Mailing List Archive

Hi,

Le mercredi 03 octobre 2012, à 23:19 -0500, Jonathan Bryce a écrit :
> The Board of Directors of the OpenStack Foundation will be meeting on
> October 15th 2012 at 11:00am PDT. The meeting will take place in
> person at the San Diego Manchester Grand Hyatt and also by remote
> teleconference.
>
> The agenda is being drafted on the wiki:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMeeting

Could the board take some time to discuss how to proceed with the next
elections?

There are specifically three items I'd like to see discussed:

+ timeline for the next elections (due in January 2013)

+ after-action report from the inspectors; we sent it last month:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-September/001113.html

For instance, I see there's already a board meeting planned for
January 31st. It seems that would leave at least one week to the
inspectors to verify the results, which is good.

+ possible changes to election rules; the election statistics published
last week triggered some discussion about what some people see as a
flaw in how things are currently set up:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html

There were several ideas raised before the elections in August to at
least mitigate this flaw, but we couldn't implement them because it
was too late. I really want to get this improved for the next
elections, and I think it's safe to assume I'm not the only one :-)

Thanks,

Vincent

--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 08:41 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> + possible changes to election rules; the election statistics published
> last week triggered some discussion about what some people see as a
> flaw in how things are currently set up:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html
>
> There were several ideas raised before the elections in August to at
> least mitigate this flaw, but we couldn't implement them because it
> was too late. I really want to get this improved for the next
> elections, and I think it's safe to assume I'm not the only one :-)

Good point. To make the discussion easier for the board, here's an
attempt to summarize the positions taken on the thread:

1) The "2 seats per company" limit did its job and limited the
damage.

2) We should use a different voting method like Condorcet because it
allows voters to express which candidates they like least which
partially offsets the effect of a large block of voters.

3) Increase the barrier to entry for Foundation members by e.g.
requiring them to make a public statement of their interest in
Openstack or having a membership committee which openly vets
applications

4) Reduce the number of directors allowed to be affiliated with a
single company from two to one

5) Introduce a membership subscription charge

My own preference is (3) and (2) sounds plausible except that I haven't
taken the time to fully understand how Condorcet.

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Mark,

Thanks for summarizing. FWIW, I concur with your summary.

Personally, I don't think that either (2) or (3) effectively address the concerns. I'd be opposed to a membership
committee making such decisions.

I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation
to a single individual from an affiliated entity, period.

(5) raises the bar sufficiently, but needs (4) as well to remove temptation. Concerns regarding the fee for academics
and prospective members for whom the expense presents a significant challenge could be addressed
by virtue of some form of assistance. Linux Foundation offers a $25 USD student fee, for instance, and the
individual membership also yields a discount on LinuxCon attendance.

This is too important an issue to be left unaddressed.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
Twitter: christo4ferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

-----Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote: -----To: Vincent Untz <vuntz@suse.com>
From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
Date: 10/11/2012 07:10AM
Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting - October 15th

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 08:41 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> + possible changes to election rules; the election statistics published
> last week triggered some discussion about what some people see as a
> flaw in how things are currently set up:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html"]http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html
>
> There were several ideas raised before the elections in August to at
> least mitigate this flaw, but we couldn't implement them because it
> was too late. I really want to get this improved for the next
> elections, and I think it's safe to assume I'm not the only one :-)

Good point. To make the discussion easier for the board, here's an
attempt to summarize the positions taken on the thread:

1) The "2 seats per company" limit did its job and limited the
damage.

2) We should use a different voting method like Condorcet because it
allows voters to express which candidates they like least which
partially offsets the effect of a large block of voters.

3) Increase the barrier to entry for Foundation members by e.g.
requiring them to make a public statement of their interest in
Openstack or having a membership committee which openly vets
applications

4) Reduce the number of directors allowed to be affiliated with a
single company from two to one

5) Introduce a membership subscription charge

My own preference is (3) and (2) sounds plausible except that I haven't
taken the time to fully understand how Condorcet.

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation"]http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:24 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that either (2) or (3) effectively address
> the concerns. I'd be opposed to a membership committee making such
> decisions.

To be clear, the "membership committee" idea is just one way of raising
the barrier to membership. I'm raising it as an idea because I've seen
it work in GNOME. It can be done very inclusively, openly and
transparently. I probably shouldn't have included it in the summary as
it just confuses the issue. My bad.

