>    
>>
>
>Heh, I can assure you we're not leading any kind of conspiracy. ;) Iain has been a member for *much* longer than he's been a Jive
>Software engineer, and my role in the Jabber community is largely an Open Source one. 
>
>  
>
>>If it is really a problem that there are so many ideling JSF 
>>members we could set up an 
>>kick on idle as seen in some IRC channels...
>>    
>>
>
>There is already a rough system in place with the "no voting and you're out" policy. However, 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.
>
>Regards,
>Matt 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>  
>




More information about the Members mailing list