On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Alan wrote: > Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:31:03 +0000 > From: Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: foundation-list <foundation-list@gnome.org> > Subject: Re: Extending voting period due to renewals > > > Perhaps someone who has been involved since the earliest days of the > > foundation could explain the reason behind the requirement for frequent > > membership renewal? (Maybe it isn't as frequent as I feel it is. Time > > flies.) > > The original (and I feel far more sensible) proposal was that people who > hadn't been involved for two years materially shouldn't be voting and > risk turning it into an old-farts club.
I'm not sure foundation membership is the aspect of the community most likely to cause it to be an old farts club. Letting in many more new contributors largely helps offset the old farts so turfing them out on sucha regular basis seems unnecesssary. Many of the organisations I was part of while at university greatly appreciated the advice of the "old farts" who could explain why things were done a certian way and smooth the way if things could benefit from change (not to mention the continuity and life support they often provided to the smaller organisations). > By choice. I use some Gnome apps and I'm greatful for all the work done on > Gnome, as for all it failings and mistakes along the way. has done huge > things for the usability of free software. Your presence on the foundation list but lack of membership seems incongruous. I am not familiar with the specifics of any work you did previously but I am continue to notice Telsas name in various places and her work continues to be of value even if her time is now spent elsewhere. Past activity counts for something. > However I'm just another random user of Gnome. As such I don't think it > is for me to vote but for the people who actually do stuff to decide. I don't see the foundation as a workers union. The foundation doesn't throw weight around when it comes to technical decision making as some in the past might have feared could happen. To view it strictly in those terms doesn't strike me as a beneficial limitation. To my ears it is like hearing a developer shout "we are not part of Gnome" based purely on prudent technical decisions to require only Gtk at a minimum keeping their development portable and more maintainable but also offering Gnome integration and following gnome guidelines as an optional extra. On the techincal level Gnome include more developers than those who embrace Bonobo and all things Gnome in the sense of the libraries and similarly membership of the foundation could stand to cast a wider net. For me the foundation is to me a way to include stakeholders (create "buy in" you might say) a way to formally recognise people are part of the team. My contributions were modest but I greatly appreciated being welcomed into the foundation and took it as both encouragement and reward for efforts up to that point. To put it another way the value of having Alan Cox or many other people included in the foundation is of greater than the value than downsides from including more people. (I think many of you are familiar with advogato or orkut or other communities with a trust network. given the recommendation and nomination system for foundation membership a web of trust could be fascinating especially if it ever became necessary to decline someones membership.) In any case thanks for being here and answering my questions even if you are not formally part of the Foundation. -- Alan _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
