Mailing List Archive

A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to be
"that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for Jonathan's
"unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official record of the
meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe board policy is still
to forego any commentary on the meeting until either Jonathan's notes, or
the official board minutes, are published.

As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of what was
discussed during executive session - whether it was restated afterwards or
not.

Joshua
On May 25, 2013 7:50 AM, "Mark McLoughlin" <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Usually Jonathan posts a summary of our board meetings very quickly
> after the meeting and I try to follow up with a longer blog post. This
> time around I guess the craziness of the summit week got in the way of
> that and time seems have moved along quickly since then :)
>
> Apologies for the delay, but I hope this is still useful:
>
>
> http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2013/05/25/april-14th-openstack-foundation-board-meeting/
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
> be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
> Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
> record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
> board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
> either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are published.

Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue
however, in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note that in my
summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.

> As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
> what was discussed during executive session - whether it was restated
> afterwards or not.

This is what you're taking issue with?

As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly
restate their concerns with the applications that had been discussed
during the executive session.

It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these
concerns were stated in the executive session or whether they were
raised for the first time after the executive session?

The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the
executive session was to *restate* concerns publicly for the record ...
not to have a whole new conversation.

Cheers,
Mark.


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

I agree with Joshua and I support the approval process that has been in place.


On 26/05/2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:

On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
> be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
> Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
> record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
> board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
> either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are published.

Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue
however, in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note that in my
summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.

> As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
> what was discussed during executive session - whether it was restated
> afterwards or not.

This is what you're taking issue with?

As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly
restate their concerns with the applications that had been discussed
during the executive session.

It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these
concerns were stated in the executive session or whether they were
raised for the first time after the executive session?

The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the
executive session was to *restate* concerns publicly for the record ...
not to have a whole new conversation.

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
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

Regardless of some minor phrasing improvements, I feel that Mark's blog contributes hugely to communication with the community and
accessibility to the board.

I would strongly encourage this communication channel to continue in a very similar fashion to the past few board. It contributes to
our goals of transparency and is always a good read :-)

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan@aptira.com]
> Sent: 26 May 2013 16:10
> To: Mark McLoughlin
> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
>
> I agree with Joshua and I support the approval process that has been in place.
>
>
> On 26/05/2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> > A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
> > be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
> > Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
> > record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
> > board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
> > either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are published.
>
> Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue however, in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note
that in
> my summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.
>
> > As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
> > what was discussed during executive session - whether it was restated
> > afterwards or not.
>
> This is what you're taking issue with?
>
> As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly restate their concerns with the applications that had been
discussed during
> the executive session.
>
> It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these concerns were stated in the executive session or whether they
were
> raised for the first time after the executive session?
>
> The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the executive session was to *restate* concerns publicly for the
record ...
> not to have a whole new conversation.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

For transparency's sake I have absolutely no problem with a non-director
or third party blogging in this manner, and I think that was the whole
point of the original directive because of the legal/governance risks of
anything otherwise. Anyone is free to listen in to the meetings and tweet
and create a blog and such, but a director perhaps implies officialdom,
and also splinters the unified communication that a Board should present.

This is a personal account and any personal account is vulnerable to
inaccuracies, personal opinion and skewed interpretation. I nor any of the
Board that I'm aware of was asked about this beforehand, and that's simply
not fair to the rest of us. The document also does not disclaim itself
despite a request to do so.

I thought that it was (albeit briefly) discussed at that last meeting
about blogs being published prior to minutes, and that policy was conveyed
to the new members of the Board?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch]
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013 5:14 AM
> To: Tristan Goode; Mark McLoughlin
> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: RE: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
>
>
> Regardless of some minor phrasing improvements, I feel that Mark's blog
> contributes hugely to communication with the community and
> accessibility to the board.
>
> I would strongly encourage this communication channel to continue in a
very similar
> fashion to the past few board. It contributes to
> our goals of transparency and is always a good read :-)
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan@aptira.com]
> > Sent: 26 May 2013 16:10
> > To: Mark McLoughlin
> > Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
> >
> > I agree with Joshua and I support the approval process that has been
in place.
> >
> >
> > On 26/05/2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> > > A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
> > > be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
> > > Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
> > > record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
> > > board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
> > > either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are
published.
> >
> > Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue
however,
> in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note
> that in
> > my summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.
> >
> > > As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
> > > what was discussed during executive session - whether it was
restated
> > > afterwards or not.
> >
> > This is what you're taking issue with?
> >
> > As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly
restate their
> concerns with the applications that had been
> discussed during
> > the executive session.
> >
> > It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these
concerns
> were stated in the executive session or whether they
> were
> > raised for the first time after the executive session?
> >
> > The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the
executive session
> was to *restate* concerns publicly for the
> record ...
> > not to have a whole new conversation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mark.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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

Hello,

I'm a little upset by any protest of general public discussion of the
board meeting this long after the meeting. I can't think of a more
important task of the board than to keep the membership informed of
the foundation's ongoings. I hope the policy includes a timeliness
condition of at most a couple of weeks -- the board has yet to be
successful at achieving with any consistency.

Thank you,
Lloyd
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

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

On May 26, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:

>
> Regardless of some minor phrasing improvements, I feel that Mark's blog contributes hugely to communication with the community and
> accessibility to the board.
>
> I would strongly encourage this communication channel to continue in a very similar fashion to the past few board. It contributes to
> our goals of transparency and is always a good read :-)

I completely agree. I get concerned when we imply a need to lock down communications further. I think Mark's write-ups have been helpful.

Troy

>
> Tim
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan@aptira.com]
>> Sent: 26 May 2013 16:10
>> To: Mark McLoughlin
>> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
>>
>> I agree with Joshua and I support the approval process that has been in place.
>>
>>
>> On 26/05/2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>> A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
>>> be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
>>> Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
>>> record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
>>> board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
>>> either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are published.
>>
>> Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue however, in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note
> that in
>> my summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.
>>
>>> As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
>>> what was discussed during executive session - whether it was restated
>>> afterwards or not.
>>
>> This is what you're taking issue with?
>>
>> As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly restate their concerns with the applications that had been
> discussed during
>> the executive session.
>>
>> It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these concerns were stated in the executive session or whether they
> were
>> raised for the first time after the executive session?
>>
>> The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the executive session was to *restate* concerns publicly for the
> record ...
>> not to have a whole new conversation.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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