Mailing List Archive

Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted
Dear OpenStack Foundation Members,

There has been much discussion in the Community recently, including during the breakfast with the Board sessions at the last Summit, regarding how Individual Members are elected to the Board. As a result of this feedback, the Board has begun discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process and wants to solicit additional community input on some steps for future elections. Informal conversations after the Summit led the Board, as a first step, to establish a sub-committee composed of primarily Individual Members. That sub-committee distilled the ideas received to date into a few critical issues in order that the Board can go back to the Community with proposals for review and comment, and work towards implementing reforms if necessary.

In the course of these meetings and during the Board meeting of November 2, the sub-committee and the Board considered a broad range of options for improvements to the Individual Member Director election process and rules, including those that would require a change to the bylaws of the Foundation. An etherpad detailing all of the potential options explored and discussed is at https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals.

Given the short time between the November 2 Board meeting and the commencement of the January 2013 Individual Member Director election process in late November (request for nominations), the sub-committee and Board concluded that it would not be feasible to make any changes to the process for this election cycle that would require a change to the bylaws and approval by the Foundation membership. However, a number of well thought out options were developed that would not require a change to the bylaws to be adopted for the January 2013 elections, and we would like to present these proposals to the Community and Membership for discussion and feedback, as set out below. The Board would like to emphasise to the Community that Individual Member Director election process proposals that do require bylaw changes will definitely be a priority for the Board and membership following the January 2013 election, with plenty of time for careful framing, discussion, debate and adoption prior to the January 2014 election."

There were four proposed actions for improvement of election processes that the Board identified as being able to be implemented in the short term which would not require bylaw changes and the Board wishes to present these to the Community for wider discussion.

Firstly, for the August 2012 election, four questions were produced from mailing list input and put to each election candidate, some of whom responded and some did not. It is the Board's recommendation that we develop this into a compulsory procedure where a nominated candidate is required to make a clear statement of the candidate's contribution to OpenStack. How this is proposed to be structured is open for the Community to discuss, be it reliant on the existing four questions or extended into further qualitative or quantitative measures. The Board feels it is very important for the nominees to present this information clearly for the Community's informed choice.

Secondly, the Board would like to more clearly inform the electorate on the reasons for individual members of the Board and explain their role, the importance of diversity on the Board, be that international, cultural, technological, gender or otherwise, the role of the Individual members for who and or what they represent, and provide guidance for members to use these criteria to assess their voting choice.

Thirdly, the Board asks that all organisations act honourably, be respectful and demonstrate responsibility and guide their staff to vote according to the best interests of the Community, and not their organisation. OpenStack's life blood is the Community. By implementing suitable measures in place from the first and second proposals providing detailed explanations of candidate contribution and with Foundation guidance of the functions of the Individual Members, the Board is hopeful this will inspire everyone to make an informed choice and vote for candidates who best represent the Community.

Fourthly, the Board is exploring options not requiring by-law changes and that fall within the current cumulative voting structure which will help to create a balanced representation of candidates from affiliated organisations, independents and minorities.

The Board are meeting on the 16th of November and seek to approve and publish the results of these Community proposals on the 19th of November, a week before the Individual nominations open on November 26th.

As a supplement to the discussion on this Foundation mailing list, We have provided an etherpad for discussion of these four short term proposals at https://etherpad.openstack.org/2013-Individual-Elections, and Board members will be maintaining a presence in #openstack-community for general Q and A .


Regards,
OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Is it just me or is the second etherpad :
https://etherpad.openstack.org/2013-Individual-Elections completely
blank?

-Matt

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> wrote:
> Dear OpenStack Foundation Members,
>
> There has been much discussion in the Community recently, including during the breakfast with the Board sessions at the last Summit, regarding how Individual Members are elected to the Board. As a result of this feedback, the Board has begun discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process and wants to solicit additional community input on some steps for future elections. Informal conversations after the Summit led the Board, as a first step, to establish a sub-committee composed of primarily Individual Members. That sub-committee distilled the ideas received to date into a few critical issues in order that the Board can go back to the Community with proposals for review and comment, and work towards implementing reforms if necessary.
>
> In the course of these meetings and during the Board meeting of November 2, the sub-committee and the Board considered a broad range of options for improvements to the Individual Member Director election process and rules, including those that would require a change to the bylaws of the Foundation. An etherpad detailing all of the potential options explored and discussed is at https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals.
>
> Given the short time between the November 2 Board meeting and the commencement of the January 2013 Individual Member Director election process in late November (request for nominations), the sub-committee and Board concluded that it would not be feasible to make any changes to the process for this election cycle that would require a change to the bylaws and approval by the Foundation membership. However, a number of well thought out options were developed that would not require a change to the bylaws to be adopted for the January 2013 elections, and we would like to present these proposals to the Community and Membership for discussion and feedback, as set out below. The Board would like to emphasise to the Community that Individual Member Director election process proposals that do require bylaw changes will definitely be a priority for the Board and membership following the January 2013 election, with plenty of time for careful framing, discussion, debate and adoption prior to the January 2014 election."
>
> There were four proposed actions for improvement of election processes that the Board identified as being able to be implemented in the short term which would not require bylaw changes and the Board wishes to present these to the Community for wider discussion.
>
> Firstly, for the August 2012 election, four questions were produced from mailing list input and put to each election candidate, some of whom responded and some did not. It is the Board's recommendation that we develop this into a compulsory procedure where a nominated candidate is required to make a clear statement of the candidate's contribution to OpenStack. How this is proposed to be structured is open for the Community to discuss, be it reliant on the existing four questions or extended into further qualitative or quantitative measures. The Board feels it is very important for the nominees to present this information clearly for the Community's informed choice.
>
> Secondly, the Board would like to more clearly inform the electorate on the reasons for individual members of the Board and explain their role, the importance of diversity on the Board, be that international, cultural, technological, gender or otherwise, the role of the Individual members for who and or what they represent, and provide guidance for members to use these criteria to assess their voting choice.
>
> Thirdly, the Board asks that all organisations act honourably, be respectful and demonstrate responsibility and guide their staff to vote according to the best interests of the Community, and not their organisation. OpenStack's life blood is the Community. By implementing suitable measures in place from the first and second proposals providing detailed explanations of candidate contribution and with Foundation guidance of the functions of the Individual Members, the Board is hopeful this will inspire everyone to make an informed choice and vote for candidates who best represent the Community.
>
> Fourthly, the Board is exploring options not requiring by-law changes and that fall within the current cumulative voting structure which will help to create a balanced representation of candidates from affiliated organisations, independents and minorities.
>
> The Board are meeting on the 16th of November and seek to approve and publish the results of these Community proposals on the 19th of November, a week before the Individual nominations open on November 26th.
>
> As a supplement to the discussion on this Foundation mailing list, We have provided an etherpad for discussion of these four short term proposals at https://etherpad.openstack.org/2013-Individual-Elections, and Board members will be maintaining a presence in #openstack-community for general Q and A .
>
>
> Regards,
> OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Matt,

