On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:30:37 +0200 (Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom) "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:16 AM > > > I see. but here's one question. Does this "meritocracy" > > encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status > > or hibernation status? > > This is something for the ASF membership to worry about. > IMO, inactiveness deserves a definition. <OffTopic> I took the word "meritocracy" rather as "eliticism" ... maybe ... "eliticism" can easily be tied to and associated with the "bureaucratism" (Since the country, Japan, is now suffering this prickly disease ... and still struggling against this ... need structural reforms) I worried the bureaucratization of the ASF ... probably. Metabolism (replace the old with the new) is the best way to avoid the bureaucratization. </OffTopic> Okay, as you mentioned, "inactiveness deserves a definition". I hope the membership of the ASF would be fair and disinterested enough to attract those who are the ASF committers (like me) and contributors. Thanks, Really appreciate your comments, Sander! __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
