[Members] Metaproposals 3 and 4 - Council Candidate Limitations and Appointment Appeals

Fabio Forno fabio at bluendo.com
Thu Oct 8 08:56:20 CDT 2009


On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> Actually, someone pointed out to me privately that for the Council, it
> really doesn't matter much unless the organization controls all the seats,
> because the Council operates by Veto.
>

True, missing that point. Therefore,  since the limit would be all but
one, the present limit in membership is good enough to protect from
total council domination (unless all the members want it)   ;)

[...]

> Not that we would, of course - Evil Alexey is too busy subverting the IESG,
> and, by extension, the entire IETF, of course, and hasn't time to subvert
> *two* SDOs. But I hope you all appreciate the amount of thought and time we
> put into corrupting these organizations for our Evil Ends.
>
> On a personal note, I would say that it's not easy being Evil. Every now and
> then I may slip up, and inadvertantly do useful work, for the common good.
> Should you observe any failures to be Evil, please do let me know.

Well the best and most interesting part of Evil is that you do need to
be Evil in order to do it :P

(Let me make clear: I wasn't asking for the limit against Isode, your
work is well appreciated and we know that it is value you give for
free to the community as many of us do, but in principle I think that
it is dangerous that one single company can take the total lead of
protocol like XMPP with very little effort, and this is not just for
fear of evil, but more simply for lack of scope or different goals;
luckily for me the problem is over since the veto thing gives enough
protection)

-- 
Fabio Forno,
Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
jabber id: ff at jabber.bluendo.com


More information about the Members mailing list