Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?

In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:42:26, Andre Schnabel
<Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net> ha scritto:

> Hmm .. so the first topic (term definition "Member") is not very clear.
>
> I'm not speaking about members of legal entity "The Docuemnt Foundation"
> but of those people who will be recognised as the community able
> to influence the legal entitie's decisions.

Sincerely, I don't understand what you mean, here.

Do you want a replica of the OOo Community Council?

I hope it's not the case, otherwise what usefulness would have a *real*
Foundation?

A person/corporation who wants to influence the Foundation (legal
entity)'s decisions *must* join that legal entity or be entitled to act on
its behalf from the Foundation itself.

If not, he can grab the code and do whatever the license allows him to do
with it. There may be exchange of code or collaborations, he/it would
belong to the Community, but it's rather different than "influence the
legal entity's decisions".

I think there is a *huge* misunderstanding between us about what an
independent Foundation is.

What you're describing is a "group".

At the very beginning of this list, I posted a message about the
difference btw "Foundation" and "Group" and I'm still seeing the same
misunderstanding.

> > The Document Foundation should be like the kernel (or nucleus of a cell)
> > that pursue specific purposes (included in its Charter) that the rest of
> > the system (or cell, the Community) considers valuable and agrees to
> > support.
>
>
> I tend to disagree here - while the Foundation is bound to it's charter
> community should not just support the Foundation because they "like"
> the Foundation, but because they can influence the way the foundation  
> acts.

The Community *is* composed by individuals, corporations and public/legal
entities.

Do they want to influence the Foundation? They join it, *freely*. It's so  
simple.

Outside supporters ("Community members") cannot have any *direct* control  
of the Foundation, in my view of this matter.

It's extremely dangerous. It generates uncontrolled influences and "gray  
zones", like I wrote in the reply to Charles.

Again: there may be external "collaborations", "alliances" and other  
things like
those, but it's different than having a vote for the board of the
Foundation.

> > Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for
> > LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would
> > belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution enough  
> > to
> > join the steering group of TDF?
>
> No - but it enough for those people at google, who contributed this code
> to be eligible for a seat in the board. And it is enough to have a
> vote at board elections.

Wow, that last sentence is *exactly* what I *don't* want. :)

Such informal approach is impracticable when a *real* Foundation has to  
take decisions in
order to legally defend the base code, create a sure development roadmap  
(or nominate who create the roadmap)
and decide about controversial alliances.

Stricter initial rules make stronger organizations in the long run.

I understand there is a wish for a more open "community", but you (pluralis
maiestatis) should be cautious not to overact pursuing freedom and falling
so in caos.
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted