[Foundation] voting update

Russell Davis rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Tue Mar 11 09:47:00 CST 2003


Ben,

if it was a joke it was in extremly poor taste and as such should have
been treated (as it was)as if those are his real feelings.

i reiterate EXTREMLY POOR TASTE!!!!

Russell

On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 10:21, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> Simple. Craig's post was obviously a joke, and he was making a point,
> which I think he did very well. Peter works hard to keep momentum up in
> the JSF. Before he dedication, the JSF regularly stalled on simple issues
> because nobody was willing to stop all the infighting and realize that you
> can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Its just not possible.
> 
> It *is* important to have a logo for OSCON. However, if we're not happy
> with it beyond OSCON, there is nothing preventing us from going through
> the logo contest again, but we need to have something *NOW*. XMPP isn't
> necessarily here to stay. XMPP right not serves a niche market. While that
> niche market may always exist, wouldn't it be nice if it became a
> ubiquitous protocol? Then we could have thousands more around that would
> be willing to bicker about silly things (like the new logo), and hopefully
> a couple more stp's who are willing to work hard to advance the protocol
> in spite of the bickering. Just think... you could have a thousand plus
> more people who would argue you until the end of time about which logo is
> cooler... you'd like that, right?
> 
> As for 12 hour meetings... what would be the point of that? Unless
> somebody was available to attend all meetings, then groups would just talk
> over the same points and no progress would be made. And decisions made in
> the first meeting would be disputed in the by members of the second
> meeting to the point where nothing would move ahead. It just makes no
> sense. We all have jobs, school and other commitments, and not all of us
> can be available all the time. But to those who can spend the time, I say
> more power to them. Without those few, things may never get done and the
> JSF and XMPP would always remain a fringe protocol.
> 
> I am absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt -1 on doubling meetings at
> the sake progress.
> 
> stp, thanks for all your hard work. Craig, thanks for bringing to light
> the silliness of this entire argument.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> bs.
> 
> Shawn Wilton said:
> > Holy shiza.  Why the hell was I incinerated to the point of pure carbon
> > and all he gets is a pat on the back?  Hot damn.
> >
> > Ok, now in all seriousness, thanks to Peter for the hard work, but in
> > all honesty, do try to slow down some.  None of this is a race.  XMPP is
> >  here to stay, there's no need to race to get this logo in to oscon.
> > Seriously.
> >
> > On another note, can we begin holding all meetings in duplicate?  I
> > propose meetings 12 hours apart to maximize world convenience.  I would
> > love to attend these meetings as I have a great deal to say, but like
> > others I have fiduciary responsibilities that I can't neglect for XMPP.
> >
> > -Shawn
> >
> >
> > Craig Kaes wrote:
> >> Peter, like others have expressed on this list, I am not satisfied
> >> with the process which you proposed.  I thought that I might be, but
> >> when the  logo that I liked best wasn't selected for the final six, I
> >> recognized that I had been misled by you.  My friend worked for hours
> >> on his image and it wasn't chosen and that sucks.
> >>
> >> Choosing a logo is going to be the most important activity performed
> >> by the JSF this year and you have really cut out the membership on
> >> this one.  If we are not empowered to choose the icon that represents
> >> us, what good is it to be a member?  Oh, sure, you allowed us to
> >> "vote" on an image and gave us the means to change the process
> >> beforehand, but that doesn't really matter.  My buddy's logo wasn't
> >> selected and that sucks.
> >>
> >> The real problem is that you feel that putting in insane amounts of
> >> effort, not only in time but in emotional energy for which you receive
> >>  no compensation, gives you the right to make decisions for the JSF.
> >> Hitler put in great amounts of time and energy too but you know where
> >> that went.  Granted, you shared the decision making with the
> >> "marketing group" and we were all free to join that group and didn't,
> >> but that's because it wasn't advertised effectively enough.
> >>
> >> There should have been a concerted effort -- maybe even a full fledged
> >>  program to get the word of this Marketing group out to the
> >> membership.  We do have, afterall, a JEP process -- couldn't the logo
> >> selection and  marketing group joining processes be written up as a
> >> JEP to pass  through the council?  We could have easily worked with a
> >> temporary  logo during the six months that would have taken.  Market
> >> awareness is  overrated. People could get used to the new image and,
> >> in time, come  to associate it with us.  Just like the old one.
> >>
> >> You know why I think you didn't?  Because you never wanted us to be
> >> involved.  You are on a power trip, my man!  I see you as a fascist
> >> and now wonder if Nazis are in control of the JSF.  I suspect that
> >> they are and have been for quite some time.  I resent that you have
> >> been hiding this from us for so long.  I ask all members to remain
> >> vigilant against this form of tyrrany.  United, we can stand against
> >> it.
> >>
> >> --C
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just got off the phone with the conference coordinator at O'Reilly.
> >>> He informs me that if we send our logo to them by March 19 or 20,
> >>> they will be able to squeeze our logo in. So, in order to give us the
> >>> maximum  amount
> >>> of time to choose the logo contest winner, and in order to meet all
> >>> the requirements of Section 3.4 of the Bylaws, we are going to once
> >>> again  but
> >>> for the last time change the process.
> >>>
> >>> 1. Proxy voting via memberbot will continue through Wednesday, March
> >>> 19. And of course, discussion can continue on this list while we
> >>> debate the alternatives.
> >>>
> >>> 2. We will hold an official meeting of the members on March 20 @
> >>> 18:00 UTC
> >>> in foundation at conference.jabber.org in order to accept any in-meeting
> >>> votes and then to validate the results, thus completing the logo
> >>> selection
> >>> process. This email is the official 10 days' notice of that meeting.
> >>>
> >>> The consensus in the open, publicly-announced Marketing meeting just
> >>> ended
> >>> [1] was that this will provide enough time to discuss and vote on the
> >>> finalists, yet still meet our deadline with O'Reilly.
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> http://www.jabber.org/chatbot/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2003-03-10.html
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Peter Saint-Andre
> >>> Jabber Software Foundation
> >>> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members




More information about the Members mailing list