The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote by 4/8 if it will receive positive feedback):
* The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-nomination questionnaire. I think it is important that people will step forward and ask to be part of the initial membership to ensure the right level of commitment. The form will include some basic information such as past community work, membership in related organization, main area of interest / contribution, list the top 2 goals they have for the organization, and names of other community members who they have worked with. It should take less than 10 minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
* The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and each will mark the names of people they would like to see as members. There will be no ability to vote against anyone, just list the people they support. The votes for each person will then be counted and the top 22 people will be made members, in addition to the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with an initial 30 members.
* The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which members will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The votes will be confidential (both who the nominee was, how each member voted, and the exact results), and will only result in a list of additional members who passed the vote. The reason for the second round is to remove any appearance or bias of a group of 8 individuals selecting their close friends. The two rounds reduces the ability to control the membership.
* The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its members.
I would like to see this process completed before the 1 year anniversary of announcing the Open Web Foundation at OSCON 2008 (July 24th 2009). I would like to suggest the following timeline:
* Form an Election Committee: 4/17 * Create self-nomination form and tools: 4/21 * Open window for applications: 4/22 - 5/8 * Directors review applications and submit votes: 5/22 * Initial 30 members announced: 5/27 * Review remaining applicants and submit votes: 6/12 * Announce full membership: 6/19 * Open nomination for the board: 6/23-7/3 * Review nominations and submit votes: 7/17 * Announce new board: 7/22 * New board meets: 7/24
This requires the plan to be presented to the board by 4/8 and approved by 4/10 to have enough time to execute. It gives us a week to discuss it on this list. I believe it is very practical and am going to invest as much time needed to see it execute successfully.
I'm supportive of this process. The self-nomination, peer-vetted approach
to selecting the initial membership is as fair a way as any (and fairer than
many). And having that membership in turn elect their board is, of course,
the right thing to do.
(The two rounds of votes is clever and sounds like it would work, but is
perhaps overkill? I don't feel strongly about this either way though.)
Thanks for writing this down and taking the lead, Eran.
-DeWitt
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
> The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote by 4/8
> if it will receive positive feedback):
> * The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-nomination
> questionnaire. I think it is important that people will step forward and ask
> to be part of the initial membership to ensure the right level of
> commitment. The form will include some basic information such as past
> community work, membership in related organization, main area of interest /
> contribution, list the top 2 goals they have for the organization, and names
> of other community members who they have worked with. It should take less
> than 10 minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
> * The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and each will
> mark the names of people they would like to see as members. There will be no
> ability to vote against anyone, just list the people they support. The votes
> for each person will then be counted and the top 22 people will be made
> members, in addition to the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with
> an initial 30 members.
> * The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which members
> will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The votes will be
> confidential (both who the nominee was, how each member voted, and the exact
> results), and will only result in a list of additional members who passed
> the vote. The reason for the second round is to remove any appearance or
> bias of a group of 8 individuals selecting their close friends. The two
> rounds reduces the ability to control the membership.
> * The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its
> members.
> I would like to see this process completed before the 1 year anniversary of
> announcing the Open Web Foundation at OSCON 2008 (July 24th 2009). I would
> like to suggest the following timeline:
> * Form an Election Committee: 4/17
> * Create self-nomination form and tools: 4/21
> * Open window for applications: 4/22 - 5/8
> * Directors review applications and submit votes: 5/22
> * Initial 30 members announced: 5/27
> * Review remaining applicants and submit votes: 6/12
> * Announce full membership: 6/19
> * Open nomination for the board: 6/23-7/3
> * Review nominations and submit votes: 7/17
> * Announce new board: 7/22
> * New board meets: 7/24
> This requires the plan to be presented to the board by 4/8 and approved by
> 4/10 to have enough time to execute. It gives us a week to discuss it on
> this list. I believe it is very practical and am going to invest as much
> time needed to see it execute successfully.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote by 4/8 if it will receive positive feedback):
> * The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-nomination questionnaire. I think it is important that people will step forward and ask to be part of the initial membership to ensure the right level of commitment. The form will include some basic information such as past community work, membership in related organization, main area of interest / contribution, list the top 2 goals they have for the organization, and names of other community members who they have worked with. It should take less than 10 minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
> * The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and each will mark the names of people they would like to see as members. There will be no ability to vote against anyone, just list the people they support. The votes for each person will then be counted and the top 22 people will be made members, in addition to the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with an initial 30 members.
