Corporate involvement / balance / representation in Advisory Board makeup

[junosuarez]

The proposed advisory board charter states the purpose of:

long-term governance, structure, and roadmap of ... Node.js

and has the following makeup (13 seats total):

• Project Lead (TJ Fontaine)
• 2 seats for the top core technical contributors
• 4 corporate seats
• 4 “user” seats
• One curator seat (Chris Williams)
• One Open Source Software guidance seat (Danese Cooper)

Section 5.4 states criteria for user seats (excepted):

These seats are for organizations that are using Node.js. To be nominated, an end-user company must currently be using Node.js in production and have published a use case on the Node.js website.

Here are some questions I have based on this:

• Why is "user" defined that way when the "corporate" category also exists?
• How are "corporate" representatives chosen?
• Do the (consecutive) term limits for corporate representatives apply to the individual or to the corporation?
• Is it the same for "user" seats with regard to companies or other organizations they may represent?
• With the criteria as written, what is the process (and criteria) for getting a "use case published on the Node.js website"? Is this a marketing case study for Joyent?

In general, I'm curious about the proposed balance of corporate membership in the advisory board. What are the interests that Joyent is trying to represent and include, and how does this composition achieve that?

[FotoVerite]

What is the point of having issues if nobody on the board can answer any of them. These are important questions that deserve answers.