I think there's actually more agreement behind around the idea of
members making a public statement of their interest in OpenStack. There
would be no vetting of this statement, but the fact that it is published
would give pause to any potential members who have no real involvement
in OpenStack.

> I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
> adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
> individual from an affiliated entity, period.

That's certainly one view. My view is that the foundation board would
benefit from the input of affiliated directors who are explicitly
representing the individual members rather than their employer.

In an perfect world, I'd like to see no limit to affiliated individual
directors and trust the individual members to choose directors they can
trust to act on their behalf. The limit is there to prevent the
appearance of a company dominating the board, not because affiliated
directors can't be trusted to represent the individual members rather
than their employer.

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
>> adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
>> individual from an affiliated entity, period.
>
> That's certainly one view. My view is that the foundation board would
> benefit from the input of affiliated directors who are explicitly
> representing the individual members rather than their employer.

+1

> In an perfect world, I'd like to see no limit to affiliated individual
> directors and trust the individual members to choose directors they can
> trust to act on their behalf. The limit is there to prevent the
> appearance of a company dominating the board, not because affiliated
> directors can't be trusted to represent the individual members rather
> than their employer.

Agreed: the "individual directors" tier is not there to add more
diversity to the set of companies being represented, it is there to
represent the individual members, a significant portion of which will
work for companies that already own a seat in the other two tiers.

So I think the "two directors" limit is a good trade-off: it allows any
individual member (including those that happen to work for a company
that owns a seat) to run for election, while providing a safeguard to
avoid undue board control by a single company.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Mark,

I'd be interested in more background on how GNOME handles membership. Is there objective criteria
that are applied? If a request is declined, is there an appeals process? Must the objective criteria be
cited in the declined request?

As for a statement being sufficient, I can appreciate that some believe it sufficient. I am merely stating
that I don't believe that it is. Unless they are vetted, company X could send out an email with suggested
statements and the barrier is thus circumvented.

Bottom line, we do not live in a perfect world. The individual members can be equally represented
by individuals who are unaffiliated with existing Board members, and there is ample opportunity on the
various mailing lists to have one's voice heard; just as we are doing here.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
Twitter: christo4ferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

-----Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote: -----To: Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
Date: 10/11/2012 08:36AM
Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org, Vincent Untz <vuntz@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting - October 15th

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:24 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that either (2) or (3) effectively address
> the concerns. I'd be opposed to a membership committee making such
> decisions.

To be clear, the "membership committee" idea is just one way of raising
the barrier to membership. I'm raising it as an idea because I've seen
it work in GNOME. It can be done very inclusively, openly and
transparently. I probably shouldn't have included it in the summary as
it just confuses the issue. My bad.

I think there's actually more agreement behind around the idea of
members making a public statement of their interest in OpenStack. There
would be no vetting of this statement, but the fact that it is published
would give pause to any potential members who have no real involvement
in OpenStack.

> I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
> adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
> individual from an affiliated entity, period.

That's certainly one view. My view is that the foundation board would
benefit from the input of affiliated directors who are explicitly
representing the individual members rather than their employer.

In an perfect world, I'd like to see no limit to affiliated individual
directors and trust the individual members to choose directors they can
trust to act on their behalf. The limit is there to prevent the
appearance of a company dominating the board, not because affiliated
directors can't be trusted to represent the individual members rather
than their employer.

Cheers,
Mark.

2012/10/11 Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>:
> I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
> adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation
> to a single individual from an affiliated entity, period.

I think this would be a grave mistake.

If every single member of the community wanted the same two specific
individuals to be on the board, but they just happened to work for the
same company, why should that exclude one of them? This is a theoretical
situation, of course, but it demonstrates the point:

The goal shouldn't be to limit who gets elected. The goal is to prevent
a company from unduly affecting the results of the election. These are
orthogonal concerns. They only align somewhat under the assumption that
employees of a particular company only vote for candidates from their
own company and that noone outside said company votes for them.

If the community in general (i.e. not just those affiliated with a
particular company) find that some people are the best fits for the
board, those are the ones we should have on the board. So what if they
part of the same organisation?

It's not hard to imagine discussions where the two opposing positions
were favourable to corporate contributors and favourable to individual
contributors, respectively. The one-individual-per-company policy does
absolutely nothing to prevent large companies to fill the
board with individuals favourable to their goals.

