On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > Is it worth having a straight vote on the electoral process: gnome foundation > style (centralized, Tribble, in the red corner) vs. each group elects members > (as proposed by Plocher [and Phipps] in the blue corner)?
I don't recall *ever* saying that each group elects members. They don't. All they *do* is publicly certify that a particular person has contributed to their efforts; it is up to the people themselves to determine whether or not they wish to become members. In other words, membership applications are ONLY available to people who have contributed, filling out a membership application is optional and voluntary, and all completed applications are accepted. The gnome model is extremely similar to what I am trying to say except that, instead of a centralized membership committee who has to figure out whether or not someone has contributed based on some set of supplied resume fodder and recommendations, the potential member simply points to the groups where they have already made a publicly acknowledged contribution. By delegating and formalizing the contribution determination, we get all the benefits of a membership committee without having to form, staff and oversee a committee. -- -John
