[Foundation] a simple reform
webb at commonstreet.com
Fri Apr 11 09:55:47 CDT 2003
This sounds like an excellent solution. I think current members, when
reapplying, should be voted on after new members each quarter. Also, I
assume that those members that are reapplying will NOT be able to
participate in the vote?
--On Friday, April 11, 2003 9:49 AM -0500 Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> OK, here are the stats:
> We have 87 members (with Nick Perez's resignation).
> 47 of those were accepted in the initial batch of members in June 2001.
> 11 were accepted in April 2002.
> 13 were accepted in October 2002.
> 17 were accepted in January 2003.
> We could do this:
> Those accepted in 2001 need to reapply this July.
> Those accepted in 2002 need to reapply this October.
> Those accepted in January 2003 need to reapply next January, and then
> we'll be on the quarterly schedule (so those accepted this month need to
> reapply in April 2003, etc.).
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 09:36:12AM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Yes, I thought of that. Let me look up some stats on exactly when
>> everyone became members. We could stagger the re-application process.
>> Personally I would think that some people simply would not re-apply.
>> Indeed every once in a while someone will simply resign from the
>> membership because they're not involved anymore -- for example, Nick
>> Perez did this just the other day.
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 09:56:41AM -0400, Russell Davis wrote:
>> > 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.
>> > Russell
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Members mailing list
>> > Members at jabber.org
>> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> Jabber Software Foundation
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at jabber.org
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
JID webb at commonstreet.com
reecewebb at jabber.org
More information about the Members