[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Fri Apr 4 00:45:48 CST 2003


1.  I don't agree that the JSF should exist to lead.  That's the 
intention of the council.  If this is NOT the intention of the council 
then I propose the council be abolished.

2.  Council exists to foster ideas.  If people go ahead and just vote 
+1, who cares?  What does it hurt?  People join to influence things they 
are interested in.  Please explain how it hurts anything having so 
called dead weight?  I'm confused.  Where's the harm? 

3.  If you truly think that a tighter group would reduce bickering then 
I would also have to disagree.  It's not going to reduce the bickering 
but rather make it more intense.  3 people with 3 different ideas will 
argue more intensely than a group of 10 people with 3 ideas as the 3 
ideas can be voted on. 

By the way, this isn't intended to be a flame of any degree, if you see 
it that way, then please discard.


Robert Norris 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.
>>>      
>>>
>>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!)
>
>Rob.
>
>--
>Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
>Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
>  
>




More information about the Members mailing list