Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership

In message <19990324150845(dot)A30726(at)gecko(dot)fortunet>, Darren Benham writes:
>On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 05:22:13PM -0500, Nils Lohner wrote:
>
>> - board members
>> Board members, by virtue of their office, are automatically
>> contributing members.
>> [board members are working for SPI so by definition are contributing.]
>Why? Why not "Only contributing members can be board members" Is the job
>of being a board member going to be so full they won't have time to
>contribute to another project?
>

No its not, but it's a little of the same in Debian: the DPL shoudn't
necessarily have packages. Remember it's volunteer work here, so I'd like
to make it easier esp. sine the board members will be putting a fair
amount of effort into SPI. Also, I think that there should be an option
(however small) for non contributing members to become board members. I
think this is highly unlikely, but say we need a financial expert on the
board who hasn't worked with free software before for example.

>> - term of membership
>> The membership will not expire.
>I'd have it expire in 2 years also... basicly a ping to take them off the
>email lists if they don't respond...
>

Then you have to define what happens when a contributing memebr slips into
non contrib. I think this way is easy, and really see no need to remove
inactive supporting members. Otherwise I'd me for a longer term (4-5
years possibly).

Nils.

--
Nils Lohner Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
E-Mail: lohner(at)spi-inc(dot)org PO Box 1326
Board Of Directors <board(at)spi-inc(dot)org> Boston, Ma. 02117 USA

> >I'd have it expire in 2 years also... basicly a ping to take them off the
> >email lists if they don't respond...
> Then you have to define what happens when a contributing memebr slips into
> non contrib. I think this way is easy, and really see no need to remove
> inactive supporting members. Otherwise I'd me for a longer term (4-5
> years possibly).

Perhaps it's time to address the issue of whether we'll have the
(hu)manpower needed to manually reinstate a member every year. I know that
some of this could be automated, but the automation will inevitably
require a responsible, quick-to-reply set of maintainers, in much the same
way as the debian new-maintainer list does.

Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| harpo(at)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)cis(dot)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)debian(dot)org |
| http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ |
| PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| You think you're so smart, but I've seen you naked |
| and I'll prob'ly see you naked again ... |
| --The Barenaked Ladies, "Blame It On Me" |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 05:22:47PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote:
> > >I'd have it expire in 2 years also... basicly a ping to take them off the
> > >email lists if they don't respond...
> > Then you have to define what happens when a contributing memebr slips into
> > non contrib. I think this way is easy, and really see no need to remove
> > inactive supporting members. Otherwise I'd me for a longer term (4-5
> > years possibly).
>
> Perhaps it's time to address the issue of whether we'll have the
> (hu)manpower needed to manually reinstate a member every year. I know that
> some of this could be automated, but the automation will inevitably
> require a responsible, quick-to-reply set of maintainers, in much the same
> way as the debian new-maintainer list does.

With the automation, I don't see why it'd be a large problem. Debian has
functioned pretty well with it's new maintainer team... SPI, if it has
that big if a membership work load, should also have a larger pool of
volunteers that can be tapped for projects such as this.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Will Lowe wrote:

> > >I'd have it expire in 2 years also... basicly a ping to take them off the
> > >email lists if they don't respond...
> > Then you have to define what happens when a contributing memebr slips into
> > non contrib. I think this way is easy, and really see no need to remove
> > inactive supporting members. Otherwise I'd me for a longer term (4-5
> > years possibly).
>
> Perhaps it's time to address the issue of whether we'll have the
> (hu)manpower needed to manually reinstate a member every year. I know that
> some of this could be automated, but the automation will inevitably
> require a responsible, quick-to-reply set of maintainers, in much the same
> way as the debian new-maintainer list does.
>
You bring up a fundamental problem in volunteer organizations. (This is
what I call "The Little Red Hen" problem.)

In support of removing such problems where possible, I keep returning to
the following questions:

Why should membership have a duration?

Does the value of a contribution deminish over time?

Are we considering any other conditions that would "remove" a member?

I can see no reason, once a person has "qualified" for membership, that we
should ever terminate that membership unless the member specifically
requests such termination.

