Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
+1 if only because...
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues. I think the dues structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a member. I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford it. It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired.
- C
There are different aspects: there is the involvement of individual developers and there is the involvement of the company / university / organisation without which the developers would not be able to sustain development outside their spare time. So reducing involvement to a collection of individual members is not very representative of reality. If a company has put a lot a stake in a given technology (meaning not only financing a handful of developers) but taking a technological risk at supporting zope , it ought to weigh in the balance. Then of course everyone is free to do development in their spare time. regards /JM