[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Sat Apr 5 16:00:59 CST 2003


Shawn,

> Using member fees to purchase drinks for those that can **afford** to go 
> to major conferences is the lamest idea I have ever heard of.  I 
> sincerely hope that was a joke, which I'm sure it was.  In which case I 
> apologize for this rant.

Whatever. As I mentioned in my previous email, the fees discussion is 
probably the least important part of the larger JSF membership 
conversation. Anyway, it seems clear there is a broad consensus that 
there should be no fees for individuals joining the JSF. In any case, it 
was no joke, I would have no problem paying membership fees and then 
having a portion of those fees dedicated to team building activities 
like buying drinks (even if I wasn't there for it).

>> That sounds like a fair requirement. However, one problem I have is 
>> that trying to setup standards by which people lose membership seems 
>> pretty tricky. I have a feeling that it would just cause continual 
>> bickering and ill-will among those members being asked to leave. So, 
>> why not have membership terms instead? If a person is only a member 
>> for something like a 1 or 2 year term, at which point they need to 
>> re-apply for membership, that means: 
> 
> I'm not going to apply for membership again.  If I get booted then I'm 
> certain I can find a good number of developers to create a *new* 
> foundation.

Ummmm, ok... is the better alternative to have members sit idle forever, 
increase general apathy among the JSF, and cause nothing to get done?

Please note that there haven't been any actual proposals on how to 
change the JSF membership as of yet. Instead, everyone is throwing ideas 
around to brainstorm. If you truly believe that the current system is 
the best option, why not make actual arguments to that effect rather 
than threatening to "create a new foundation"?

Regards,
Matt




More information about the Members mailing list