On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:45 PM, John Plocher <john.plocher at gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Either Members are elected to Membership or there's no control at all. So *effectively* groups are electing Members, and in many cases that's all that acknowledging contributions is for. > 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. Instead of which we have to form, staff, and oversee N (where N could be hundreds, equal to the total number of groups) of committees or other authorizing mechanisms, with a central oversight authority for the whole thing. Isn't it much easier just to do it once? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