> * The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which members will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The votes will be confidential (both who the nominee was, how each member voted, and the exact results), and will only result in a list of additional members who passed the vote. The reason for the second round is to remove any appearance or bias of a group of 8 individuals selecting their close friends. The two rounds reduces the ability to control the membership.
> * The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its members.
> I would like to see this process completed before the 1 year anniversary of announcing the Open Web Foundation at OSCON 2008 (July 24th 2009). I would like to suggest the following timeline:
> * Form an Election Committee: 4/17
> * Create self-nomination form and tools: 4/21
> * Open window for applications: 4/22 - 5/8
> * Directors review applications and submit votes: 5/22
> * Initial 30 members announced: 5/27
> * Review remaining applicants and submit votes: 6/12
> * Announce full membership: 6/19
> * Open nomination for the board: 6/23-7/3
> * Review nominations and submit votes: 7/17
> * Announce new board: 7/22
> * New board meets: 7/24
> This requires the plan to be presented to the board by 4/8 and approved by 4/10 to have enough time to execute. It gives us a week to discuss it on this list. I believe it is very practical and am going to invest as much time needed to see it execute successfully.
I like it. Two rounds seems like it would add legitimacy. The timescales are perhaps optimistic but doable. Thanks for the initiative. -- Peter Ferne, +44 (0)7970 942 261, peter.fe...@gmail.com Jiva Technology, http://jivatechnology.com, http://hth.im
> The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote > by 4/8 if it will receive positive feedback):
> * The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self- > nomination questionnaire. I think it is important that people will > step forward and ask to be part of the initial membership to ensure > the right level of commitment. The form will include some basic > information such as past community work, membership in related > organization, main area of interest / contribution, list the top 2 > goals they have for the organization, and names of other community > members who they have worked with. It should take less than 10 > minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
> * The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and > each will mark the names of people they would like to see as > members. There will be no ability to vote against anyone, just list > the people they support. The votes for each person will then be > counted and the top 22 people will be made members, in addition to > the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with an initial 30 > members.
Is this a public or private ballot?
> * The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which > members will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The > votes will be confidential (both who the nominee was, how each > member voted, and the exact results), and will only result in a list > of additional members who passed the vote. The reason for the second > round is to remove any appearance or bias of a group of 8 > individuals selecting their close friends. The two rounds reduces > the ability to control the membership.
Will this be a public or private ballot?
> * The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its > members.
Yes. You can state who you are affiliated with. Who you speak for only becomes an issue for legal matters.
We will have a role for organizations later on.
EHL
From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brendan Quinn
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:38 AM
To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
Sounds interesting, Eran.
This proposal makes it sound like you're looking for individuals to join the foundation, as opposed to organisations. Is that correct?
Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting schemes for
membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has to be
published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all potential
questions.
Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even by a large
group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds make it more
refined.
Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be frozen
or will there be another process for additional membership ?
Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments and
activities ?
Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
foundation fund itself ?
[mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:18 AM
To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
Subject: Foundation Membership Proposal
The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote by 4/8
if it will receive positive feedback):
* The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-nomination
questionnaire. I think it is important that people will step forward and ask
to be part of the initial membership to ensure the right level of
commitment. The form will include some basic information such as past
community work, membership in related organization, main area of interest /
contribution, list the top 2 goals they have for the organization, and names
of other community members who they have worked with. It should take less
than 10 minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
* The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and each will
mark the names of people they would like to see as members. There will be no
ability to vote against anyone, just list the people they support. The votes
for each person will then be counted and the top 22 people will be made
members, in addition to the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with
an initial 30 members.
* The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which members will
vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The votes will be
confidential (both who the nominee was, how each member voted, and the exact
results), and will only result in a list of additional members who passed
the vote. The reason for the second round is to remove any appearance or
bias of a group of 8 individuals selecting their close friends. The two
rounds reduces the ability to control the membership.
* The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its members.
