[Foundation] A proposal.

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Sat Apr 5 22:48:17 CST 2003


Inline.

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. 
> "d..e..v..e..l..o..p..e..r"
>
> 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 
>> 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. 

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.

>
> Diz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members





More information about the Members mailing list