[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

[Matt Tucker]

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

The definition should have cleared it up for you. It's clearly the wrong 
word. :)

> 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...

If you read back through all the emails, I think you'll find that nobody 
is saying that the solution is to chop a bunch of people out of the JSF. 
Instead, proposals are being made about how to:

  1) Get the current JSF members more involved.
  2) Make sure that the people on the JSF are the ones that should be there.

If there could truly be 80 active members, I'm sure that nobody would 
complain. However, the harsh truth is that a good chunk of the mebership 
gets ejected each quarter simply because they can't be bothered to vote 
every once in awhile. Therefore, requiring more active participation is 
likely going to cause a smaller membership. That's a healthy thing, I 
think and nobody will get kicked out if they step up and get stuff done.

Regards,
Matt