[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

[Shawn Wilton]

Nothing personal, but I don't understand why we need to follow anyone 
elses model or why we even need to change the one we have.

If we require some reason for being voted in to the JSF then perhaps it 
should be based on how you have contributed to the community at large to 
date.


-Shawn



Iain Shigeoka wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I wonder if maybe the Jini community process may be a useful model to look
>at (http://www.jini.org). They have tried to balance commercial and
>community interests by forming a general and commercial house for purposes
>of voting and moving technologies forward (sort of paralleling the US two
>houses of congress). Perhaps we can do something similar to balance the
>commercial vs community tension that seems to be evident in this thread. For
>example, we could have commercial house membership require fees (Jini's does
>not because Sun is footing all the bills) but leave general house membership
>free and purely merit based.
>
>I'd prefer to think we're not in a completely unique situation. :)
>
>-iain
>
>_______________________________________________
>Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>  
>