[Foundation] Meetings / Schedules and times to suit

Daniel Chote daniel at chote.net
Tue Mar 11 10:54:26 CST 2003

Im sorry, but I dont know why there is such a *mood* in this mailing 
list now... I thought we kinda got over the whole satire thing already.

Few things I would like to point out.
#)  I am a New Zealander, although currently in the US for the time 
being. Back in NZ, I wanted to be active in the whole meeting process, 
and for the first part I was... But after a while getting up at 4am grew 
#)  Im not saying this is something that should go through, and yes.. I 
know it should have been adressed in the beginning, but frankly, this 
was obviouslyt brought up because people were interested in seeing if 
something could be implemented now.
#) The foundation is a little more mature now, I have to thank St.Peter 
at his great work and time he has put in to streamline the jsf and jsf 
related items.  I dont understand where this bad karma towards Peter 
came from, I think its very inappropriate for such messages to come 
through on the members list be them ligitimate or sarcastic.  My thanks 
go out to Peter for actually putting up with such messages.
#) I would like to see this item brought up in the list, maybe we could 
get a show of hands to just see if this is a viable path to take..  *The 
seperate meetings for regions of the world who arnt awake when the US 
is*...  I dont think that such a biased approach should be taken, as 
that has been shown so far in the list... Im sure with a show of hands 
we could see how many of our european counterparts would liek to have a 
meeting timed for their own lifestyle.  There is no point saying *NO* 
from the very start just because the american parties are happy with 
their american time.

I would like to finish this off by saying that the Foundation is an 
important entity to guide the development of current and future items 
that may forge ahead the whole xmpp and jabber movement, personal 
greavances and kiddy fights arnt appreciated, and I think we should put 
this rubbish behind us, and get back on the tracks.


Ben Schumacher wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members

More information about the Members mailing list