I would like to see this process completed before the 1 year anniversary of
announcing the Open Web Foundation at OSCON 2008 (July 24th 2009). I would
like to suggest the following timeline:
* Form an Election Committee: 4/17
* Create self-nomination form and tools: 4/21
* Open window for applications: 4/22 - 5/8
* Directors review applications and submit votes: 5/22
* Initial 30 members announced: 5/27
* Review remaining applicants and submit votes: 6/12
* Announce full membership: 6/19
* Open nomination for the board: 6/23-7/3
* Review nominations and submit votes: 7/17
* Announce new board: 7/22
* New board meets: 7/24
This requires the plan to be presented to the board by 4/8 and approved by
4/10 to have enough time to execute. It gives us a week to discuss it on
this list. I believe it is very practical and am going to invest as much
time needed to see it execute successfully.
Membership votes are all private ballot. Only voting members (directors) get to see the list of nominees. Only the election committee gets to see the actual votes casted, but all votes are anonymous. The only published results are those who got elected in each cycle.
Board votes will work similar to how Apache elects its board. There is an old thread on this list with some ideas. I will dig it out and post some suggestions. We have a bit more time for that one.
The general idea is to allow people to vote without having to worry about the position of their employer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:10 AM
> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 08:17, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> > The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote
> > by 4/8 if it will receive positive feedback):
> > * The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-
> > nomination questionnaire. I think it is important that people will
> > step forward and ask to be part of the initial membership to ensure
> > the right level of commitment. The form will include some basic
> > information such as past community work, membership in related
> > organization, main area of interest / contribution, list the top 2
> > goals they have for the organization, and names of other community
> > members who they have worked with. It should take less than 10
> > minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
> > * The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and
> > each will mark the names of people they would like to see as
> > members. There will be no ability to vote against anyone, just list
> > the people they support. The votes for each person will then be
> > counted and the top 22 people will be made members, in addition to
> > the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with an initial 30
> > members.
> Is this a public or private ballot?
> > * The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which
> > members will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The
> > votes will be confidential (both who the nominee was, how each
> > member voted, and the exact results), and will only result in a list
> > of additional members who passed the vote. The reason for the second
> > round is to remove any appearance or bias of a group of 8
> > individuals selecting their close friends. The two rounds reduces
> > the ability to control the membership.
> Will this be a public or private ballot?
> > * The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its
> > members.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 15:24, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> Membership votes are all private ballot. Only voting members > (directors) get to see the list of nominees. Only the election > committee gets to see the actual votes casted, but all votes are > anonymous. The only published results are those who got elected in > each cycle.
OK, thanks. I think that is good - I just wanted it to be clear since you specified the privacy of nominations but not of voting in committee.
> Board votes will work similar to how Apache elects its board. There > is an old thread on this list with some ideas. I will dig it out and > post some suggestions. We have a bit more time for that one.
> The general idea is to allow people to vote without having to worry > about the position of their employer.
While that is good, it cuts both ways. The influence of large patent- holding corporations can also go untracked in that context. I think secret ballot is generally best but it's no panacea. Even the most charming and co-operative people can turn out to be acting in their employer's interest :-)
Having just gone through this over at DataPortability (we had two open
seats on the board), our governance model provided for an open
nomination period (nominees must be members of the plenary), an
opportunity for the "candidates" to explain why they should be
elected, and then an election by the plenary.
Our goal was to maintain openness and transparency so everything was
public. What we learned from that experience was (a) the nomination
process worked fine, (b) the "explain" part could have been better (I
really like the Q&A component under discussion in this thread), (c)
and the "publicly viewable" voting did not work well.
As a result of our expereinces, we have undertaken a task force effort
to fine tune this process for our next elections that will likely
include public nomination and candidate discussion, however use a
verified private voting mechanism much like the recent one used by
OpenID in their board elections.
> Membership votes are all private ballot. Only voting members (directors) get to see the list of nominees. Only the election committee gets to see the actual votes casted, but all votes are anonymous. The only published results are those who got elected in each cycle.
> Board votes will work similar to how Apache elects its board. There is an old thread on this list with some ideas. I will dig it out and post some suggestions. We have a bit more time for that one.
> The general idea is to allow people to vote without having to worry about the position of their employer.
