[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Sat Apr 5 17:17:43 CST 2003


Inline.

Matt Tucker wrote:

> 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).

I don't see buying drinks as a team building activity.  All the same, 
it's agreed that the member fee is a poor idea.

>
>>> 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? 

Having members lurk does not increase apathy.  People wait until 
something comes along that interest them and they get involved.  Most of 
the time however something comes along, they get interested, do 
something like propose a spec and it gets swatted down by the council.  
So perhaps the problem here isn't the JSF, but the council.

>
>
> 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"?

Because sometimes to effect the greatest change you must start anew.  
Hence the proposal for a new foundation.

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





More information about the Members mailing list