Condorcet or STV would both be vast improvements over the current
election system, but if we're really concerned that large companies
excert too influence, why don't we limit the number of voters?

What if employees of platinum members couldn't vote at all? They already
have a representative on the board.

What if we weren't allowed to vote for people from our own company?

What if we flipped the vote upside down and instead of electing the
people who gets the most votes *for* them, we elect the people with the
least votes *against* them?

There are plenty of options that haven't been explored at all here.

--
Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:57 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I'd be interested in more background on how GNOME handles membership.

Tonnes of info here:

https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee

All parts of the process are open and archived here:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/membership-committee/

> Is there objective criteria that are applied?

https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/MembershipGuidelines

"Examples of non-trivial contributions include hacking, bugfixing,
extensive testing, design, documentation, translation,
administration or maintenance of project-wide resources, giving
GNOME talks at conferences and community coordination such as
bugzilla or release management. Any activity, such as advocacy or
submitting bug reports, must substantially exceed the level of
contribution expected of an ordinary user or fan of the project to
qualify an individual for membership in the Foundation."

I like this criteria, but obviously a membership committee could have an
even more inclusive criteria.

> If a request is declined, is there an appeals process?

The committee will reconsider a rejection if you give more info. I'm not
sure if you can escalate beyond that.

> Must the objective criteria be cited in the declined request?

https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/FormLetters#Application_denied
>
> As for a statement being sufficient, I can appreciate that some
> believe it sufficient. I am merely stating that I don't believe that
> it is. Unless they are vetted, company X could send out an email with
> suggested statements and the barrier is thus circumvented.

Imagine if any of the large voting blocks in the recent election had
taken such a strategy. It would have been obvious to everyone (the
statements would be public) and there would be uproar. Social pressure.

> Bottom line, we do not live in a perfect world. The individual members
> can be equally represented by individuals who are unaffiliated with
> existing Board members, and there is ample opportunity on the various
> mailing lists to have one's voice heard; just as we are doing here.

We have elections because we think that some candidates will represent
the individual members better than other candidates. IMHO there are a
number of affiliated candidates who would I would prefer to see
representing us over some of the unaffiliated candidates.

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Le jeudi 11 octobre 2012, à 13:35 +0100, Mark McLoughlin a écrit :
> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:24 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think that either (2) or (3) effectively address
> > the concerns. I'd be opposed to a membership committee making such
> > decisions.
>
> To be clear, the "membership committee" idea is just one way of raising
> the barrier to membership. I'm raising it as an idea because I've seen
> it work in GNOME. It can be done very inclusively, openly and
> transparently. I probably shouldn't have included it in the summary as
> it just confuses the issue. My bad.

It works rather well in GNOME, and I think it's a good model (if the
rules that the committee uses are inclusive -- which is the case in
GNOME).

That being said, we have a really high number of members in OpenStack,
and that would be quite an amount of work for the committee -- unless we
make it easy for the committee to find information on the applicants.
For instance, in openSUSE, we can click a few links to find if someone
is active in the project (comments in bugzilla, posts in the mailing
lists, forums, etc.). Still, there are often cases where things are not
clear and manual work is needed...

(I've been on the GNOME membership committee years ago, and also in the
similar committee for openSUSE)

Cheers,

Vincent

--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

There's been many interesting ideas raised on this list about the individual member elections, and I've proposed to Alan and Jonathan that there be some discussion at the Board meeting.

Lloyd's suggestion that the 2 affiliate rule become 1 affiliate is worth considering because there are so many other individuals and companies involved with OpenStack. This might also mature the Foundation by moving the concentration of representation from the founding community towards a wider community. Like a child growing up and spreading its wings, seeking to make its own way in the world, OpenStack is ready for new associations.

Soren's suggestions are innovative, for example, not being able to vote for your own company. With his other suggestion in mind, perhaps in addition to platinum, even gold member companies with a seat could be excluded.

Discussion of the voting of the companies with many members is always going to be a delicate issue. De facto, this can become an unintentional 'crowding out' such that the result is not truly representative of the wider constituency. Is this what we all want to see? I think not.

Further ideas are the imposition of qualification for membership; or a membership fee (scaled to not exclude developing nations).

Mark's suggestions that we learn from others like GNOME, the membership committee, and several people have raised members making a public statement, more worthwhile considerations?

There are likely other suggestions that I've missed in these busy past few weeks.

