[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Iain Shigeoka iain at jivesoftware.com
Sun Apr 6 16:18:59 CDT 2003

On 4/5/03 22:04, "Shawn Wilton" <shawn at black9.net> wrote:

> If you are saying that they would not be fit because they don't choose
> to constantly participate then i think you would be losing a VERY
> valuable portion of this community.

I agree it would be terrible to lose people in this category. I think one
thing at issue here is, can and should we make a distinction between JSF
members and members of the Jabber community.

Right now, JSF membership has a pretty low set of requirements and allows us
to accept a lot of members. In my experience, the reason most organizations
strive to increase a formal 'low requirement' membership is it allows them
to collect a larger amount of member dues. On the downside, there is a
larger administration overhead, and decision making becomes more difficult.
The advantages of such a system don't help us since we don't have membership

I agree that we must maintain a diversity of input to protocol development
and what the JSF does in marketing, compliance, etc. Currently JSF
membership is NOT required to participate in any of these activities. JEPs
can and have been submitted by non-members, and the mailing lists for all
the teams are open to non-members. I don't know if a smaller JSF membership
would really affect the diversity of the community.


More information about the Members mailing list