[Foundation] Meetings / Schedules and times to suit
ben at blahr.com
Tue Mar 11 10:39:01 CST 2003
Again. I fail to see how this accomplishes anything. As DW already
pointed out, the bulk of these meetings are only meant to be informal
discussions, there is nothing precluding anybody from commenting on
these discussions on the various mailing lists in there own time. The
fact of the matter is, we all lack sufficient bandwidth to become
involved with everything, so we just sit back and watch it develop.
Eventually, the people who are actively working on the project get close
to making (or make) a decision. At this point in time we feel that since
somebody else is making decisions "for us," we should probably figure
out what is being decided. So we read, realize that we don't like the
decision and then fire a flame off to the list, accusing the dedicated
few of "not following process," and ignoring the general will of the group.
This happens all the time. It a cycle. Sad really. If we really cared
that passionately about the subject, then we would have been involved
early in the process in some means. And if everything had gone a way
that we were happy with, we would have just sat back and watched it. But
it didn't, so we bitch. And then stp gets frustrated with the whole of
the JSF's membership (or maybe just a portion) and fires off an angry
email to the list on his day off. Craig, who sits back and reads the
lists diligently fires off an email that satirizes the cycle and people
take it too seriously because they've decided to run on emotional
overdrive since they feel this is the only way to get there point across
in such a short amount of time.
My proposal is this. Everybody take a step back. Realize that a)
decisions need to be made that affect the entirety of the JSF and XMPP,
b) some of us just can't dedicate all our time to the JSF/XMPP, c) those
who can give time are doing what the /feel/ is in the best interested of
the membership at large, and d) we should respect their dedication and
hard work. This doesn't mean that the input of the rest of us isn't
valid or important, it just means that we have to be more proactive in
making sure our input is heard, and speak up at the appropriate times,
instead of waiting to the list minute. (I'm including myself in this
grouping, because I know that I'm guilty of this, as well.)
Frankly, I don't know how stpeter does it. He pours over technical
documents during times when I'm pouring another pint down my throat.
There. I'm done. I'm not reading any more posts on this subject. My
piece has been said, and I've decided that I don't have anymore time to
dedicate to this silliness.
Daniel Chote wrote:
> Its obvious that not all members can allocate the time to go to
> foundation meetings. Due to the whole round world issue we have.
> Maybe we could collaborate with the members in specific locales where
> the member base is dence enough, and hold local specific meetings that
> work best with the members in that area. These meetings can have
> nominated secretaries, and be collated in such a mannor as the current
> meeting is. I think if we then do this, there can be more
> collaboration, and at the end of the day more input from our members.
> I dunno, its just an idea, because 12 hours apart may still not have a
> significant differnence than what we currently have outlined. So, take
> the hubs's that we have america's, europe, asia pacific. And find the
> members in those area's that would like to actively contribute, and
> build the meetings around those timezones at a time that would suit the
> majority in the area.
> *my spondoolies*
More information about the Members