I have copied over the 4 proposals to the etherpad with some space in
between to group the discussion points.

If you've got comments on the specific proposals, you can make them there as
input or on this list if you'd like further discussion/clarification.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Joyce [mailto:matt@nycresistor.com]
> Sent: 13 November 2012 20:16
> To: Alan Clark
> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board discussing how to improve the
> Individual Director election process, community input wanted
>
> Is it just me or is the second etherpad :
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/2013-Individual-Elections completely blank?
>
> -Matt
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> wrote:
> > Dear OpenStack Foundation Members,
> >
> > There has been much discussion in the Community recently, including
> during the breakfast with the Board sessions at the last Summit, regarding
how
> Individual Members are elected to the Board. As a result of this feedback,
the
> Board has begun discussing how to improve the Individual Director election
> process and wants to solicit additional community input on some steps for
> future elections. Informal conversations after the Summit led the Board,
as a
> first step, to establish a sub-committee composed of primarily Individual
> Members. That sub-committee distilled the ideas received to date into a
few
> critical issues in order that the Board can go back to the Community with
> proposals for review and comment, and work towards implementing reforms
> if necessary.
> >
> > In the course of these meetings and during the Board meeting of November
> 2, the sub-committee and the Board considered a broad range of options for
> improvements to the Individual Member Director election process and rules,
> including those that would require a change to the bylaws of the
Foundation.
> An etherpad detailing all of the potential options explored and discussed
is at
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals.
> >
> > Given the short time between the November 2 Board meeting and the
> commencement of the January 2013 Individual Member Director election
> process in late November (request for nominations), the sub-committee and
> Board concluded that it would not be feasible to make any changes to the
> process for this election cycle that would require a change to the bylaws
and
> approval by the Foundation membership. However, a number of well thought
> out options were developed that would not require a change to the bylaws
to
> be adopted for the January 2013 elections, and we would like to present
> these proposals to the Community and Membership for discussion and
> feedback, as set out below. The Board would like to emphasise to the
> Community that Individual Member Director election process proposals that
> do require bylaw changes will definitely be a priority for the Board and
> membership following the January 2013 election, with plenty of time for
> careful framing, discussion, debate and adoption prior to the January 2014
> election."
>
> >
> > There were four proposed actions for improvement of election processes
> that the Board identified as being able to be implemented in the short
term
> which would not require bylaw changes and the Board wishes to present
> these to the Community for wider discussion.
> >
> > Firstly, for the August 2012 election, four questions were produced from
> mailing list input and put to each election candidate, some of whom
> responded and some did not. It is the Board's recommendation that we
> develop this into a compulsory procedure where a nominated candidate is
> required to make a clear statement of the candidate's contribution to
> OpenStack. How this is proposed to be structured is open for the Community
> to discuss, be it reliant on the existing four questions or extended into
further
> qualitative or quantitative measures. The Board feels it is very important
for
> the nominees to present this information clearly for the Community's
> informed choice.
> >
> > Secondly, the Board would like to more clearly inform the electorate on
the
> reasons for individual members of the Board and explain their role, the
> importance of diversity on the Board, be that international, cultural,
> technological, gender or otherwise, the role of the Individual members for
> who and or what they represent, and provide guidance for members to use
> these criteria to assess their voting choice.
> >
> > Thirdly, the Board asks that all organisations act honourably, be
respectful
> and demonstrate responsibility and guide their staff to vote according to
the
> best interests of the Community, and not their organisation. OpenStack's
life
> blood is the Community. By implementing suitable measures in place from
the
> first and second proposals providing detailed explanations of candidate
> contribution and with Foundation guidance of the functions of the
Individual
> Members, the Board is hopeful this will inspire everyone to make an
informed
> choice and vote for candidates who best represent the Community.
> >
> > Fourthly, the Board is exploring options not requiring by-law changes
and
> that fall within the current cumulative voting structure which will help
to
> create a balanced representation of candidates from affiliated
organisations,
> independents and minorities.
> >
> > The Board are meeting on the 16th of November and seek to approve and
> publish the results of these Community proposals on the 19th of November,
a
> week before the Individual nominations open on November 26th.
> >
> > As a supplement to the discussion on this Foundation mailing list, We
have
> provided an etherpad for discussion of these four short term proposals at
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/2013-Individual-Elections, and Board
> members will be maintaining a presence in #openstack-community for
> general Q and A .
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
As Alan announced in his email below, the Foundation Board met today to discuss the four options mentioned below. The agenda was drafted on the wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/16Nov2012BoardMeeting

The meeting lasted only an hour from 9:00am PST to 10:00am PST. The Board reviewed progress of preparations for the 2013 Board election schedule (schedule included below) and then held a discussion on the options in Alan's previous email. The first three options are being implemented prior to the opening of nominations on November 26th. On the fourth option concerning changing the cumulative voting mechanism, the Board decided not to make any changes due to the short timeframe before the election, the lack of clear consensus on appropriate changes and the desire to obtain additional outside input and advice on possible changes. These changes will be considered for future elections.

The Board approved the minutes from the November 2nd meeting (http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/02Nov2012BoardMinutes) and then adjourned.

The schedule for the 2013 Board elections is as follows:
- November 26: Individual Member nominations open, election section of openstack.org goes live with details on process and candidates
- December 7: Individual Member nominations close
- December 14: Deadline for Individual Member Nominees to complete application
- January 3: Gold Director Selector Election
- January 14: Individual Member Elections open
- January 18: Individual Member Elections close

Thanks,

Jonathan

On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> wrote:

> Dear OpenStack Foundation Members,
>
> There has been much discussion in the Community recently, including during the breakfast with the Board sessions at the last Summit, regarding how Individual Members are elected to the Board. As a result of this feedback, the Board has begun discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process and wants to solicit additional community input on some steps for future elections. Informal conversations after the Summit led the Board, as a first step, to establish a sub-committee composed of primarily Individual Members. That sub-committee distilled the ideas received to date into a few critical issues in order that the Board can go back to the Community with proposals for review and comment, and work towards implementing reforms if necessary.
>
> In the course of these meetings and during the Board meeting of November 2, the sub-committee and the Board considered a broad range of options for improvements to the Individual Member Director election process and rules, including those that would require a change to the bylaws of the Foundation. An etherpad detailing all of the potential options explored and discussed is at https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals.
>
> Given the short time between the November 2 Board meeting and the commencement of the January 2013 Individual Member Director election process in late November (request for nominations), the sub-committee and Board concluded that it would not be feasible to make any changes to the process for this election cycle that would require a change to the bylaws and approval by the Foundation membership. However, a number of well thought out options were developed that would not require a change to the bylaws to be adopted for the January 2013 elections, and we would like to present these proposals to the Community and Membership for discussion and feedback, as set out below. The Board would like to emphasise to the Community that Individual Member Director election process proposals that do require bylaw changes will definitely be a priority for the Board and membership following the January 2013 election, with plenty of time for careful framing, discussion, debate and adoption prior to the January 2014 election."
>
> There were four proposed actions for improvement of election processes that the Board identified as being able to be implemented in the short term which would not require bylaw changes and the Board wishes to present these to the Community for wider discussion.
>
> Firstly, for the August 2012 election, four questions were produced from mailing list input and put to each election candidate, some of whom responded and some did not. It is the Board's recommendation that we develop this into a compulsory procedure where a nominated candidate is required to make a clear statement of the candidate's contribution to OpenStack. How this is proposed to be structured is open for the Community to discuss, be it reliant on the existing four questions or extended into further qualitative or quantitative measures. The Board feels it is very important for the nominees to present this information clearly for the Community's informed choice.
>
> Secondly, the Board would like to more clearly inform the electorate on the reasons for individual members of the Board and explain their role, the importance of diversity on the Board, be that international, cultural, technological, gender or otherwise, the role of the Individual members for who and or what they represent, and provide guidance for members to use these criteria to assess their voting choice.
>
> Thirdly, the Board asks that all organisations act honourably, be respectful and demonstrate responsibility and guide their staff to vote according to the best interests of the Community, and not their organisation. OpenStack's life blood is the Community. By implementing suitable measures in place from the first and second proposals providing detailed explanations of candidate contribution and with Foundation guidance of the functions of the Individual Members, the Board is hopeful this will inspire everyone to make an informed choice and vote for candidates who best represent the Community.
>
> Fourthly, the Board is exploring options not requiring by-law changes and that fall within the current cumulative voting structure which will help to create a balanced representation of candidates from affiliated organisations, independents and minorities.
>
> The Board are meeting on the 16th of November and seek to approve and publish the results of these Community proposals on the 19th of November, a week before the Individual nominations open on November 26th.
>
> As a supplement to the discussion on this Foundation mailing list, We have provided an etherpad for discussion of these four short term proposals at https://etherpad.openstack.org/2013-Individual-Elections, and Board members will be maintaining a presence in #openstack-community for general Q and A .
>
>
> Regards,
> OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 06:17 -0700, Alan Clark wrote:
> Informal conversations after the Summit led the Board, as a first
> step, to establish a sub-committee composed of primarily Individual
> Members.

AFAICT, this sub-committee was composed of Tristan Goode, Tim Bell, Rob
Hirschfeld, Hui Cheng, Toby Ford and Troy Toman.

Concerns have been expressed about the election process since August and
our response has been to:

* have the board appoint a sub-committee consisting of directors who
were elected using the current election process

* not make the existence of that sub-committee publicly known

* not invite any of those community members who worked to make
constructive suggestions about the issue on this list in the past

* publish the proposals mere days before they were to be adopted

I'm personally not into conspiracy theories and always assume good
faith, but is it not obvious to everyone how bad this looks?

