First about the ASF.
This is not about ASF. ASF is just a mean to an IBM goal in that story.
Now, some individuals
This is not so much about individuals either... AOOo owe its existence
to Corporate politics and interest. It was by no stretch of the
imagination a grass root movement.
in the public interest.
Can you spare us the marketing line. Every similar 'Foundation'
operate under the same 'public interest' banner, which is a very broad
one, and does not means, contrary to what one would expect, 'in the
interest of the public'. (1)
There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test,
You mean except signing an iCLA ?
Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses.
Sure, but If Drew ask to be named V.P. of Community Development at
Apache, will he automatically get the job ? oh wait, no; I suppose he
has to, at least, become ASF member first...
wait, how one does become member at Apache ? humm... seems pretty
vague.... one cannot 'apply', one need to have buddies in the place
already to be 'proposed' for membership.... more like a Guild...
In the mean time Drew _is_ a member of TDF and as such is entitled to
run for BoD or MC, and of course to 'contribute in any manner he
chooses'... actually that later one does not even require membership,
or even signing up open ended liability agreement.
The question at hand is -- to avoid running BoD and MC election
concurrently, which would be a bad idea due to the necessary oversight
of each body on the election of the other -- how best organize the
transition to an elected MC. One proposition, that seems to be
favored, is to postpone the MC election to the middle of next year and
to re-conduct the current MC in the interim.
The problem is that the current MC does not have enough member to
conform to the foundation statute, as amended to fit the Host State
requirement. So we need to fill 1 MC member position and 3 MC deputy
Out current Bylaw provide that it is the prerogative of the BoD to
make such appointments. The only restriction established in the ByLaw
is that such appointees must be TDF members.
So every TDF member is eligible to such position, but none have any
'right' to it.
Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects.
Since it is BoD's members prerogative to make such appointment, it
does not seems strange at all that they'd ask questions, publicly or
privately, to prospective candidate and other interested party to make
And surely, when seeking a position of representation of the
membership -- which is the case of the MC, which represent the
membership in the process of evaluating the somewhat subjective
criteria of 'substantive contribution' -- it is expected that a higher
scrutiny be applied to questions of allegiance and purpose.
Of course all that will become moot in few months, when the membership
at large will be called-upon to make that decision. Still I would not
be surprised if that sort of questions -- if still of relevance --
were to pop-up during the election cycle.
(1) One could create an 'Charitable Association' whose purpose is to
help anyone prepare and fill software patents. That would most likely
fit the tax requirement to get a 'Charitable' tax-exempt status, which
is a 'public-interest' Association... It is nevertheless very arguable
whether that Association would be 'in the interest of the public'.