As the reach of OpenStack extends across the globe, (I see how many more international user groups there are now since the Australian user group started a year ago), it's going to become important to have a good international representation on the Board. Also, and perhaps more imperative, is that we take the summits and meetings on the road.

Presently, by my calculation, of the 24 (Members??) there's 5 of us from countries outside the US, 4 individuals and 1 gold. This is not really representative of the emerging community.

National elections in Germany, New Zealand and other countries have moved away from the "first past the post" system that exists now in the Foundation due to identified inadequacies in proper representation. Adoption of a more democratic scheme of election there has not caused the sky to fall on their heads.

The ideal goal of an election is that it is truly representative.

Cheers
Tristan

PS.
Not on this topic but while we're discussing the internationalisation of Openstack, @mikal suggested a great idea to me yesterday. A sponsored travel program could be introduced for people whose location is more remote and who are significantly contributing to code. They may be independent or perhaps work for companies that cannot, or will not, send them to summits.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soren Hansen [mailto:soren@linux2go.dk]
> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012 12:10 AM
> To: Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; Vincent Untz
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting - October 15th
>
> 2012/10/11 Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>:
> > I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
> > adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
> > individual from an affiliated entity, period.
>
> I think this would be a grave mistake.
>
> If every single member of the community wanted the same two specific individuals
> to be on the board, but they just happened to work for the same company, why
> should that exclude one of them? This is a theoretical situation, of course, but it
> demonstrates the point:
>
> The goal shouldn't be to limit who gets elected. The goal is to prevent a company
> from unduly affecting the results of the election. These are orthogonal concerns.
> They only align somewhat under the assumption that employees of a particular
> company only vote for candidates from their own company and that noone outside
> said company votes for them.
>
> If the community in general (i.e. not just those affiliated with a particular company)
> find that some people are the best fits for the board, those are the ones we should
> have on the board. So what if they part of the same organisation?
>
> It's not hard to imagine discussions where the two opposing positions were
> favourable to corporate contributors and favourable to individual contributors,
> respectively. The one-individual-per-company policy does absolutely nothing to
> prevent large companies to fill the board with individuals favourable to their goals.
>
> Condorcet or STV would both be vast improvements over the current election
> system, but if we're really concerned that large companies excert too influence, why
> don't we limit the number of voters?
>
> What if employees of platinum members couldn't vote at all? They already have a
> representative on the board.
>
> What if we weren't allowed to vote for people from our own company?
>
> What if we flipped the vote upside down and instead of electing the people who gets
> the most votes *for* them, we elect the people with the least votes *against* them?
>
> There are plenty of options that haven't been explored at all here.
>
> --
> Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
> Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
> Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
> OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com> wrote:

> There's been many interesting ideas raised on this list about the
> individual member elections, and I've proposed to Alan and Jonathan that
> there be some discussion at the Board meeting.
>
> Lloyd's suggestion that the 2 affiliate rule become 1 affiliate is worth
> considering because there are so many other individuals and companies
> involved with OpenStack. This might also mature the Foundation by moving
> the concentration of representation from the founding community towards a
> wider community. Like a child growing up and spreading its wings, seeking
> to make its own way in the world, OpenStack is ready for new associations.
>
> Soren's suggestions are innovative, for example, not being able to vote
> for your own company. With his other suggestion in mind, perhaps in
> addition to platinum, even gold member companies with a seat could be
> excluded.
>
> Discussion of the voting of the companies with many members is always
> going to be a delicate issue. De facto, this can become an unintentional
> 'crowding out' such that the result is not truly representative of the
> wider constituency. Is this what we all want to see? I think not.
>
> Further ideas are the imposition of qualification for membership; or a
> membership fee (scaled to not exclude developing nations).
>
> Mark's suggestions that we learn from others like GNOME, the membership
> committee, and several people have raised members making a public
> statement, more worthwhile considerations?
>
> There are likely other suggestions that I've missed in these busy past few
> weeks.
>
> As the reach of OpenStack extends across the globe, (I see how many more
> international user groups there are now since the Australian user group
> started a year ago), it's going to become important to have a good
> international representation on the Board. Also, and perhaps more
> imperative, is that we take the summits and meetings on the road.
>
> Presently, by my calculation, of the 24 (Members??) there's 5 of us from
> countries outside the US, 4 individuals and 1 gold. This is not really
> representative of the emerging community.
>
> National elections in Germany, New Zealand and other countries have moved
> away from the "first past the post" system that exists now in the
> Foundation due to identified inadequacies in proper representation.
> Adoption of a more democratic scheme of election there has not caused the
> sky to fall on their heads.
>
> The ideal goal of an election is that it is truly representative.
>
> Cheers
> Tristan
>
> PS.
> Not on this topic but while we're discussing the internationalisation of
> Openstack, @mikal suggested a great idea to me yesterday. A sponsored
> travel program could be introduced for people whose location is more remote
> and who are significantly contributing to code. They may be independent or
> perhaps work for companies that cannot, or will not, send them to summits.
>