It would have been quite straightforward to look over these archives:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/thread.html

then ask those making constructive contributions whether they want to
participate in the sub-committee, publish the etherpad from the very
start and encourage the sub-committee to involve the mailing list in the
discussion at all stages.

> An etherpad detailing all of the potential options explored and
> discussed is at
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals.

Regardless of the above, thanks and kudos to those who worked on this.
It looks like you worked hard to include all proposals made on the
mailing list and weight them carefully.

> Firstly, for the August 2012 election, four questions were produced
> from mailing list input and put to each election candidate, some of
> whom responded and some did not. It is the Board's recommendation that
> we develop this into a compulsory procedure where a nominated
> candidate is required to make a clear statement of the candidate's
> contribution to OpenStack.

Very positive but IMHO is, at first glance, orthogonal to the concerns
about voter behaviour.

In the previous election, only Yujie Du and Rob Hirschfeld were elected
without answering those questions (although Rob did blog about his
candidacy).

Perhaps the concern we're trying to address is that if a candidate is
elected without making it clear what they're standing for, it becomes
hard for everyone to understand post-election why they were elected?

> Secondly, the Board would like to more clearly inform the electorate
> on the reasons for individual members of the Board and explain their
> role, the importance of diversity on the Board, be that international,
> cultural, technological, gender or otherwise, the role of the
> Individual members for who and or what they represent, and provide
> guidance for members to use these criteria to assess their voting
> choice.
>
> Thirdly, the Board asks that all organisations act honourably, be
> respectful and demonstrate responsibility and guide their staff to
> vote according to the best interests of the Community, and not their
> organisation. OpenStack's life blood is the Community.

Great. Let's make sure to have an open discussion about both sets of
guidelines in advance of the election.

...
> Fourthly, the Board is exploring options not requiring by-law changes
> and that fall within the current cumulative voting structure which
> will help to create a balanced representation of candidates from
> affiliated organisations, independents and minorities.

This is confusing. The board is exploring options other than those
proposed by the sub-committee?

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Mark,

The proposals for actions to be taken for the 2013 individual elections were
prepared by Tristan, Hui and myself. We are individual board members but do
not have any affiliation with companies who have platinum or gold member
seats (which is where the concern has been expressed). This is as Johnathan
communicated on November 2nd
(http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html)
- "Discussed options for updates to the election process. Tim Bell, Hui
Cheng and Tristan Goode are pulling together some recommendations that they
will be sharing with the mailing list for feedback before the election
period opens with nominations on November 26."

Given that the board meeting to propose the sub-committee was only agreed on
Nov 2nd, we were pleased to get the letter published on the 13th for the
board meeting on the 16th. The time zone differences between Europe and
Australia didn't make it easy to do it faster.

Rob, Toby and Troy were also involved in the brainstorming prior to that to
cover possibilities for both (as shown in the etherpad at
https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals). Many of these
proposals were extracted from ideas on the mailing list. The 4
possibilities proposed for the 2013 elections were those where the bylaws
permitted us to change within the timescales available. The other options
can be debated during 2013 and proposals can then be prepared to be voted on
according to the bylaws.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark McLoughlin [mailto:markmc@redhat.com]
> Sent: 17 November 2012 17:27
> To: Alan Clark
> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board discussing how to improve the
> Individual Director election process, community input wanted
>
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 06:17 -0700, Alan Clark wrote:
> > Informal conversations after the Summit led the Board, as a first
> > step, to establish a sub-committee composed of primarily Individual
> > Members.
>
> AFAICT, this sub-committee was composed of Tristan Goode, Tim Bell, Rob
> Hirschfeld, Hui Cheng, Toby Ford and Troy Toman.
>
> Concerns have been expressed about the election process since August and
> our response has been to:
>
> * have the board appoint a sub-committee consisting of directors who
> were elected using the current election process
>
> * not make the existence of that sub-committee publicly known
>
> * not invite any of those community members who worked to make
> constructive suggestions about the issue on this list in the past
>
> * publish the proposals mere days before they were to be adopted
>
> I'm personally not into conspiracy theories and always assume good faith,
but
> is it not obvious to everyone how bad this looks?
>
> It would have been quite straightforward to look over these archives:
>
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/thread.html
>
> then ask those making constructive contributions whether they want to
> participate in the sub-committee, publish the etherpad from the very start
> and encourage the sub-committee to involve the mailing list in the
discussion
> at all stages.
>
> > An etherpad detailing all of the potential options explored and
> > discussed is at
> > https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals.
>
> Regardless of the above, thanks and kudos to those who worked on this.
> It looks like you worked hard to include all proposals made on the mailing
list
> and weight them carefully.
>
> > Firstly, for the August 2012 election, four questions were produced
> > from mailing list input and put to each election candidate, some of
> > whom responded and some did not. It is the Board's recommendation that
> > we develop this into a compulsory procedure where a nominated
> > candidate is required to make a clear statement of the candidate's
> > contribution to OpenStack.
>
> Very positive but IMHO is, at first glance, orthogonal to the concerns
about
> voter behaviour.
>
> In the previous election, only Yujie Du and Rob Hirschfeld were elected
> without answering those questions (although Rob did blog about his
> candidacy).
>
> Perhaps the concern we're trying to address is that if a candidate is
elected
> without making it clear what they're standing for, it becomes hard for
> everyone to understand post-election why they were elected?
>
> > Secondly, the Board would like to more clearly inform the electorate
> > on the reasons for individual members of the Board and explain their
> > role, the importance of diversity on the Board, be that international,
> > cultural, technological, gender or otherwise, the role of the
> > Individual members for who and or what they represent, and provide
> > guidance for members to use these criteria to assess their voting
> > choice.
> >
> > Thirdly, the Board asks that all organisations act honourably, be
> > respectful and demonstrate responsibility and guide their staff to
> > vote according to the best interests of the Community, and not their
> > organisation. OpenStack's life blood is the Community.
>
> Great. Let's make sure to have an open discussion about both sets of
> guidelines in advance of the election.
>
> ...
> > Fourthly, the Board is exploring options not requiring by-law changes
> > and that fall within the current cumulative voting structure which
> > will help to create a balanced representation of candidates from
> > affiliated organisations, independents and minorities.
>
> This is confusing. The board is exploring options other than those
proposed
> by the sub-committee?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Hi Tim,

