Chris McDonough wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
>>Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not 
>>companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? 
>>BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several 
>>developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would 
>>have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
>+1 if only because...
>>From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
>foundation will be funded by membership dues.  I think the dues
>structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a
>member.  I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford
>it.  It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to
>charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with
>larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired.
>- C

There are different aspects: there is the involvement of individual
developers and there is the involvement of the company / university /
organisation without which the developers would not be able to sustain
development outside their spare time. So reducing involvement to a
collection of individual members is not very representative of reality.
If a company has put a lot a stake in a given technology (meaning not
only financing a handful of developers) but taking a technological risk
at supporting zope , it ought to weigh in the balance. Then of course
everyone is free to do development in their spare time.

regards /JM

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to