[Foundation] voting update

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Tue Mar 11 10:17:06 CST 2003

The intent of "doubling meetings" is to have a meeting in duplicate to 
allow everyone arond the world to participate.  Eventually these 
meetings will have to split up even further possibly to individual 
locales depending on the growth of the foundation.  18:00 UTC may have 
been fine a year ago, but the membership has grown and with it so should 
the meeting times.  How exactly does multiple meetings hinder progress?  
If you attend one, you don't need nor should you attend the second one.  
The same issues are recorded and discussed.  End of story.  If there's 
anything that requires further discussion then it's placed on the docket 
for the next meeting just as it is now.

If the foundation is to remain open and flexible then it needs to become 
more accessible.  Otherwise these comments about not caring because 
individuals don't show up in the meetings is pure BS.

And having a logo now is NOT important.  Especially if we stick with a 
fricking light bulb.  Nothing personal but it's practically identical to 
the current one.  A light bulb is a light bulb is a light bulb.  Slow 
the process down and open up all the logos for vote.  To be honest, the 
whole thing about the logo has nothing to do with the logo per se but 
rather the fact that many people in the foundation feel betrayed as 
though they were left out of the whole process.  The majority of people 
I've talked to don't like the idea that a committee was convened in the 
first place to whittle down the contestants.  This issue has roots much 
deeper than a damn logo.


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.
>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>>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
>>>>process. This email is the official 10 days' notice of that meeting.
>>>>The consensus in the open, publicly-announced Marketing meeting just
>>>>[1] was that this will provide enough time to discuss and vote on the
>>>>finalists, yet still meet our deadline with O'Reilly.
>>>>Peter Saint-Andre
>>>>Jabber Software Foundation
>Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org

More information about the Members mailing list