On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 14:47 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The proposals for actions to be taken for the 2013 individual elections were
> prepared by Tristan, Hui and myself. We are individual board members but do
> not have any affiliation with companies who have platinum or gold member
> seats (which is where the concern has been expressed).

That's fair.

> This is as Johnathan communicated on November 2nd
> (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html)
> - "Discussed options for updates to the election process. Tim Bell, Hui
> Cheng and Tristan Goode are pulling together some recommendations that they
> will be sharing with the mailing list for feedback before the election
> period opens with nominations on November 26."

Ah, apologies. I missed the significance of this.

> Given that the board meeting to propose the sub-committee was only agreed on
> Nov 2nd, we were pleased to get the letter published on the 13th for the
> board meeting on the 16th. The time zone differences between Europe and
> Australia didn't make it easy to do it faster.

It's a reasonable turnaround from Nov 2nd, yes.

> Rob, Toby and Troy were also involved in the brainstorming prior to that to
> cover possibilities for both (as shown in the etherpad at
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals). Many of these
> proposals were extracted from ideas on the mailing list. The 4
> possibilities proposed for the 2013 elections were those where the bylaws
> permitted us to change within the timescales available. The other options
> can be debated during 2013 and proposals can then be prepared to be voted on
> according to the bylaws.

I'm disappointed by the fact that bylaws changes were ruled out, but I
get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the
process.

In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.

I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.

Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
be people who object" crowd :)

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 14:47 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > The proposals for actions to be taken for the 2013 individual elections
> were
> > prepared by Tristan, Hui and myself. We are individual board members
> but do
> > not have any affiliation with companies who have platinum or gold member
> > seats (which is where the concern has been expressed).
>
> That's fair.
>
> > This is as Johnathan communicated on November 2nd
> > (
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html)
> > - "Discussed options for updates to the election process. Tim Bell, Hui
> > Cheng and Tristan Goode are pulling together some recommendations that
> they
> > will be sharing with the mailing list for feedback before the election
> > period opens with nominations on November 26."
>
> Ah, apologies. I missed the significance of this.
>
> > Given that the board meeting to propose the sub-committee was only
> agreed on
> > Nov 2nd, we were pleased to get the letter published on the 13th for the
> > board meeting on the 16th. The time zone differences between Europe and
> > Australia didn't make it easy to do it faster.
>
> It's a reasonable turnaround from Nov 2nd, yes.
>
> > Rob, Toby and Troy were also involved in the brainstorming prior to that
> to
> > cover possibilities for both (as shown in the etherpad at
> > https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals). Many of
> these
> > proposals were extracted from ideas on the mailing list. The 4
> > possibilities proposed for the 2013 elections were those where the bylaws
> > permitted us to change within the timescales available. The other options
> > can be debated during 2013 and proposals can then be prepared to be
> voted on
> > according to the bylaws.
>
> I'm disappointed by the fact that bylaws changes were ruled out, but I
> get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
> were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the
> process.
>
> In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
> engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
> the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
> discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
> conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.
>
> I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
> issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
> perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
> board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
> not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.
>
> Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
> it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
> be people who object" crowd :)
>

I thought you made a fair point, but didn't have anything to add at the
time.

As far as the process, I perceive it in much the same way as your.
Sometimes it helps to focus by assigning a task like this to a small number
of people, rather than have the discussions happen with *everyone* in the
community. On the other hand, in this case there was already an ongoing
discussion with a small number of participants providing thoughtful input.
It would have been appropriate to include them more directly in the
"pulling together some recommendations" activities. It is not necessary for
the board members to do all of the work of running the foundation by
themselves, after all.

Doug


>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Hi All,

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 18, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm disappointed by the fact that bylaws changes were ruled out, but I
> get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
> were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the
> process.

From the way that the board changed the bylaws in their second meeting to exclude all non board members from understanding or being able to even observe discussions about applying companies, I am surprised there are any issues changing the bylaws.

The bylaw change took effect immediately and involved one of the most controversial membership applications, VMWare.

Essentially the board can change its mind about how open they want to be at any time. The community has 0 input past the members elected to the board.

> In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
> engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
> the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
> discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
> conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.

How I see it is simple: Make the community feel involved but protect the power of the board by not including the community in discussions where the community can add significant and possibly upsetting ideas.

> I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
> issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
> perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
> board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
> not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.

The discussions are not at all as open as the board claims to them to be. So far I have seen only restrictions put on the community and their involvement. You can buy a board seat if you have enough money.

> Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
> it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
> be people who object" crowd :)

I disagree. I see many issues with the way the board operates and I have no issue pointing them out. Until the board take openness seriously and proves it by allowing full access to those who want to observe there will always be an aspect of the OpenStack foundation that belongs to those with money.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
2012/11/18 Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>:
> Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
> it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
> be people who object" crowd :)

Oh, make no mistake: You are not alone. I just usually prefer to jump
in when I have more to add than just "+1" :)

You are spot on and I'm very happy that you're raising these points. Thank you.

--
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
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Steven Noble wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I'm disappointed by the fact that bylaws changes were ruled out, but I
>> get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
>> were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the
>> process.
>
> From the way that the board changed the bylaws in their second meeting to exclude all non board members from understanding or being able to even observe discussions about applying companies, I am surprised there are any issues changing the bylaws.

To be fair, some sections of the bylaws are more difficult to change
than others (see article 9), and most sections defining how the board is
built and voted in are protected by a special vote... which takes a bit
of time to organize.

Personally I regret that the Board was short on time to better address
this, but I primarily blame the crazy election calendar.

>> In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
>> engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
>> the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
>> discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
>> conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.
>
> How I see it is simple: Make the community feel involved but protect the power of the board by not including the community in discussions where the community can add significant and possibly upsetting ideas.

Platinum directors represent their company, Gold directors represent the
set of Gold members... The rest of the community is represented by
Individual directors. Those don't get their board seat to represent
their company or themselves. They are elected to voice the opinion of
the rest of us and involve us.

I see it as one of the Individual directors responsibility to make sure
that the wider community opinions are represented and that we all have
access to the information. I'd expect them to have opposed the closing
of sections of the board meetings, and have them actively engage with
the mailing-list to make sure our opinion is represented.

One thing to keep in mind for the upcoming elections, I guess.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Hi,

Le vendredi 16 novembre 2012, à 16:48 -0600, Jonathan Bryce a écrit :
> The meeting lasted only an hour from 9:00am PST to 10:00am PST. The Board reviewed progress of preparations for the 2013 Board election schedule (schedule included below) and then held a discussion on the options in Alan's previous email. The first three options are being implemented prior to the opening of nominations on November 26th. On the fourth option concerning changing the cumulative voting mechanism, the Board decided not to make any changes due to the short timeframe before the election, the lack of clear consensus on appropriate changes and the desire to obtain additional outside input and advice on possible changes. These changes will be considered for future elections.

Giving here a +1 to what Mark wrote; I feel the process for those
changes could have been improved, especially as it could have started
earlier. Lesson for next time, I guess.

> The Board approved the minutes from the November 2nd meeting
> (http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/02Nov2012BoardMinutes)
> and then adjourned.

Quoting the minutes:

"RESOLVED, that the budget for 2013 attached as Exhibit A is approved."

There's no Exhibit A. Can we have access to the budget? (I think we
already had the issue pointed out for some previous minutes, and I don't
think it was resolved either there)

> The schedule for the 2013 Board elections is as follows:
> - November 26: Individual Member nominations open, election section of openstack.org goes live with details on process and candidates
> - December 7: Individual Member nominations close
> - December 14: Deadline for Individual Member Nominees to complete application
> - January 3: Gold Director Selector Election
> - January 14: Individual Member Elections open
> - January 18: Individual Member Elections close

So I have several questions:

- I might have missed the information, but what is the deadline to
apply for membership to be able to participate in those elections?
(as a candidate, or as voter)

- who will organize the elections?

- will there be election inspectors again (same people or new group?)

- in general, I'd love to get a reply to the points/issues raised in
our report from the first elections, as there are several small
improvements we can easily implement:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-September/001113.html

And yes, I'm happy to volunteer to help with the elections :-)

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
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On 11/18/2012 05:42 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
<snip>
> In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
> engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
> the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
> discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
> conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.
>
> I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
> issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
> perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
> board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
> not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.
>
> Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
> it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
> be people who object" crowd :)

Add me as one of the people thinking that this could have been
approached differently.

I believe everyone is acting in good faith, and I believe that the
outcome is the best that could be achieved for the upcoming election.

However, the process is probably just as important as the outcome, and
as Mark has pointed out, a number of people seemed ready to put time and
effort into improving the situation.

A suggestion for the future: I have seen non-profits like the OpenStack
Foundation fall into the trap of having all the Foundation "stuff" be
done by foundation staff and board members. It's happened in the GNOME
Foundation for a few years, and we regretted it. One of the things which
allowed us to improve was to have board members tasked with ensuring
something happened, and inviting people from the broader community who
cared about that thing to do the heavy lifting: whether that was hiring
an executive director (we invited people with hiring experience to be on
the hiring committee), running hackfests (where we decided a budget at
board level, and delegated totally the organisation of hackfests to
foundation members), the successful Outreach Program for Women, whatever...

The MO has been: provide resources and support to help the members
achieve what is in the best interests of the foundation. I would hope
that the OpenStack Foundation ends up having a similar MO - we can
achieve more if we push the power to the edges, and have the central
organisation be a good place to keep everyone informed about what's
going on, provide leadership and direction, and providing resources.

Cheers,
Dave.

--
Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
From my reading of the bylaws
(http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Bylaws), my understanding is
that the voters have to be registered for at least 180 days as a member before
the election. This is different from the previous round where there was a 30
day limit after the start of the foundation.

The nominees for individual member directors seem to have to be individual
members in good standing.