> EHL
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> > discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:10 AM
> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > On Apr 2, 2009, at 08:17, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> > > The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a vote
> > > by 4/8 if it will receive positive feedback):
> > > * The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-
> > > nomination questionnaire. I think it is important that people will
> > > step forward and ask to be part of the initial membership to ensure
> > > the right level of commitment. The form will include some basic
> > > information such as past community work, membership in related
> > > organization, main area of interest / contribution, list the top 2
> > > goals they have for the organization, and names of other community
> > > members who they have worked with. It should take less than 10
> > > minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
> > > * The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and
> > > each will mark the names of people they would like to see as
> > > members. There will be no ability to vote against anyone, just list
> > > the people they support. The votes for each person will then be
> > > counted and the top 22 people will be made members, in addition to
> > > the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with an initial 30
> > > members.
> > Is this a public or private ballot?
> > > * The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which
> > > members will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants. The
> > > votes will be confidential (both who the nominee was, how each
> > > member voted, and the exact results), and will only result in a list
> > > of additional members who passed the vote. The reason for the second
> > > round is to remove any appearance or bias of a group of 8
> > > individuals selecting their close friends. The two rounds reduces
> > > the ability to control the membership.
> > Will this be a public or private ballot?
> > > * The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among its
> > > members.
All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> -----Original Message----- > discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting schemes > for > membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to > participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has to be > published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all potential > questions.
We have always made it public that we are basing this organization on Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even by a > large > group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds make it > more > refined.
Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But personally I am against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are involved. I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be > frozen > or will there be another process for additional membership ?
I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the second round) once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide. Take a look at how Apache does it for clues.
> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments and > activities ?
At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the foundation and their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do as well.
> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the > foundation fund itself ?
Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So far we didn't.
I think the membership models are significantly different. You are talking about electing board members, while I'm focused on electing the members themselves...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Repetti
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:40 AM
> To: Open Web Foundation Discussion
> Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
> Having just gone through this over at DataPortability (we had two open
> seats on the board), our governance model provided for an open
> nomination period (nominees must be members of the plenary), an
> opportunity for the "candidates" to explain why they should be
> elected, and then an election by the plenary.
> Our goal was to maintain openness and transparency so everything was
> public. What we learned from that experience was (a) the nomination
> process worked fine, (b) the "explain" part could have been better (I
> really like the Q&A component under discussion in this thread), (c)
> and the "publicly viewable" voting did not work well.
> As a result of our expereinces, we have undertaken a task force effort
> to fine tune this process for our next elections that will likely
> include public nomination and candidate discussion, however use a
> verified private voting mechanism much like the recent one used by
> OpenID in their board elections.
> On Apr 2, 10:24 am, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > Membership votes are all private ballot. Only voting members
> (directors) get to see the list of nominees. Only the election
> committee gets to see the actual votes casted, but all votes are
> anonymous. The only published results are those who got elected in each
> cycle.
> > Board votes will work similar to how Apache elects its board. There
> is an old thread on this list with some ideas. I will dig it out and
> post some suggestions. We have a bit more time for that one.
> > The general idea is to allow people to vote without having to worry
> about the position of their employer.
> > EHL
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> > > discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:10 AM
> > > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > > On Apr 2, 2009, at 08:17, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> > > > The following is my proposal (to be present to the board for a
> vote
> > > > by 4/8 if it will receive positive feedback):
> > > > * The foundation will ask anyone interested to fill a short self-
> > > > nomination questionnaire. I think it is important that people
> will
> > > > step forward and ask to be part of the initial membership to
> ensure
> > > > the right level of commitment. The form will include some basic
> > > > information such as past community work, membership in related
> > > > organization, main area of interest / contribution, list the top
> 2
> > > > goals they have for the organization, and names of other
> community
> > > > members who they have worked with. It should take less than 10
> > > > minutes to fill the form. Submissions will be private.
> > > > * The initial group of 8 directors will review the full list and
> > > > each will mark the names of people they would like to see as
> > > > members. There will be no ability to vote against anyone, just
> list
> > > > the people they support. The votes for each person will then be
> > > > counted and the top 22 people will be made members, in addition
> to
> > > > the 8 directors. This will seed the membership with an initial 30
> > > > members.
> > > Is this a public or private ballot?
> > > > * The 30 members will then continue to a second round, in which
> > > > members will vote (for or against) all the remaining applicants.
> The
> > > > votes will be confidential (both who the nominee was, how each
> > > > member voted, and the exact results), and will only result in a
> list
> > > > of additional members who passed the vote. The reason for the
> second
> > > > round is to remove any appearance or bias of a group of 8
> > > > individuals selecting their close friends. The two rounds reduces
> > > > the ability to control the membership.
