[OpenID board] Membership (or lack thereof) and Board Elections

[Nat Sakimura]

+1

Also, I feel that there are too many unknowns right now.

I know it is better to have it early, but we have to avoid to be premature.

Nat


2008/2/29, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net>:
> David has a good point that having community board elections before we have
>  enrolled a reasonable number of community members seems backward. Maybe we
>  should set a target number of community members (50? 100?) after which we
>  trigger elections?
>
>  I also think as I said on the call today that a dramatically lower community
>  membership fee ($20 or less) would help encourage community membership.
>
>
>  =Drummond
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
>  > Of David Recordon
>  > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:39 PM
>  > To: board at openid.net
>  > Subject: [OpenID board] Membership (or lack thereof) and Board Elections
>  >
>  > Stemming from other conversations...I'd have to agree that so far
>  > we've really done very little to push for membership in the OpenID
>  > Foundation.  Today the benefits are around electing the Foundation's
>  > board and approving specification working groups, though they're not
>  > articulated anywhere nor have we actually built the applications to
>  > make these benefits a reality!
>  >
>  > I also think that the local chapters of the OpenID Foundation will (or
>  > at least should) weigh somehow on community board elections.  The
>  > community board should be balanced to represent OpenID communities
>  > around the World and finding a way to have local chapters help achieve
>  > this feels imperative.
>  >
>  > I want to start out by saying that I completely agree that we need to
>  > hold elections for the community board seats so that they are
>  > officially elected by the community!  That said, I am truly worried
>  > that the OpenID Foundation's membership is not actually in a position
>  > to do that yet.  Rather, it seems that as we still are not focusing on
>  > building the membership base, even if we hold elections in April/May
>  > (Mike's policy document was awesome btw) *the outcome still won't
>  > represent the community*.  In fact, we might be in a worse position
>  > where 20 members elect the board members for one or two years which is
>  > then seen as being representative of the community.  While it can be
>  > argued that even 20 members electing the community board is better
>  > than 0 members electing it, I'd much rather see us in a situation
>  > where even if it is another six months down the road we have 500
>  > members electing the board!
>  >
>  > Right now, the OpenID ecosystem is moving and growing faster than the
>  > Foundation or its board!  I would strongly advocate that we focus our
>  > energy today on making the Foundation match the growing community (as
>  > we did yesterday in Japan) before locking down the board for another
>  > two years; nearly the entire lifespan of OpenID itself.
>  >
>  > My $0.02,
>  > --David
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > board mailing list
>  > board at openid.net
>  > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  board mailing list
>  board at openid.net
>  http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/