[Members] Membership Application period Q1 2018

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Fri Jan 5 09:44:54 UTC 2018


On 5 Jan 2018, at 09:34, Mathieu Pasquet <mathieui at mathieui.net> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:56:24PM +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On 4 January 2018 at 16:09, Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro> wrote:
>>> On 02/01/18 15:33, Alexander Gnauck wrote:
>>>> I have created the membership application page for Q1 2018 at:
>>>> https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q1_2018
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd like to reapply but I can't log in to the wiki, maybe my account was
>>> lost after the wiki problems.
>>> 
>>> Also, is it really necessary for everybody to go through this process
>>> every year or can some mechanism be used to automatically validate
>>> people?  E.g. if somebody's name has appeared on a mailing list, if
>>> their blog is syndicated on planet.jabber.org or if they made a
>>> contribution to the wiki then that could qualify them to remain a member
>> 
>> But none of those are either sufficient, nor necessary, for XSF membership.
>> 
>> If I can rant lyrical for a moment, what I expect from XSF members is
>> that they contribute meaningfully to the XMPP Standards Foundation.
>> 
>> The XSF exists to enable the development and evangelisation (ie,
>> marketing, but we're engineers so we think that's a dirty word) of the
>> XMPP standards. The XSF does not, itself, actually develop the
>> standards (there's a confusion here in that the Council arguably
>> contributes a significant effort to development of XMPP, but one can
>> view it as ensuring the process is working from a technical
>> standpoint).
>> 
>> As an example, writing a XEP doesn't require XSF membership, and nor should it.
>> 
>> But ensuring that the XEP *can* be published, *is* published, has a
>> process to follow to ensure quality, and follows that process - those
>> are all activities which the XSF does. Groups exist for each of these
>> - the iteam, the Editors, the Board, and the Council (sorta).
>> 
>> The XSF organises conferences (SCAM), and does outreach and marketing
>> (well, comms team if it existed).
>> 
>> I would hope that people wanting to be members are applying not to do
>> the things they could do anyway, but because they want to enable other
>> do do those things effectively.
>> 
>> All of which, by the way, should not be taken as a suggestion that
>> Daniel doesn't do anything - I think organising that FOSDEM devroom is
>> proof enough of that - but there are sadly a lot of names on the
>> member list that I don't see around in the teams helping with the
>> often quite dull work involved in keeping this whole thing running.
>> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I understand your views, but this is not at all how membership is
> defined on the XSF website right now [1]. It says that being a member
> depends on technical merit, and being actively involved in the
> community.
> 
> If you feel that membership should be tied to being in council, board,
> or work teams, and/or doing work specifically for the XSF’s sake, then
> that should be redefined and clarified.
> 
> Being a member also allows to steer the standards in one direction on
> another through council election, and restricting that to people that
> are involved in XSF-org activities would be in my opinion
> counterproductive.
> 
> [1]: https://xmpp.org/community/membership.html

The page you linked also says that once you’re a member, you’re expected to contribute to the work teams.

/K


More information about the Members mailing list