+1

The PSF has a similar "financial aid" program for attendees of PyCon US. I
don't know the particulars, but can put you in touch with the people who
do, if you're interested.

Doug


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Soren Hansen [mailto:soren@linux2go.dk]
> > Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012 12:10 AM
> > To: Christopher B Ferris
> > Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; Vincent Untz
> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting - October 15th
> >
> > 2012/10/11 Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>:
> > > I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
> > > adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
> > > individual from an affiliated entity, period.
> >
> > I think this would be a grave mistake.
> >
> > If every single member of the community wanted the same two specific
> individuals
> > to be on the board, but they just happened to work for the same company,
> why
> > should that exclude one of them? This is a theoretical situation, of
> course, but it
> > demonstrates the point:
> >
> > The goal shouldn't be to limit who gets elected. The goal is to prevent
> a company
> > from unduly affecting the results of the election. These are orthogonal
> concerns.
> > They only align somewhat under the assumption that employees of a
> particular
> > company only vote for candidates from their own company and that noone
> outside
> > said company votes for them.
> >
> > If the community in general (i.e. not just those affiliated with a
> particular company)
> > find that some people are the best fits for the board, those are the
> ones we should
> > have on the board. So what if they part of the same organisation?
> >
> > It's not hard to imagine discussions where the two opposing positions
> were
> > favourable to corporate contributors and favourable to individual
> contributors,
> > respectively. The one-individual-per-company policy does absolutely
> nothing to
> > prevent large companies to fill the board with individuals favourable to
> their goals.
> >
> > Condorcet or STV would both be vast improvements over the current
> election
> > system, but if we're really concerned that large companies excert too
> influence, why
> > don't we limit the number of voters?
> >
> > What if employees of platinum members couldn't vote at all? They already
> have a
> > representative on the board.
> >
> > What if we weren't allowed to vote for people from our own company?
> >
> > What if we flipped the vote upside down and instead of electing the
> people who gets
> > the most votes *for* them, we elect the people with the least votes
> *against* them?
> >
> > There are plenty of options that haven't been explored at all here.
> >
> > --
> > Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
> > Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
> > Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
> > OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foundation mailing list
> > Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

FYI

the link to remote participation is


https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/j.php?ED=206774562&UID=1451420772&RT=MiM3


(also on the wiki where the agenda is)

On 10/03/2012 09:19 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> The agenda is being drafted on the wiki:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMeeting

/stef

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Hi everyone,

Since it takes us a few weeks to turn around the official minutes, I wanted to share a short summary from the Board meeting Monday. We met Monday at the Summit, from 11:00 am to a little past 5:00 pm. You can see the full planned agenda here: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMeeting

We were not able to get to all items, but did cover a number of different topics. We started with an antitrust review from legal counsel and then talked about improving some of the Board meeting procedures so Board meetings are effective and we can produce minutes and summaries more efficiently. We went through a number of procedural approvals. Mark Collier and I did a management update and briefly touched on some plans for the next year ahead, primarily around encouraging user adoption, continuing to involve users, supporting the development of the software and educating the market. After that we reviewed Gold Member candidate applications and finally did a finance review with a few additional Board finance approvals.

Decisions that were made:
- Approved the minutes from the September 18th Board call (http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/18Sept2012BoardMinutes)
- Approved Thierry Carrez as the Technical Committee Chair, as recommended by the Technical Committee
- Appointed Brad Haque (SUSE), Alice King (Rackspace), Steve Pentlicki (ATT), Andrew Sinclair (Canonical), and Nissa Strottman (HP) to the Legal Committee
- Approved the Creative Commons CC-BY license for the documentation and content license going forward
- Approved an updated signing authority policy, an accounting firm for the Foundation and the budget for the remainder of 2012
- Approved eNovance's application to become a Gold Member of the Foundation (see also http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/PotentialMemberCriteria)

We were not able to get to all of the discussion topics, but will be scheduling a follow-up remote meeting in the next few weeks to continue those discussion items and review and approve the 2013 budget.

