[Members] Voting criteria

Ulrich Staudinger us at activestocks.de
Mon May 9 12:09:36 CDT 2005


Well,


Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:

>On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:06:42PM -0700, Robert Norris wrote:
>  
>
>>[This email is a ramble. I'm not sure if it makes a point.]
>>
>>So I've just finished voting for another round of prospective Foundation
>>members. And like previous rounds, almost everyone gets an automatic
>>"yes" - the only ones who miss out are the folks who have provided next
>>to no information, and Google reveals nothing about their Jabber related
>>activities.
>>
>>I have no real way to tell who makes a good Foundation member and who
>>doesn't. I made up my own criteria, because I have to measure against
>>something, but really, its crap. Hell, I doubt I'd measure up, since I
>>haven't done anything for almost a year, and while I do have some Jabber
>>stuff on my plate at my workplace, its having a hard time climbing my
>>list of priorities, and may not yield any publically-available results
>>anyway.
>>
>>What do people measure new applicants against? Any bright ideas for
>>formalising something? We've been over this numerous times in the past,
>>when discussing what the point of Foundation membership is. Do we need
>>to have that discussion again?
>>    
>>
>
>This may sound strange coming from me, but JSF membership is essentially
>meaningless. The whole point of having the JSF, at least to date, has
>been to provide a legal structure around the JEP process. The reasoning
>goes as follows:
>
>  
>
i do not 100% agree with Peter.
I personally see membership as a reward - a reward for enthusiasm, 
courage and efforts that bring the jabber community forward. 
Evangelizing Jabber, writing code, giving presentations, talking about 
jabber are all activities which pay back to the community.

But of course i do agree with the following.

>1. We need a technical body that chooses which JEPs proceed through the
>standards process, i.e., the Jabber Council.
>
>2. We need a fair and objective process for choosing the members of the 
>Jabber Council.
>
>3. Rather than doing what, say, the IETF has to do (see [1]) because it
>is essentially is not an organization for legal purposes, the JSF was 
>formed legally as a membership organization, with the full membership
>choosing the Jabber Council.
>
>4. Therefore we need members and a fair and objective process for
>choosing JSF members.
>
>5. Thus we vote on members four times a year.
>
>It may seem that the only thing JSF members do is vote on new and
>returning members four times a year, and vote on a new Board + Council 
>once a year. This is entirely accurate, because that's really all JSF
>members need to do in order to keep our standards process running.
>Everything else that members do is outside the framework of the JSF
>organization -- they write code, author JEPs and other documentation,
>evangelize Jabber/XMPP technologies, give talks at conferences and LUGs
>and such, start companies, release products, offer consulting services,
>etc. None of that needs to happen within the JSF.
>
>Now, we can debate whether the JSF should do more than run a standards
>process. But that is all it does now and really has ever done.
>  
>
I would very much like to have more democratic decisions and activities 
inside the JSF member group. Activities like the logo contest (just to 
remember one) are fun and cool!

What do others think ?


Best  regards,
Ulrich




More information about the Members mailing list