> > > Will this be a public or private ballot?
> > > > * The foundation will hold elections for a new board from among
> its
> > > > members.
As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative action" (interesting
that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of Crowds". The
foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times bothers
me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me behind ;o)) -
otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a POV.
[mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> -----Original Message-----
> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting schemes
> for
> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has to be
> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all potential
> questions.
We have always made it public that we are basing this organization on
Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even by a
> large
> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds make it
> more
> refined.
Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But personally I am
against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are involved.
I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> frozen
> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the second round)
once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide. Take a
look at how Apache does it for clues.
> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments and
> activities ?
At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the foundation and
their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do as well.
> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> foundation fund itself ?
Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So far we
didn't.
> As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative action" (interesting
> that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of Crowds".
> The
> foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times bothers
> me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me behind ;o)) -
> otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a POV.
> Cheers
> <k/>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> > Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting schemes
> > for
> > membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> > participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has to be
> > published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all potential
> > questions.
> We have always made it public that we are basing this organization on
> Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> > Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even by a
> > large
> > group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds make it
> > more
> > refined.
> Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But personally I am
> against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are involved.
> I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> > Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> > frozen
> > or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the second
> round)
> once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide. Take a
> look at how Apache does it for clues.
> > Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments and
> > activities ?
> At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the foundation
> and
> their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do as
> well.
> > Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> > foundation fund itself ?
> Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So far we
> didn't.
I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads pretty
inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
- Art
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> action" (interesting
> that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> Crowds". The
> foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> bothers
> me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> behind ;o)) -
> otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> POV.
> Cheers
> <k/>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer- > Lahav
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
>> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
>> schemes
>> for
>> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
>> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
>> to be
>> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
>> potential
>> questions.
> We have always made it public that we are basing this organization on
> Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
>> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
>> by a
>> large
>> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
>> make it
>> more
>> refined.
> Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> personally I am
> against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> involved.
> I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
>> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
>> frozen
>> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> second round)
> once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> Take a
> look at how Apache does it for clues.
>> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments
>> and
>> activities ?
> At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> foundation and
> their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> as well.
>> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
>> foundation fund itself ?
> Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> far we
> didn't.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:49 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> Merit is almost entirely a measure of contribution.
Which regrettably is somewhat circular, since one person's contribution is often another person's nonsense, depending on the interpreter's sense of what has merit. Again, it begs the questions of by what standard, and by whom, "contribution" would be measured.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com> wrote:
> I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads pretty
> inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> - Art
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > action" (interesting
> > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > Crowds". The
> > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> > bothers
> > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > behind ;o)) -
> > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > POV.
> > Cheers
> > <k/>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-
> > Lahav
> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> >> schemes
> >> for
> >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> >> to be
> >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> >> potential
> >> questions.
> > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization on
> > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> >> by a
> >> large
> >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> >> make it
> >> more
> >> refined.
> > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > personally I am
> > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > involved.
> > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> >> frozen
> >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > second round)
> > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> > Take a
> > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments
> >> and
> >> activities ?
> > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > foundation and
> > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> > as well.
> >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> >> foundation fund itself ?
> > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > far we
> > didn't.
Yes. Get on with the work and don't waste time worrying about who's a
"member." As the work progresses the community will self-select. Defer betting sidetracked on organizational formalities until the last
possible moment.
- Art
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 9:06 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> Do you have a counter proposal? This is definitely the right thread
> for one.
> And would be a good showing of contribution. : )
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
> wrote:
> I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads pretty
> inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> - Art
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > action" (interesting
> > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > Crowds". The
> > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> > bothers
> > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > behind ;o)) -
> > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > POV.
> > Cheers
> > <k/>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-
> > Lahav
> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> >> schemes
> >> for
> >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> >> to be
> >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> >> potential
> >> questions.
> > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization
> on
> > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> >> by a
> >> large
> >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> >> make it
> >> more
> >> refined.
> > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > personally I am
> > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > involved.
> > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> >> frozen
> >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > second round)
> > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> > Take a
> > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments
> >> and
> >> activities ?
> > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > foundation and
> > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> > as well.
> >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> >> foundation fund itself ?
> > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > far we
> > didn't.
I would offer myself as an example for earning merit by contribution.