We are hoping to speed up the approval process for the official meeting minutes this time around, but it will still likely take a couple of weeks to produce the minutes and get all approvals. We will let everyone know when the minutes are posted to the wiki and when follow on meetings are scheduled. Feel free to reach out to me or Alan with any questions. Thanks,

Jonathan
210-317-2438
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 18:06 -0700, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Since it takes us a few weeks to turn around the official minutes, I
> wanted to share a short summary from the Board meeting Monday.

Thanks! These notes are probably even more useful than the formal
minutes themselves, even aside from the turnaround time :)

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks, this is useful info, and having it so fast is great! I have one
question below:

Le mercredi 17 octobre 2012, à 18:06 -0700, Jonathan Bryce a écrit :
> - Approved an updated signing authority policy, an accounting firm for the Foundation and the budget for the remainder of 2012
[...]
> We were not able to get to all of the discussion topics, but will be scheduling a follow-up remote meeting in the next few weeks to continue those discussion items and review and approve the 2013 budget.

Will the budget (2012 for now, 2013 when it'll get approved) be
available publicly?

Thanks,

Vincent

--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Oct 14, 2012, 9:11 AM, Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com> ÀÛ¼º:

> PS.
> Not on this topic but while we're discussing the internationalisation of Openstack, @mikal suggested a great idea to me yesterday. A sponsored travel program could be introduced for people whose location is more remote and who are significantly contributing to code. They may be independent or perhaps work for companies that cannot, or will not, send them to summits.
>

Hi Tristan,

+1 to discuss more ideas to support international communities and/or members.
I had a similar idea regarding a sponsored travel program for OpenStack APAC conference by myself.
In addition, I know that there has been a similar proposal from Korean government agency to figure out how to encourage local developers (students) to become active participants in global open source community.
I think it is possible for openstack community to collaborate with them (korean government agency) in some part.

Especially, IMHO, we need to have a good way to encourage current/potential contributors in non-english speaking countries. (I am using a word "contribution" not only for code contribution, but also for various types of contribution we can define.)

Let me know if you need any support / help on this "internationalization" of OpenStack.

Cheers,


--
Jaesuk Ahn, Ph.D.
Team Leader | Cloud OS Dev. Team
Cloud Infrastructure Department
KT (Korea Telecom)
T. +82-10-9888-0328 | F. +82-303-0993-5340
Active member on OpenStack Korea Community






>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Soren Hansen [mailto:soren@linux2go.dk]
>> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012 12:10 AM
>> To: Christopher B Ferris
>> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; Vincent Untz
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting - October 15th
>>
>> 2012/10/11 Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>:
>>> I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
>>> adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
>>> individual from an affiliated entity, period.
>>
>> I think this would be a grave mistake.
>>
>> If every single member of the community wanted the same two specific individuals
>> to be on the board, but they just happened to work for the same company, why
>> should that exclude one of them? This is a theoretical situation, of course, but it
>> demonstrates the point:
>>
>> The goal shouldn't be to limit who gets elected. The goal is to prevent a company
>> from unduly affecting the results of the election. These are orthogonal concerns.
>> They only align somewhat under the assumption that employees of a particular
>> company only vote for candidates from their own company and that noone outside
>> said company votes for them.
>>
>> If the community in general (i.e. not just those affiliated with a particular company)
>> find that some people are the best fits for the board, those are the ones we should
>> have on the board. So what if they part of the same organisation?
>>
>> It's not hard to imagine discussions where the two opposing positions were
>> favourable to corporate contributors and favourable to individual contributors,
>> respectively. The one-individual-per-company policy does absolutely nothing to
>> prevent large companies to fill the board with individuals favourable to their goals.
>>
>> Condorcet or STV would both be vast improvements over the current election
>> system, but if we're really concerned that large companies excert too influence, why
>> don't we limit the number of voters?
>>
>> What if employees of platinum members couldn't vote at all? They already have a
>> representative on the board.
>>
>> What if we weren't allowed to vote for people from our own company?
>>
>> What if we flipped the vote upside down and instead of electing the people who gets
>> the most votes *for* them, we elect the people with the least votes *against* them?
>>
>> There are plenty of options that haven't been explored at all here.
>>
>> --
>> Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
>> Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
>> Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
>> OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>