[Foundation] A proposal.
shawn at black9.net
Sat Apr 5 22:48:17 CST 2003
Dave Smith wrote:
> 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.
> We _need_ diversity in our ranks.
Did you even bother to read to the end of the line? It says
Non-developers would be allowed in but would not vote on protocol addendums.
> 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?
Protocol changes, logo's, whatever.
>> Once a member is in they're in for life unless voted out due to
> 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.
People participate in many different ways. Besides if you have such a
problem with someone not participating then you should put forth a vote
to have them ousted.
> 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.
That's stupid. That would also mean that anyone who was recently layed
off from j.com would be unable to remain a member and would have to be
revoted in simply because their contract stipulations would prevent them
from participating. People offer time where they have time. Just
because you have a bad week or month does NOT mean you should lose
membership. Besides, membership allows you the privilege of voting
only. It is not as if you're getting paid to be a member. Allowing
people to remain in based on their previous accomplishments is perfectly
acceptable. They can always be voted out later as discussed above.
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members