Two years ago no one knew who I was. I spent 9 years working in banking and was not at all part of any web community. When I wanted to be part of OAuth, I started by simply participating in the mailing list, editing specifications, organizing community activities, and writing/blogging. The merit of my participation was judged purely based on my contributions, not my employer, friends, influence, or any other criteria. It was the only thing anyone really knew about me. I was also based on NJ at the time, not the Bay Area.
The quality and significance of a contribution is based on how it help move the community closer to achieving its goals. Yes, "merit" is subjective, but it has been my experience that people that help make progress are almost always obvious to spot.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:02 AM
> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
> I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads pretty
> inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> - Art
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > action" (interesting
> > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > Crowds". The
> > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> > bothers
> > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > behind ;o)) -
> > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > POV.
> > Cheers
> > <k/>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-
> > Lahav
> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> >> schemes
> >> for
> >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> >> to be
> >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> >> potential
> >> questions.
> > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization on
> > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> >> by a
> >> large
> >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> >> make it
> >> more
> >> refined.
> > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > personally I am
> > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > involved.
> > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> >> frozen
> >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > second round)
> > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> > Take a
> > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments
> >> and
> >> activities ?
> > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > foundation and
> > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> > as well.
> >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> >> foundation fund itself ?
> > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > far we
> > didn't.
I don't think the two contradict one another. We have been getting work done. Yes, somewhat slowly but still, individuals have been putting in time and resources into this effort. This is really not that complicated. I personally have a very good idea of who I would like to see part of this organization based on their contributions here and elsewhere. I don't agree with all of them, but I value their participation, and will vote to include them.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:15 AM
> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Foundation Membership Proposal
> Yes. Get on with the work and don't waste time worrying about who's a
> "member." As the work progresses the community will self-select.
> Defer betting sidetracked on organizational formalities until the last
> possible moment.
> - Art
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 9:06 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> > Do you have a counter proposal? This is definitely the right thread
> > for one.
> > And would be a good showing of contribution. : )
> > -DeWitt
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
> > wrote:
> > I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> > beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads
> pretty
> > inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> > Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> > particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> > frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> > not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> > Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> > - Art
> > On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > > action" (interesting
> > > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > > Crowds". The
> > > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not
> a
> > > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> > > bothers
> > > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > > behind ;o)) -
> > > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > > POV.
> > > Cheers
> > > <k/>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran
> Hammer-
> > > Lahav
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> > >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> > >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> > >> schemes
> > >> for
> > >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want
> to
> > >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> > >> to be
> > >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> > >> potential
> > >> questions.
> > > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization
> > on
> > > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> > >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> > >> by a
> > >> large
> > >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> > >> make it
> > >> more
> > >> refined.
> > > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > > personally I am
> > > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > > involved.
> > > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> > >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership
> be
> > >> frozen
> > >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > > second round)
> > > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> > > Take a
> > > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> > >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of
> commitments
> > >> and
> > >> activities ?
> > > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > > foundation and
> > > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> > > as well.
> > >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would
> the
> > >> foundation fund itself ?
> > > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > > far we
> > > didn't.
> Yes. Get on with the work and don't waste time worrying about who's a > "member." As the work progresses the community will self-select. > Defer betting sidetracked on organizational formalities until the last > possible moment.
A good reason for having an individual membership / contributor system is fear that openly created standards and standards-like systems will be shot down due to intellectual property concerns. Having everyone state up front who they are and what they agree to, rather than chasing it years later, is very sane.
Right, that was the plan all along. Just now is the last possible moment.
(Well, not really, but getting close.)
We want a membership so we have a electorate to replace the current
self-selected temporary board. We want an elected board so that the
ratification of the forthcoming specification license has some objective
meaning.
As far as bootstrapping processes go, I'd say this one is working out
reasonably well. Or at least, we haven't heard too many ways to improve on
it.
But as always, other actionable proposals are solicited, appreciated, and
frequently, acted upon.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com> wrote:
> Yes. Get on with the work and don't waste time worrying about who's a
> "member." As the work progresses the community will self-select.
> Defer betting sidetracked on organizational formalities until the last
> possible moment.
> - Art
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 9:06 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> > Do you have a counter proposal? This is definitely the right thread
> > for one.