Why do I think this? The reasoning goes like this:

1. All of the requirements for membership involve some level of
contribution to the Free Software Movement.

2. Once membership is obtained, work done for SPI becomes a
contribution to the FSM.

3. Members who make no contribution have their "influence" reduced.

One of the components of the "Corporate Charter" (Which is the DNA of SPI)
is an educational responsibility. I know this sounds like a totally
unrelated issue, but it speaks to the need for more than one "class" of
member. By making "full membership" contingent on a reasonably high level
of commitment to Free Software we keep SPI's goals under the control of
the "right" people. By providing an "associate membership" for the rest of
the world, we provide an educational interface for the uninformed "general
public", as well as an avenue for contribution by individuals and
corporations who would otherwise not qualify for SPI membership.

Waiting is,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf(at)polaris(dot)net Tallahassee, FL 32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 10:39:25PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Why should membership have a duration?
How about to just keep the rolls (or atleast the "all important"
contributing member rolls) down to people who are active? If nobody every
expired, and people just dropped out (it happens a lot) we could end up
with way too many people to satisfy any quorum...

Just a thought. I'd have to think if I actually believe it's a real
problem on an imagined one.

> Does the value of a contribution deminish over time?
of course not... but availability does. If we had a "sure fire" way to
make sure people didn't just "disappear" like happens from time to time
with Debian... either way, it'll be some amount of work for someone(s).
The expiration way is more automatable.

> Are we considering any other conditions that would "remove" a member?
Violation of the goals and such of SPI, I suppose.. but that could be
specified in the Membership Committee Charter...

Sorry to take so long to reply, but the tooth came out on Friday, and I'm
"much better now" ;-)

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 10:39:25PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Why should membership have a duration?
> How about to just keep the rolls (or atleast the "all important"
> contributing member rolls) down to people who are active? If nobody every
> expired, and people just dropped out (it happens a lot) we could end up
> with way too many people to satisfy any quorum...
>
Keeping up with "active" members is much easier than deciding whether or
not they have met "qualification requirements" for each year they "claim"
membership.

I simple membership list ping, before meetings, would determine who was
active and who wasn't. If they can be reached, they should still have the
opportunity to vote.

> Just a thought. I'd have to think if I actually believe it's a real
> problem on an imagined one.
>
> > Does the value of a contribution deminish over time?
> of course not... but availability does. If we had a "sure fire" way to
> make sure people didn't just "disappear" like happens from time to time
> with Debian... either way, it'll be some amount of work for someone(s).
> The expiration way is more automatable.

But if they "just disapear", so what?

I had the impression that the increased management of members was intended
to make sure that all participants were "qualified" in some way, and not
just casual (or malicious) interlopers with a mistaken interest in the
organization.

Once you "qualify" as a member, your active participation is a positive
thing, but I don't see that your, possibly temporary, lack of
participation indicates a "drag" on SPI resourses that must be rectified
by removal of the non-participant member.

Until a member doesn't want their name on the membership rolls, I see no
reason to remove them.

>
> > Are we considering any other conditions that would "remove" a member?
> Violation of the goals and such of SPI, I suppose.. but that could be
> specified in the Membership Committee Charter...
>
As with Debian, I see no reason to go beyond gaining assurances at the
beginning that the applicant does, in fact, agree with the principles of
the organization. I have participated in "discussions" with other Debian
developers where my belief in the principles of Free Software became
questioned because of a position I took in opposition to the PC one being
promoted. I would hate to fear expulsion for displaying unpopular ideas in
an SPI member forum.

If we do not allow deviations from the pre-defined course of SPI, then the
ship will only go in one direction, and can never be changed. This would
be a drastic mistake from my POV.

Luck,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf(at)polaris(dot)net Tallahassee, FL 32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:03:36PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Sorry to take so long to reply, but the tooth came out on Friday, and I'm
> "much better now" ;-)
That's okay. Most of my response are intended to get people to think. I
don't often expect direct replies :).

> Keeping up with "active" members is much easier than deciding whether or
> not they have met "qualification requirements" for each year they "claim"
> membership.
>
> I simple membership list ping, before meetings, would determine who was
> active and who wasn't. If they can be reached, they should still have the
> opportunity to vote.
and if they respond affermative, they still wish to be involved. I'm
ambivilent to the requirments checking.

> But if they "just disapear", so what?
I'm thinking of voting and such...

Lets say we have 1000 people on the roles but, because of people
disappearing we have only 100 active people... or 100 active people who
will vote on any given issue, anyway. Given Debian's voting rules, any
single choice would have to get 48 MORE votes than any other choice...