-------

3.9 Voting and Proxies.

(a) Each Individual Member whose effective date of membership is earlier than
thirty (30) days after the effective date of the filing of the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Foundation ("COI Effective Date") may vote immediately
after he or she becomes an Individual Member. Each Individual Member whose
effective date of membership is more than thirty (30) days after the COI
Effective Date shall be eligible to vote 180 days after the effective date of
his or her membership. Each Individual Member shall have one vote at any
meeting of Individual Members and for election of the Individual Directors,
the Individual Members shall have the option to vote for Individual Directors
on a cumulative basis.

4.2 Number and Term of Office.
(ii) the nominee is an Individual Member in good standing,

>
> - I might have missed the information, but what is the deadline to
> apply for membership to be able to participate in those elections?
> (as a candidate, or as voter)
>
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Le lundi 19 novembre 2012, à 11:11 +0000, Tim Bell a écrit :
> From my reading of the bylaws
> (http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Bylaws), my understanding is
> that the voters have to be registered for at least 180 days as a member before
> the election. This is different from the previous round where there was a 30
> day limit after the start of the foundation.
>
> The nominees for individual member directors seem to have to be individual
> members in good standing.
>
> -------
>
> 3.9 Voting and Proxies.
>
> (a) Each Individual Member whose effective date of membership is earlier than
> thirty (30) days after the effective date of the filing of the Certificate of
> Incorporation of the Foundation ("COI Effective Date") may vote immediately
> after he or she becomes an Individual Member. Each Individual Member whose
> effective date of membership is more than thirty (30) days after the COI
> Effective Date shall be eligible to vote 180 days after the effective date of
> his or her membership. Each Individual Member shall have one vote at any
> meeting of Individual Members and for election of the Individual Directors,
> the Individual Members shall have the option to vote for Individual Directors
> on a cumulative basis.

Thanks, Tim! I had forgotten about that part of the by-laws.

For those wondering when 180 days before the voting period is, that's
July 18th 2012. As the initial call for individuals to join the
Foundation was issued on July 19th, I guess only people who became
member in the 30 days after the COI Effective Date will be able to vote
in January.

(I can't find the COI Effective Date, but I assume it's July 16th, since
people could join until August 15th to be able to participate in the
first elections)

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
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 11/18/2012 05:42 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> <snip>
>
> In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
>> engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
>> the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
>> discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
>> conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.
>>
>> I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
>> issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
>> perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
>> board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
>> not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.
>>
>> Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
>> it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
>> be people who object" crowd :)
>>
>
> Add me as one of the people thinking that this could have been approached
> differently.
>
> I believe everyone is acting in good faith, and I believe that the outcome
> is the best that could be achieved for the upcoming election.
>
> However, the process is probably just as important as the outcome, and as
> Mark has pointed out, a number of people seemed ready to put time and
> effort into improving the situation.
>
> A suggestion for the future: I have seen non-profits like the OpenStack
> Foundation fall into the trap of having all the Foundation "stuff" be done
> by foundation staff and board members. It's happened in the GNOME
> Foundation for a few years, and we regretted it. One of the things which
> allowed us to improve was to have board members tasked with ensuring
> something happened, and inviting people from the broader community who
> cared about that thing to do the heavy lifting: whether that was hiring an
> executive director (we invited people with hiring experience to be on the
> hiring committee), running hackfests (where we decided a budget at board
> level, and delegated totally the organisation of hackfests to foundation
> members), the successful Outreach Program for Women, whatever...
>
> The MO has been: provide resources and support to help the members achieve
> what is in the best interests of the foundation. I would hope that the
> OpenStack Foundation ends up having a similar MO - we can achieve more if
> we push the power to the edges, and have the central organisation be a good
> place to keep everyone informed about what's going on, provide leadership
> and direction, and providing resources.
>

+1

The Python Software Foundation is organized similarly around focused
committees with one member (not necessarily a board member) appointed by
the board to lead. For example, I served for 2 years as Communications
Director, building up a small group of people to help disseminate
foundation news through the blog, wiki, and mailing lists.

Doug


>
> Cheers,
> Dave.
>
> --
> Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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>
>
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
I'm happy to collect ideas like this when we review how to structure the
2014 election round. There are many more options for rule changes and more
time for debate. I think it will also require a membership vote (according
to 9.2).



Tim





The Python Software Foundation is organized similarly around focused
committees with one member (not necessarily a board member) appointed by the
board to lead. For example, I served for 2 years as Communications Director,
building up a small group of people to help disseminate foundation news
through the blog, wiki, and mailing lists.



Doug
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
Our by laws are overly detailed if we have to amend them to create working groups. :)

Doug

On Nov 19, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:

>
> I’m happy to collect ideas like this when we review how to structure the 2014 election round. There are many more options for rule changes and more time for debate. I think it will also require a membership vote (according to 9.2).
>
> Tim
>
>
> The Python Software Foundation is organized similarly around focused committees with one member (not necessarily a board member) appointed by the board to lead. For example, I served for 2 years as Communications Director, building up a small group of people to help disseminate foundation news through the blog, wiki, and mailing lists.
>
> Doug
>
>
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
+1 to Doug and Mark's points.
I'd like to thank the members of the board for working to address the concerns. However, the process could be more open and inclusive of those non-board members who have been expressing an interest/concerns relating to the membership criteria and elections process, etc. Further, given the time pressures, frankly, little is changing that really addresses the elephant in the room; the fact that there are three corporate members that have roughly an order of magnitude more individual members than the nearest also-ran, and yet this is treated as if it were perfectly natural and consistent with the community's tenets.
Frankly, "membership" needs to mean more than just filling out a profile and voting for your colleague.
The elephant is still there.
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

-----Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann@dreamhost.com> wrote: -----To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
From: Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann@dreamhost.com>
Date: 11/18/2012 11:59AM
Cc: "foundation@lists.openstack.org" <foundation@lists.openstack.org>, Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted



On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Tim,

On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 14:47 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The proposals for actions to be taken for the 2013 individual elections were
> prepared by Tristan, Hui and myself. We are individual board members but do
> not have any affiliation with companies who have platinum or gold member
> seats (which is where the concern has been expressed).

