On 27/06/11 12:06 +0200, Jordi Esteve wrote: > 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.
Also we must not forget that employees don't stay indefinitly in a company. So I think it is good that a company can have a way to keep his voice in the foundation independently of keeping his representative employee. > >>> - 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. Membership fees will be the same for everybody. For those who want to give more, there will be a donation program. We should add in the foundation rules, that a member equals to a vote. > >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. This will be done by the exising member proposal and also by the vote. > >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. I don't see how ? Indeed it is a fact after the foundation creation, so what could the foundation do more then just existing ? > * 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, ...). -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpQ5NEMQYQyb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
