[Foundation] voting update

Russell Davis rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Tue Mar 11 10:05:44 CST 2003


doubly so as I could now take craigs post out of context and show it to
companies in europe along with his affiliation to both JINC and the JSF
and I doubt very much if many of them would want to do business with
either entity.

Russell

On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 10:53, Daniel Chote wrote:
> I agree with Russell, I actually took this as being serious to start
> with until talking to DW about it.  I think in this enviroment being a
> foundation mailing list, that such comments and content should be
> avoided if a valid point is not being made.
> 
> Russell Davis wrote:
> > 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
> > >     
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >   
> _______________________________________________ Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members




More information about the Members mailing list