> > And would be a good showing of contribution. : )
> > -DeWitt
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
> > wrote:
> > I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> > beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads pretty
> > inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> > Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> > particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> > frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> > not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> > Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> > - Art
> > On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > > action" (interesting
> > > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > > Crowds". The
> > > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> > > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> > > bothers
> > > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > > behind ;o)) -
> > > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > > POV.
> > > Cheers
> > > <k/>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-
> > > Lahav
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> > >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> > >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> > >> schemes
> > >> for
> > >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> > >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> > >> to be
> > >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> > >> potential
> > >> questions.
> > > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization
> > on
> > > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> > >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> > >> by a
> > >> large
> > >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> > >> make it
> > >> more
> > >> refined.
> > > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > > personally I am
> > > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > > involved.
> > > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> > >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> > >> frozen
> > >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > > second round)
> > > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> > > Take a
> > > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> > >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments
> > >> and
> > >> activities ?
> > > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > > foundation and
> > > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> > > as well.
> > >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> > >> foundation fund itself ?
> > > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > > far we
> > > didn't.
We always planned to seed the initial membership with a group of under
50 people and as Eran said, we seem to be getting very close to a
point where we actually have a deliverable to vote on which we should
do in a meritocratic fashion.
For those who haven't been following as closely, the three current
deliverables (in order) are 1) a license that can be applied to a
finalized specification by all of its authors 2) a "contributor
license agreement" style document which can be used in the creation of
a specification to have authors agree to apply the license from #1
when the work is complete and 3) an incubation process similar to that
of the Apache Software Foundation but rather focused on creating
specifications over source code.
Eran, as for what you said in your blog post, "there are other areas
where we could expand such as evangelism, education, resources, and
building a home for people to discuss these topics" I agree in
principal but want to see us remain focused and follow through on our
current work taking on more.
--David
On Apr 2, 9:24 am, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote:
> Right, that was the plan all along. Just now is the last possible moment.
> (Well, not really, but getting close.)
> We want a membership so we have a electorate to replace the current
> self-selected temporary board. We want an elected board so that the
> ratification of the forthcoming specification license has some objective
> meaning.
> As far as bootstrapping processes go, I'd say this one is working out
> reasonably well. Or at least, we haven't heard too many ways to improve on
> it.
> But as always, other actionable proposals are solicited, appreciated, and
> frequently, acted upon.
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com> wrote:
> > Yes. Get on with the work and don't waste time worrying about who's a
> > "member." As the work progresses the community will self-select.
> > Defer betting sidetracked on organizational formalities until the last
> > possible moment.
> > - Art
> > On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 9:06 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> > > Do you have a counter proposal? This is definitely the right thread
> > > for one.
> > > And would be a good showing of contribution. : )
> > > -DeWitt
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> > > beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads pretty
> > > inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> > > Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> > > particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> > > frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> > > not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> > > Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> > > - Art
> > > On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > > > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > > > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > > > action" (interesting
> > > > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > > > Crowds". The
> > > > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and not a
> > > > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few times
> > > > bothers
> > > > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > > > behind ;o)) -
> > > > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > > > POV.
> > > > Cheers
> > > > <k/>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-
> > > > Lahav
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > > > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > > > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this group.
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> > > >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> > > >> schemes
> > > >> for
> > > >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who want to
> > > >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> > > >> to be
> > > >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> > > >> potential
> > > >> questions.
> > > > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization
> > > on
> > > > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> > > >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> > > >> by a
> > > >> large
> > > >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> > > >> make it
> > > >> more
> > > >> refined.
> > > > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > > > personally I am
> > > > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > > > involved.
> > > > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> > > >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the membership be
> > > >> frozen
> > > >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > > > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > > > second round)
> > > > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to decide.
> > > > Take a
> > > > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> > > >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of commitments
> > > >> and
> > > >> activities ?
> > > > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > > > foundation and
> > > > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will do
> > > > as well.
> > > >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would the
> > > >> foundation fund itself ?
> > > > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > > > far we
> > > > didn't.
The only "objective meaning" anything has (or needs) is whether a
significant number of folks adopt it. A few folks chanting "so say we
all" is a club, not a standard.
As for the work that's been progressing... where's that been going on,
and what's the product so far? I haven't seen much sign of it here,
and this list has been my only visibility into the effort.
Which goes to the "West Coast" issue. There's this Internet thing
that might be helpful on that. It's been used before.
