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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Oct 8 09:07:20 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/8/09 7:16 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Artur Hefczyc wrote:
> 
>> Why not let the people (members) decide who they want to vote for?
>> People who vote know or should know that some candidates are from the
>> same company/organisation or whatever. If they feel like this might be
>> a problem they can simple chose not to vote for some candidates.
> 
> +1.
> This is exactly what I did - I voted against some people on the council
> on the basis that they represent the same entity.

I think we need to care more about doing actual work than we care about
politics, potential conspiracies, and other distractions.

Let's have some perspective here. We elect people to the Council so that
they will act as a final check on accepting proposals and advancing
specifications through the XSF's standards process. The main body of the
work is done on an open discussion list (standards at xmpp.org) and through
the efforts of specification authors. If, for example, the Council
issues a Last Call on a specification and there is a great volume of
discussion on the standards@ list that the protocol is needed, the
specification is well-written, multiple interoperable implementations
exist, etc. -- and then some evil member of the Council arbitrarily
decides to veto advancement of the XEP from Experimental to Draft becase
that person has been instructed by his employer or his friends on an
open-source project to do so, then we have a problem. Have we
experienced this behavior in the past? I cannot think of a single
instance (although perhaps one or two times we have come close).

The XSF's work is standards, not politics. The membership, the Board,
and the Council exist only as a kind of scaffolding, which makes
possible our real work, which is "to build an open, standardized,
secure, feature-rich, widely-deployed, decentralized infrastructure for
real-time communication and collaboration over the Internet."
<http://xmpp.org/xsf/mission.shtml>

If half the energy displayed here about political distractions were put
into reviewing XEPs in Last Call, checking and updating all of our older
XEPs, writing implementation reports, converting our W3 XML Schema
definitions to Relax NG, planning XMPP Summits, volunteering to help the
Council with writing minutes and the XEP Editor with registries and the
infrastructure team with our spec-related tools, and so on and so forth,
then I think we would be a lot better off as an organization.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrN8hgACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwYsgCeKeZYdOKAa5+Bw/K88/n68svx
E7IAoNuRrGAR7NYuXS/71hr9DIXkLT5L
=F1Z1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Members mailing list