[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Fri Apr 4 00:50:39 CST 2003

>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.
I apologize but with the amount of email I get and with the amount of 
time I get I do not get a chance to read every jabber email word for 
word.  If the first 3-10 sentences don't have all the information I need 
then the email gets discarded.  Sorry I did not participate in the logo  
process earlier on, I certainly wish I had.

>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
>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.
Can I ask how you are not helping to standardize the protocol by 
providing implementations?  Jabber has always been standardized based on 
the amount of support a protocol received.  Up until recently at least.  
If no one produces the software then it doesn't matter what your 
protocols say.  Besides, it's best to have the people coding the 
software to have the most say in the protocols implemented.  Otherwise 
you end up with massive protocols that have no real use because they're 
too over bloated.

>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
You're welcome.  Promise you'll read mine?

>Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org

More information about the Members mailing list