-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pinkerton,
I applaud your effort.
I am going to tell you what the people here really want. They may not know
they want it, only because they don't understand what it really is.
What they want is to form a deliberative assembly. They want to get stuff
done in the name of the group, where the actions of the group reflect the
intentions and feelings of the people. They want representatives who truly
represent them. They are willing to sacrifice a bit of their freedom in the
name of expediency and fairness.
Other names that this kind of group have been given are and "organization"
and a "parliament". There are many more names I am sure you have heard of.
There are rules on how you form and run an organization, just like there are
rules for most things in life. These are rules we don't invent, but
discover. Think of them as rules of physics and not city ordinances.
Thousands of years of democratic experimentation hasn't been wrong in this.
The ancient Greeks experimented with the things you are playing with now.
The Romans continued the tradition. The flame passed to the British and
their system of communal involvement at every level. Then the Americans
modernized the system by being one of the first countries to formalize
their nation with a constitution. You are thinking of government. I am
thinking of a group of people who want to make decisions and get stuff
done. In fact, the Greeks, Romans, British, and Americans all formed
non-governmental organizations to represent groups of people to do
something.
I don't mean to discount the democracies who haven't followed this "blood
line". I don't know enough about them to comment. The one "bloodline" I do
know is sufficient.
At one point in our history, these rules were assumed. That means whenever a
group of people assembled for any reason, these rules took immediate
effect. Today, we still understand the basics. "All those in favor, say
'aye'.", "Majority rule", "I move that we blah blah blah", "Everyone gets a
turn to speak", etc...
Go grab a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Everyone else
interested in participating in the formation of the group should do so as
well. (Check you library for free copies. Or <shameless
plug>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738203076/002-0064544-8511268</shameless
plug>.) These rules weren't invented, so much as documented. Amendments
were made to the rules as people evolved in the way they handled
parliamentary procedure and with modern conveniences (telephones, email,
etc...)
There is an entire section on how to form an organization. Read it several
times and memorize key parts. Read it like you read a physics textbook, and
you will get a lot more done. Don't approach it as someone's really good
idea. It isn't. It is based on experimentation and experience and logic.
Here is the roadmap I believe you should follow:
Meet in person with a group of people you know and trust that want to form
the group. Elect a president pro tem and secretary pro tem. Pass a motion
to organize a group. Appoint a bylaws committee.
Get the bylaws committee to write bylaws. You'll want to include sections on
how you will interact over the internet, because that is important.
Approve the bylaws. Sign up the charter members. Elect the first officers.
Hold the first meeting. Note: You don't need to form a corporation or file
for non-profit status unless you want to handle large sums of money. I
believe you can do a lot without money, so I discourage it.
Begin holding regular meetings, and encouraging new participants to join.
Start doing things immediately as if you were the official group, *because
you are*. Your group will officially and legally represent the individuals
of that group.
Eventually, many people here will become members of the group. When that
becomes the case, people will begin seeing the group as the way to join the
movement. Your group will become the movement.
This is the only way you are going to transition between the benevolent
dictatorship of Meng to a true democracy.
Again, I have personal experience in these things. I strongly urge you to
consider following the rules in Robert's Rules.
On Monday 08 November 2004 12:53 am, jpinkerton wrote:
I see that : --
Summary:
There is a CONSENSUS among active participants of SPF-discuss mail
list that "SPF Community" will benefit from better organized structure
that can assume position as official caretaker of SPF protocol
documents and coordinate other activities related to SPF and there
is willingness of people to get involved in this organization.
Summary:
There is a ROUGH CONSENSUS that SPF Community should be a
self-organized group similar to IETF or some open-source projects and
should not right now become a legally organized civil body but that this
option should be open for the future and as such the structure of the
organization should permit creation of non-profit corporation based on it
in the future.
Summary:
There is a ROUGH CONSENSUS that SPF work should be done in a way
similar to IETF Working Group and that SPF leadership should encourage
discussions and help in determining and supporting positions which have
consensus of the community but should not make policies and key decisions
on their own
Summary:
There is a ROUGH CONSENSUS that SPF community should be led by group of
4-6 individuals. Its notable however that LARGE MINORITY believes that
group should be smaller and so numbers "4" or "5" are the ones most
closely representing what community wants. There were also several
(at least 3) comments that number of leaders should be odd which leaves
number "5" as best number of people to be in SPF leadership group.
In terms of moving things forward, is it appropriate to ask for
nominations for the 5 positions to be filled?
I suggest that it's a free-for-all to start with, being narrowed down by
rejecting any nominations that do not attract a seconder, and then
continuing to a vote.
The "Forum of Five" have the following mandate..
Summary:
There is a CONSENSUS that SPF community should be actively involved
in development and maintenance of official SPF website.
Summary:
There is FULL AGREEMENT that SPF Community should continue to develop
and publish official SPF standard protocol documents and it should
be the primary goal of SPF to insure the published SPF protocol
documents properly represent consensus of the community and that
SPF protocol is adapted and used as intended.
Summary:
There is NO CONSENSUS in SPF Community on if it should be directly
involved in development of libraries for SPF Protocol with MAJORITY
VIEW that it should not be involved in official way. I sense that
the majority think that we should continue to encourage and help in
development of libraries and implementations and provide help and
forum for developers to work together but should not designate any
one library as being official work of SPF Community
Summary:
There is ROUGH CONSENSUS that SPF Community should continue to
provide help and support to those who publish SPF records but there
appears to be view of many that it should be a secondary function for
SPF community as a way to help in adoption of SPF but support should
not become
primary
role of SPF organizational activity.
Summary:
There is FULL AGREEMENT that SPF Community should provide official
position on topics related to SPF and use media to ensure continued
public interest in SPF.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta
features SPF and Sender ID. To unsubscribe, change your address, or
temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBj+aqBFeYcclU5Q0RAvStAJ9UgSIIIz1kokkwvcVJnNIWXL7I3QCgucPc
7bkUBkXtZI2TOt44dYLSdvM=
=x6lY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----