[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Ivan R. Judson judson at mcs.anl.gov
Fri Apr 4 08:30:04 CST 2003


As a comment on the Jabber Logo Example. It's a good example, but it should
be taken with some context, as far as I can remember it's a single point in
a space where we would ideally have more than one example. I'm not
particularly interested in GUI, Logo, Graphical stuff. But I am deeply
interested in the protocol robustness, layering, extensibility and transport
assumptions. I come from a collaboration, distributed and high-performance
computing background, not graphic design :-).

It shouldn't reflect badly on any of us that elected to refrain from
cluttering good progress on the logo effort by interjecting less than
helpful opinions.  If there were more efforts then I would more than likely
be involved.

This might be true of many JSF participants, it's hard to know. Collateral
evidence can be culled from other places, e.g. mailing lists, but they might
not accurately represent then whole picture either.  We have to be careful
with our examples and assumptions so we don't accidentally incorrectly
characterize data as something other than it was (the logo example is my
main concern).

Fwiw, I did vote on logos, even though I abstained from the process, because
I felt that fulfilled both duties to not muddle the logo process and fulfill
my JSF duties.

--Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-admin at jabber.org 
> [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Wilton
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:51 AM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >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 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.
> >  
> >
> 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?
> 
> >-iain
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Members mailing list
> >Members at jabber.org
> >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list