Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT systemics.com>]

Drew Lehman - DigitaTech wrote:
> I was looking at the policy for becoming a member.  While I now know why
> you require 4 eyes on each application, the process may drive away some
> potential contributers.  CAcert has, essentially, an OpenSource
> environment.  To grow the project, it requires a grassroots movement. 
> This means giving people a reason to be a part of the project.  Most
> people do not want to spend much effort, but may spread things by
> word-of-mouth.  The idea of offering people "membership" makes them feel
> like they are involved.  However, the sad truth is that most do not want
> to do what it takes to be a member under the current definition.  And
> honesty, you don't want these people in the current membership status.
> I am suggesting a membership class called "associate membership" which
> does not have voting rights, nor requires a fee.  This would allow for
> people to feel they are tied to the project. A compromise between
> members and associate members may even be to allow the associate members
> to vote as a group and be counted as a small portion of the membership vote.
> Just my 2 cents.

Yes, I think this is an issue.  It is too hard to become a 
members, such that even the association cannot manage the 
process.

There is however some need for 'gatekeeping'.  The 
association has the power to control and overturn things. 
How then to make it more appropriate to the needs of the 
community?

( Unfortunately, we can't do anything active about that 
right now as we have to do this SGM.  After that, it would 
be a good idea to propose alternates. )

What is the right way then to get people in as members?

One thing I would like to see considered is that members 
have to be Assurers (new definition, not old:  trained and 
tested).

Another idea is to consider how to bring in more input. 
E.g.,  maybe office holders get a "shadow vote" on any big 
issues.  That is, the can vote, but their vote is not 
binding, only reported to the board / association.

Or, maybe shadow votes for the associate members as you say 
above.

Yet another possibility:  give one vote to each of the 
foundations.  (There is only one right now:  Oophaga, but 
the new German one is to be formed some time.)

(All ideas to throw around.  Reminder:  right now, we need 
the members to do the SGM on a tight, focussed basis.)

iang