Otherwise the issue is unresolved.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Darren Benham wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:03:36PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Sorry to take so long to reply, but the tooth came out on Friday, and I'm
> > "much better now" ;-)
> That's okay. Most of my response are intended to get people to think. I
> don't often expect direct replies :).
>
> > Keeping up with "active" members is much easier than deciding whether or
> > not they have met "qualification requirements" for each year they "claim"
> > membership.
> >
> > I simple membership list ping, before meetings, would determine who was
> > active and who wasn't. If they can be reached, they should still have the
> > opportunity to vote.
> and if they respond affermative, they still wish to be involved. I'm
> ambivilent to the requirments checking.
>
> > But if they "just disapear", so what?
> I'm thinking of voting and such...

Ah! Now I understand ;-)

Well, I thought that voting was TBD, and was, for the sake of argument,
being left 'til later. (I'm not sure that I completely agree with this,
but it has made the discussion easier so far)

>
> Lets say we have 1000 people on the roles but, because of people
> disappearing we have only 100 active people... or 100 active people who
> will vote on any given issue, anyway. Given Debian's voting rules, any
> single choice would have to get 48 MORE votes than any other choice...
>
This assumes that SPI will "naturally" adopt Debian's voting rules.

Given the broad membership that SPI is expected to acquire, a direct
democracy would be quite inefficient for "getting the job done".

Think of SPI as a "representative democracy", where the membership votes
for its representative, in the form of the board, and those
representatives actually "decide" on the particulars of what SPI is
"about". With adequate checks and balances, this produces a system that
has both the ability to decide in a hurry, coupled with the capability of
long involved contemplation of those decissions and actions.

But it seems that I too, have digressed into the issues of voting, rather
than staying with the question of who should be a member.

One last off-topic-comment: Before each vote, "active" members would be
asked to register for the vote. The number of registered voters would then
determine what "majority" or "super majority" would mean in this
particular vote.

Under normal voting conditions, you know when you have a yes vote, and you
know when you have a no vote, but when you recieve no vote at all, you
don't know whether it is from the voter being unwilling to vote one way or
the other, or the voter is unable to render a vote at all. As those who
are unable to render a vote, will also be unable to render a reply to the
call for registration, the last group is more clearly identified as
abstaining voters.

Just my POV,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf(at)polaris(dot)net Tallahassee, FL 32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 02:45:26PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > I'm thinking of voting and such...
>
> Ah! Now I understand ;-)
>
> Well, I thought that voting was TBD, and was, for the sake of argument,
> being left 'til later. (I'm not sure that I completely agree with this,
> but it has made the discussion easier so far)
It is.. but it's hard to forget about things like that, totally. I resort
to not talking about what *should* the quorum be and such.

> > Lets say we have 1000 people on the roles but, because of people
> > disappearing we have only 100 active people... or 100 active people who
> > will vote on any given issue, anyway. Given Debian's voting rules, any
> > single choice would have to get 48 MORE votes than any other choice...
> >
> This assumes that SPI will "naturally" adopt Debian's voting rules.
Not really. It was just a real world example. If there was a, say, 25%
quorum, that means 250 more votes. If there was a 10%, that's 100 votes.
Any "realistic" quorum could be a problem. Infact, any measurements taken
on "number of members" could be a problem. This would be in issue to even
vote in the board if that was the only vote members were allowed to make
(like it is in many stockholders meetings).

[snipped alot of good stuff *because* it's not a vote discussion yet]

> One last off-topic-comment: Before each vote, "active" members would be
> asked to register for the vote. The number of registered voters would then
> determine what "majority" or "super majority" would mean in this
> particular vote.
That would eliminate the need to remove inactive members from the roll..
but it would seem easier to send a ping message out, automaticly, every two
years and anyone who doesn't reply is moved out of the rolls (say, to the
non-contrib rolls or a third class could be inactive-contrib). Automated,
it could even be sent only if you don't have an email coming from you in
the archives for the last 12 months or something.

> Under normal voting conditions, you know when you have a yes vote, and you
> know when you have a no vote, but when you recieve no vote at all, you
> don't know whether it is from the voter being unwilling to vote one way or
> the other, or the voter is unable to render a vote at all. As those who
> are unable to render a vote, will also be unable to render a reply to the
> call for registration, the last group is more clearly identified as
> abstaining voters.
Or have ABSTAIN as one of the options that can be voted on...

> Just my POV,
If the potential members here would not mind "registering" to vote before
each vote, then the only object I'd have to not expiring is taken care of.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================