En/na Cédric Krier ha escrit:
On 26/06/11 08:40 -0700, Jordi Esteve wrote:
- Members can be people or companies.
Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.
I don't understand the fear of companies.
Even if we do like you want, we will have members pushed by companies.
So I think it is better that everybody play the game openly.
IMHO, as the foundation should work in an ethic way, people can be more
ethical than companies (not always, it is easy to find ethical companies
and not ethical people ;-). Take in mind that all companies want to be
profitable, and some times this corrupts them.
Obviously, in the ERP world, most people comes from companies, so they
must public show from which company they come.
I think we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in companies
and the other in individuals that represents these companies.
- The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
This fee is higher when the member is a company.
We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.
Having to pay for membership is a good way to have only involved members
and also ensure the funding of the foundation.
Also this eases to know when members resign.
The two options have their pros and cons. We think is better that some
people make the decisions of the foundation (members) and other fund the
foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money. For
example, should be avoid that members who pay, or who pay more than
others, have more power in their decisions/votes.
Using the meritocracy for membership is strange. As the foundation goals is
to promote Tryton, so the meritocracy will be the guys who are doing the best
promotion. This sounds strange.
Yes, you are right, meritocracy is not the right word in this context. I
meant "participation" or "implication" in the tryton project to choose
the members of Tryton foundation.
- Status can be change after a vote at a special majority (to be
defined)
I don't understand this last point. Status of what can be changed?
I'm not sure that "status" is the right word in English.
But this is how the foundation can modify its own rules.
Yes, of course, the foundation must be able to modify his own rules if a
majority of members (defined by the foundation rules) vote it.
The important think in the creation of the foundation is that a single
company could no block the strategic policy of Tryton in the future.
Indeed, right now the project is already protected due to the variety of
copyright owners.
Yes, the code is protected but there are other important things that
must be protected: Tryton trademark/brand, logo, domains, documentation,
... See below.
There is just some potential concern about the ownership of the trademark
Tryton (even if B2CK has already defined the usage of it).
But I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "strategic policy"?
I'm not sure if "strategic policy" of the foundation is the more
appropriate English word. I put some examples of goals that Tryton
foundation could have:
* Promote usage of Tryton application platform.
* Encourage new companies and individuals to join the project.
* Legally protect the brand and the software.
* Help the project to keep open and non-dependant on a single company.
* Own the Tryton brand
* Own tryton.org and other related domains
* Also Tryton foundation could provide/host all the tools that the
Tryton developers need (code, bugs, blogs, email lists, ...).
Jordi
--
Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL
[email protected]
Mòbil 679 170 693
Zikzakmedia SL
Dr. Fleming, 28, baixos
08720 Vilafranca del Penedès
Tel 93 890 2108
--
[email protected] mailing list