That's fair.

> This is as Johnathan communicated on November 2nd
> (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html"]http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html)
> - "Discussed options for updates to the election process. Tim Bell, Hui
> Cheng and Tristan Goode are pulling together some recommendations that they
> will be sharing with the mailing list for feedback before the election
> period opens with nominations on November 26."

Ah, apologies. I missed the significance of this.

> Given that the board meeting to propose the sub-committee was only agreed on
> Nov 2nd, we were pleased to get the letter published on the 13th for the
> board meeting on the 16th. The time zone differences between Europe and
> Australia didn't make it easy to do it faster.

It's a reasonable turnaround from Nov 2nd, yes.

> Rob, Toby and Troy were also involved in the brainstorming prior to that to
> cover possibilities for both (as shown in the etherpad at
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals"]https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals). Many of these
> proposals were extracted from ideas on the mailing list. The 4
> possibilities proposed for the 2013 elections were those where the bylaws
> permitted us to change within the timescales available. The other options
> can be debated during 2013 and proposals can then be prepared to be voted on
> according to the bylaws.

I'm disappointed by the fact that bylaws changes were ruled out, but I
get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the
process.

In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.

I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.

Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
be people who object" crowd :)

I thought you made a fair point, but didn't have anything to add at the time.
As far as the process, I perceive it in much the same way as your. Sometimes it helps to focus by assigning a task like this to a small number of people, rather than have the discussions happen with *everyone* in the community. On the other hand, in this case there was already an ongoing discussion with a small number of participants providing thoughtful input. It would have been appropriate to include them more directly in the "pulling together some recommendations" activities. It is not necessary for the board members to do all of the work of running the foundation by themselves, after all.
Doug

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

_______________________________________________
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
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz@suse.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 19 novembre 2012, à 11:11 +0000, Tim Bell a écrit :
>> From my reading of the bylaws
>> (http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Bylaws), my understanding is
>> that the voters have to be registered for at least 180 days as a member before
>> the election. This is different from the previous round where there was a 30
>> day limit after the start of the foundation.
>>
>> The nominees for individual member directors seem to have to be individual
>> members in good standing.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> 3.9 Voting and Proxies.
>>
>> (a) Each Individual Member whose effective date of membership is earlier than
>> thirty (30) days after the effective date of the filing of the Certificate of
>> Incorporation of the Foundation ("COI Effective Date") may vote immediately
>> after he or she becomes an Individual Member. Each Individual Member whose
>> effective date of membership is more than thirty (30) days after the COI
>> Effective Date shall be eligible to vote 180 days after the effective date of
>> his or her membership. Each Individual Member shall have one vote at any
>> meeting of Individual Members and for election of the Individual Directors,
>> the Individual Members shall have the option to vote for Individual Directors
>> on a cumulative basis.
>
> Thanks, Tim! I had forgotten about that part of the by-laws.
>
> For those wondering when 180 days before the voting period is, that's
> July 18th 2012. As the initial call for individuals to join the
> Foundation was issued on July 19th, I guess only people who became
> member in the 30 days after the COI Effective Date will be able to vote
> in January.
>
> (I can't find the COI Effective Date, but I assume it's July 16th, since
> people could join until August 15th to be able to participate in the
> first elections)

Related: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001235.html

I'm still surprised that the Foundation set a precedence for a call
for membership before the first election, but failed to address that
it was actually last chance to participate for 2013, the 1st full
year.


Best regards,
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:25 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz@suse.com> wrote:

> - who will organize the elections?
>
> - will there be election inspectors again (same people or new group?)

….

> And yes, I'm happy to volunteer to help with the elections :-)

I am the Secretary of the Foundation currently (not a role I want to have permanently) and am responsible for executing the elections according to the Bylaws and direction of the Board. Mark Radcliffe is our primary legal counsel for the Foundation, especially around corporate governance.

Lisa Miller is another outside attorney who has been helping us on corporate matters and is able to serve as the lead election inspector and provide more guidance to the process. This should help address some of the points raised by the inspectors previously. If you or others wish to volunteer as inspectors, feel free to contact Lisa and me and we'll get you looped in. Thanks for volunteering again,

Jonathan


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Re: Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted [ In reply to ]
The mailing list seemed to have dropped Lisa from the CC on my previous email. Her address is lisa@lsmillerlaw.com.

Jonathan

On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@openstack.org> wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:25 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz@suse.com> wrote:
>
>> - who will organize the elections?
>>
>> - will there be election inspectors again (same people or new group?)
>
> ….
>
>> And yes, I'm happy to volunteer to help with the elections :-)
>
> I am the Secretary of the Foundation currently (not a role I want to have permanently) and am responsible for executing the elections according to the Bylaws and direction of the Board. Mark Radcliffe is our primary legal counsel for the Foundation, especially around corporate governance.
>
> Lisa Miller is another outside attorney who has been helping us on corporate matters and is able to serve as the lead election inspector and provide more guidance to the process. This should help address some of the points raised by the inspectors previously. If you or others wish to volunteer as inspectors, feel free to contact Lisa and me and we'll get you looped in. Thanks for volunteering again,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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