[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Sat Apr 5 17:14:36 CST 2003


Inline.

Matt Tucker wrote:

> Shawn,
>
>> If this is the case then I vote to absolve the JSF.  It really has no 
>> use.
>
>
> Heh. Did you mean "dissolve"? 


No, *http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolve

*

>
>
>> You want advocacy but then you aim to extricate and obfuscate 
>> developers of some of the core jabber clients.  W/o clients Jabber 
>> would not exist.
>> JSF does not help out the community.  Unless of course you include 
>> projects such as jabberstudio.  In which I digress.  Otherwise I see 
>> very little help here.  Most of the documentation is the same as it 
>> was prior to the JSF forming and the mailing lists that help the most 
>> really aren't even part of the foundation (dev, etc.)
>>
>> So then if the JSF doesn't maintain the protocol, doesn't want key 
>> advocators and provides nominal support to the key community.  Where 
>> exactly does that leave it?  Has it simply become a mechanism by 
>> which to push the ideals of Jabber.com?  A commercial entity who's 
>> sole purpose is to accumulate capital.
>
>
> Frankly, I just don't understand where you're getting all of this. 
> Nobody has said "let's kick members X and Y and Z out of the JSF 
> because they suck". Instead, people are saying, "we need to find ways 
> to strengthen the JSF and redefine what it means to be a member".

By strengthening what it means to be a member means that member 
requirements will be redefined and people will be removed.  I never said 
people would be removed because they suck.

>
> One of your core arguments is that "JSF does not help the community" 
> and that things haven't improved much since the JSF began. If you 
> truly believe that, isn't that a tacit argument for changing the JSF 
> membership, perhaps using some of the ideas proposed by others on the 
> list? Personally, I'm not so pessimistic about the role and 
> effectiveness of the current JSF membership. However, change is good, 
> and as Jabber/XMPP matures, the non-profit organization that promotes 
> it should as well. 

No, it means the way things are run needs to change.  Not necessarily 
the membership.  If you have a group of 80 people sitting around and 
doing nothing and you remove 70 of those people you will still have 10 
people just sitting around doing nothing...

>
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members





More information about the Members mailing list