And regarding intellectual property, seems like that might be less of
an issue in the development of a license, which is sort of meta-IP,
than in the case of actual standards development. SDOs like OASIS
have done fairly well with a sort of click-wrap arrangement, where
public inputs are channeled through a subscription email list with
Terms of Service that release or require disclosure of any IP claim. The real danger comes from after-the-fact claims by non-participants
on material the participants didn't own and didn't know were out
there. The best defense against that seems to be aggressively
transparent and visible during the development process so no one can
claim they were unaware of the effort.
- Art
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 9:24 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> Right, that was the plan all along. Just now is the last possible
> moment. (Well, not really, but getting close.)
> We want a membership so we have a electorate to replace the current
> self-selected temporary board. We want an elected board so that the
> ratification of the forthcoming specification license has some
> objective meaning.
> As far as bootstrapping processes go, I'd say this one is working
> out reasonably well. Or at least, we haven't heard too many ways to
> improve on it.
> But as always, other actionable proposals are solicited,
> appreciated, and frequently, acted upon.
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
> wrote:
> Yes. Get on with the work and don't waste time worrying about who's a
> "member." As the work progresses the community will self-select.
> Defer betting sidetracked on organizational formalities until the last
> possible moment.
> - Art
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 9:06 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> > Do you have a counter proposal? This is definitely the right thread
> > for one.
> > And would be a good showing of contribution. : )
> > -DeWitt
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
> > wrote:
> > I'd urge attention to Krishna's point. "Merit" is in the eyes of the
> > beholders, so relying on a limited community of beholders leads
> pretty
> > inevitably to a limited appreciation of merit.
> > Which isn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the goal is to promote a
> > particular perspective or value system... closely-held corporations
> > frequently use that sort of internal election process. But it might
> > not appear altogether consistent with use of the term "open."
> > Depends on whether other folks' perceptions are a concern, I guess.
> > - Art
> > On Apr 2, 2009, at 4/2/09 8:37 AM, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > > Thanks. Appreciate the insights.
> > > As a note, by "diversity" I *didn't* mean "affirmative
> > > action" (interesting
> > > that you saw it that way !) but in the sense used in "Wisdom of
> > > Crowds". The
> > > foundation needs to make sure it gets different viewpoints and
> not a
> > > self-selected self-fulfilling group. The use of "merit" a few
> times
> > > bothers
> > > me - lest the group become elitist (and leave people like me
> > > behind ;o)) -
> > > otoh, it might just be my perception. I am not complaining, just a
> > > POV.
> > > Cheers
> > > <k/>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran
> Hammer-
> > > Lahav
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:45 AM
> > > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: Foundation Membership Proposal
> > > All these questions were discussed in detail earlier in this
> group.
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> > >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:21 AM
> > >> Can I ask a simple question ? Why ballots and cascading voting
> > >> schemes
> > >> for
> > >> membership in an "open" forum ? Why can't we accept all who
> want to
> > >> participate ? Remember, the process (we are establishing now) has
> > >> to be
> > >> published and so we need to make sure that we can answer all
> > >> potential
> > >> questions.
> > > We have always made it public that we are basing this organization
> > on
> > > Apache. Membership is based on merit and active contribution.
> > >> Second, as we all know we need diversity and self selection (even
> > >> by a
> > >> large
> > >> group) might not be the right forum. Even though the two rounds
> > >> make it
> > >> more
> > >> refined.
> > > Diversity is important and hopefully will be achieved. But
> > > personally I am
> > > against applying "affirmative action" when very small numbers are
> > > involved.
> > > I would vote based on merit. But that's just me.
> > >> Third, what happens after the second round ? Will the
> membership be
> > >> frozen
> > >> or will there be another process for additional membership ?
> > > I would expect the same or similar process to repeat (just the
> > > second round)
> > > once or twice a year, but it is up to the new membership to
> decide.
> > > Take a
> > > look at how Apache does it for clues.
> > >> Fourth, what are we asking from the members in terms of
> commitments
> > >> and
> > >> activities ?
> > > At this point, it is mostly based on the members to shape the
> > > foundation and
> > > their role. I will post some ideas on that, but hope others will
> do
> > > as well.
> > >> Fifth, I assume the membership is free, in which case how would
> the
> > >> foundation fund itself ?
> > > Yes, Free. We will figure that out when we actually need money. So
> > > far we
> > > didn't.
|
