+1 Also, I feel that there are too many unknowns right now.
I know it is better to have it early, but we have to avoid to be premature. Nat 2008/2/29, Drummond Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > David has a good point that having community board elections before we have > enrolled a reasonable number of community members seems backward. Maybe we > should set a target number of community members (50? 100?) after which we > trigger elections? > > I also think as I said on the call today that a dramatically lower community > membership fee ($20 or less) would help encourage community membership. > > > =Drummond > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of David Recordon > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:39 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [OpenID board] Membership (or lack thereof) and Board Elections > > > > Stemming from other conversations...I'd have to agree that so far > > we've really done very little to push for membership in the OpenID > > Foundation. Today the benefits are around electing the Foundation's > > board and approving specification working groups, though they're not > > articulated anywhere nor have we actually built the applications to > > make these benefits a reality! > > > > I also think that the local chapters of the OpenID Foundation will (or > > at least should) weigh somehow on community board elections. The > > community board should be balanced to represent OpenID communities > > around the World and finding a way to have local chapters help achieve > > this feels imperative. > > > > I want to start out by saying that I completely agree that we need to > > hold elections for the community board seats so that they are > > officially elected by the community! That said, I am truly worried > > that the OpenID Foundation's membership is not actually in a position > > to do that yet. Rather, it seems that as we still are not focusing on > > building the membership base, even if we hold elections in April/May > > (Mike's policy document was awesome btw) *the outcome still won't > > represent the community*. In fact, we might be in a worse position > > where 20 members elect the board members for one or two years which is > > then seen as being representative of the community. While it can be > > argued that even 20 members electing the community board is better > > than 0 members electing it, I'd much rather see us in a situation > > where even if it is another six months down the road we have 500 > > members electing the board! > > > > Right now, the OpenID ecosystem is moving and growing faster than the > > Foundation or its board! I would strongly advocate that we focus our > > energy today on making the Foundation match the growing community (as > > we did yesterday in Japan) before locking down the board for another > > two years; nearly the entire lifespan of OpenID itself. > > > > My $0.02, > > --David > > > > _______________________________________________ > > board mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
