[CREATE] Libre Graphics Whatever - charter prototype

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

Coming late to discussion - I was going to stay out of it, but saw this
(edited for length)...

Jon Nordby wrote:
>> 3 Membership
>> Members can be any person or organization. Each member has one vote.
>> Decisions need 3/4 of the votes, elections to the board need 1/2 of the
>> votes. (TBD)
>
> _As I see it_, we want to provide a common face for libre graphics
> software, and not just for hobbyist and amateur users. We want it to
> be a professional level organization, so that we (in the long term)
> can make big things happen, often in contact and cooperation with
> other professional level organizations. If you do not see things the
> same way, please voice your opinion.
> 
> To make such an organization, at least in the start, I see three
> classes of projects/organizations as eligable for membership:
> 1) Projects making free and open source graphics software.
> 2) Related foundations, meta-projects and intrest organizations:
> 3) Commercial companies that use and support libre graphics software
> 
> Some differentiation between the different classes of members might be
> wanted, to insure the right mix. All the communication and conduct of
> the organization should be transparent to the wider public, but only
> members have a formal vote. Each member gets one vote, and is
> represented by an official rep and at least one vice-rep.

I'm pretty sure that you want members to be people, and not
organisations or projects - and definitely not both.

Several reasons come to mind:
* If people *and* organisations are members, some people (representing
themselves and the organisation) can have more than one vote. Someone
who represents 5 or 6 smaller projects could end up with lots.
* If only organisations are members, you are giving an inordinately
large voice to the smaller projects - larger projects like the GIMP run
the risk of having their community viewpoint drowned out by smaller projects
* You would need some kind of process (elections, for example) for
projects to name the person who gets to participate on behalf of the
project - which doesn't feel like a good or useful use of volunteer
time, and is a potential source of conflict.
* How do you define eligible projects? Is a one-person free software
graphics application OK? How about a company that has several products
(like Yorba, which makes Shotwell, Fillmore and Lombard - would they get
3 representatives or one? How about projects with no legal definition at
all, like the GIMP?

The unit in free software projects has always been the individual, not
the company or project, and I'd like to see it stay that way. I agree
that you need to have some barrier to entry to ensure a certain level of
engagement - and that barrier is hard to define. Peer referral and
invitation seems to me like the best way to handle that problem, but it
doesn't scale well over size or time. But how to ensure a high
engagement level of members is a different question, I think, to whether
you should have individuals or organisations as members.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
dneary at free.fr
Tel: +33 9 51 13 46 45
Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13