[Foundation] a simple reform

Russell Davis rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Fri Apr 11 08:56:41 CDT 2003

on the whole great idea except with the current makeup of the JSF
membership and depending on how all the details are worked out i can see
a possible problem with a large block of the current membership coming
up for renewal at one time.


On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 09:15, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I'd like to again thank everyone who participated in the recent thread
> on the meaning of JSF membership. The fact that members are passionate 
> and opinionated is a Good Thing.
> I've been thinking about this topic for weeks and I've discussed it with
> numerous JSF members and Board members. Lots of ideas have been floated:
> charging for membership, setting up levels of membership (e.g., voting 
> and non-voting), allowing only those on JSF work teams to be members,
> etc. Many of these involve unnecessary complexity, I think, and really
> won't solve the problem. And what is the problem? It's not that the JSF
> is too open, but that members are, with very little effort, granted the
> equivalent of tenure: once a member, always a member. So I'm thinking
> that a simple reform would be to say that the term of membership is one
> year. When you are accepted as a member, your membership term is dated
> from the beginning of the application period in which you applied (e.g., 
> 2003-04-01 for those who are accepted this month). In the application
> period 12 months later, you must re-apply -- and you must list your
> Jabber-related accomplishments for the last 12 months. I don't think it
> matters all that much exactly what those accomplishments are, but
> they should be things that contribute toward the threefold mission of 
> the JSF (develop the protocol, assist the community, and promote Jabber
> technology). So one's accomplishments could include writing JEPs, 
> releasing software, posting consistently and productively to mailing 
> lists, creating documentation, giving talks to Linux User Groups and 
> industry forums, working actively on the Jabber Council or one of the
> JSF work teams, and the like.
> This simple reform would ensure that only active contributors are JSF
> members, and it might also encourage JSF members to be more active. :)
> Obviously we'd need to work out some details (e.g., what happens if a
> Council or work team member is not re-accepted -- how do we elect a
> replacement for that person?). But I think that won't be too hard.
> I'm not formally proposing this yet (i.e., it's too late for us to vote
> on this at the meeting on April 23), but I'd like to discuss it and see
> what people think.
> Thanks again.
> Peter

More information about the Members mailing list