[Foundation] Meetings / Schedules and times to suit

Ben Schumacher 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.

Cheers,

bs.

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*
> -Dan




More information about the Members mailing list