Re: memberships

[glen e. p. ropella]

At 10:14 AM 1/14/00 -0800, you wrote:
> The whole point (as Cody pointed out in his first message) is that
> waiting until SDG is stable enough to be guaranteed worth contributing
> to is just the wrong way to think about our situation. We should be
> thinking "What do we have to do (buy in) to make sure we get the outcome
> we want- the persistence and growth of Swarm. We need to flap our
> butterfly wings and create those positive feedbacks that flip the system
> into a desired mode.

This is exactly the point!  The Swarm project (and I mean the project
as a whole, not just the software) has always been a grass-roots
project.  This is probably because that's how Chris works.  But, it
was adopted wholesale by the rest of us in GPLing the code and in
taking the risk that we would be seen as a kind of headless beast
because we didn't have a controlling headmaster.  The project has
always been a community effort.

To some extent, we've matured beyond that by forming the SDG,
because in doing that, we now have a legal interface to the rest
of the world (from which people often infer a more dictatorial
attitude and less of a grass-roots attitude).  This presents me
with the feeling that maybe we haven't stressed the fact that
Swarm and the SDG is *still* a grass-roots organization
and always will be.  We depend fundamentally on our community for
our goals, evaluation, criticism, compliments, and especially
our continued existence.

Obviously, there will be those who benefit without contributing,
in the same way that there are, say, US citizens who don't vote
but insist on complaining about their elected officials and
still use the public roads even though they don't like where they're
laid.  Becoming a member is the only chance anyone has of directing
the outcome.  Those who choose not to become members will have
very little influence in the community or in the development
of the product.  And if that message isn't clear enough already,
then there's not much more that can be done to get it across.

As it stands, we want members because we want you guys to
tell us, in unambiguous terms, what to work on.  And
individual members (wether they come to us through institutional
memberships or not) are what we need.  People that care enough
to help us reify a useful feature-set.

In the end, even if I weren't biased by my proximity to the
hive, I would join.  I would join (and continue to contribute
what little I can) purely out of my own self-interest.  I want
this package to address my needs.  And I won't be able to
influence the package development unless I'm considered part
of the community.  And I won't be considered a part of the
community unless I become a member.

So, my only recommendation to people who can't see their way
through to an institutional membership is that I wish they
would consider joining as Individuals in the same way they would
join the IEEE or the ACM, not for the magazines or the silly
little membership card, but for the privilege of having a say in
the outcome/effect the organization has.  Heck, I'm a member of
the ACM, AAAS, SCS, SIAM, and I contribute to Amnesty International.
I even give money to relief funds.  I don't do this as charity
any more than the Social Choice mutual funds are for charity.
I do it for the increased affinity in how I can affect the
communities in which I operate.

glen
p.s. Sorry for rambling.

--
glen e. p. ropella =><= Feeding the hamster wheel.  Hail Eris!
Home: http://www.swarm.com/gepr                (505) 424-0448
Work: http://www.swarm.com                      (505) 995-0818

                 ==================================
  Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
  to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
  [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
  with "help" in the body of the message.