[Foundation] A proposal.

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Sat Apr 5 22:33:49 CST 2003


On Saturday, Apr 5, 2003, at 20:37 America/Denver, Shawn Wilton wrote:

> This proposal is short and simple.
>
> Get rid of the council.

So you want to get rid of a body of experts that have driven consensus 
and established functional protocols in a short amount of time?! Don't 
even tell me that 80 (or even 20) developers could reliably and 
efficiently drive consensus around protocol extensions. Consider also 
that the Jabber project has _always_ had a "council" -- a small group 
of core developers who actually drove the protocol forward. What the 
JSF has done is simply formalize the concept.

Let's not fix something that isn't broken.

> Extricate members that are not developers.  Non-developers may be 
> allowed in but can't vote on protocol addendums.

How many developers do you know that like to do marketing or other 
non-development tasks? In the JSF, I know of only one -- Iain. Sure 
there may be a few more, but for the most part, developers don't do 
those sorts of things...by the definition of their title. 
"d..e..v..e..l..o..p..e..r"

We _need_ diversity in our ranks.

Also, by kicking out all members who aren't developers, you'd be 
kicking out Peter St. Andre. Call me crazy, but I believe that LAST 
thing we should do right now is get rid of the one person who has 
poured their heart and soul into making the JSF work.

> Allow sponsorship by companies for certain projects to be voted on by 
> the entire group.  Projects should be placed under a BSD license so 
> companies are more willing to sponsor projects.
>
> Require a majoral vote allowing for a 1/3 veto requirement.

What exactly do you want to vote on?

> Once a member is in they're in for life unless voted out due to 
> misconduct.

No way. People's interests change. "Membership" is meaningless unless 
the "member" is participating. Hence the current rules regarding losing 
membership if one doesn't vote.

Personally, I think the JSF should get rid of all people who aren't 
actively participating in a "team" (such as marketing or compliance or 
protocol dev.) You know what? That would mean I would no longer be a 
member of the JSF -- and I'm cool with that. Right now, I don't have 
the time to pour into it, so I shouldn't have any privileges. 
Participation is at the heart of the JSF.

Diz




More information about the Members mailing list