Mailing List Archive

2012/11/1 Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com>:
> I agree with Stefano's assessment, let's not kill one of the founding
> strengths of our community "before there is proof that openness and
> easy access is bad for OpenStack".

I hope you're not proposing we wait until someone actually succesfully
coups the board before discussing how we can prevent this from happening?

The OpenStack foundation bylaws are a tremendous body of legal documents
describing processes, rules, etc. trying to take everything into account
*before* it becomes an issue. I don't understand this reluctance to
apply the same due diligence to our election procedures.

I think it's worth considering if we got a sound result from the
election *because* of the election rules we have or if we got sound a
sound result *in spite* of the election rules we have.

Having sound results from the election is no indication that we've got
it all worked out. A perfectly fair election, a random draw, a decree
from the executive director, etc. could all produce the same result.
However, the only way to ensure *consistently* sound results, is to have
a sound process.

--
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 Mon 05 Nov 2012 10:12:52 AM CET, Soren Hansen wrote:
> I hope you're not proposing we wait until someone actually succesfully
> coups the board before discussing how we can prevent this from happening?

What I'm advocating is letting the board work in serenity without this
constant chorus of delegitimisation, which I believe is exagerated. I
remember that people on this list were aware of the risks of having a
fully open membership while drafting the bylaws; measures were put in
place to avoid one organisation to become too powerful at the board
level. Can this openness become messy? It sure can but it's a founding
principle of OpenStack and I think we should defend it.

I think that the role of Individual Director needs to be clarified
because I believe there is some confusion on what it represents. I
believe it's a role that is not there to represent small corporations
that can't afford Gold or Platinum sponsorship levels. I believe the
Individual Director should defend the project's principles as a whole,
the mission of the Foundation, as people that care about an 'open
cloud', independently from the origin of their paycheck.

FWIW, I think the FSF and OSI should promote their members to join
OpenStack Foundation too and pay attention to this project because IMHO
it's as important as the GNU project itself.

One relevant improvement I advocate is to get rid of cumulative voting
and switch to condorcet, so we can vote *down* people, too.

I hope I have clarified my views.
/stef

--
this is my opinion and not that of my current, former and even future
employers

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

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org> wrote:

> I think that the role of Individual Director needs to be clarified because I
> believe there is some confusion on what it represents. I believe it's a role
> that is not there to represent small corporations that can't afford Gold or
> Platinum sponsorship levels. I believe the Individual Director should defend
> the project's principles as a whole, the mission of the Foundation, as
> people that care about an 'open cloud', independently from the origin of
> their paycheck.
>
>

++1

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