As one of the people who does not have their OpenStack activities within their job role and who lives in a timezone which until today :) required out-of-working-hours conferences, I think it is asking too much for mandatory participation in board meetings as a bar for entry.
There are many other criteria that we can apply such as membership of a user group, participation in mailing lists, blogging their experiences or attendance at summits which is a more significant contribution than dialing in for a 6 hour call ending at 2 a.m. in the morning.
In choosing to stand for election, the candidate accepts the activities that come with it. However, to require people to do their 'articles' before consideration for board membership does not seem the most effective use of some excellent community contributors.
Let's find some other criteria.
Tim
From: Nick Barcet [mailto:nick@enovance.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 17:34
To: Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Agreement on requiring board candidates to attend the meetings, and, why didn't this dogpile dial into the last meeting?
My 2c on this is that making participation mandatory is ok, as long as we also accept valid excuses for exceptional reasons, which can cover: time compatibility, prior engagements, etc... I've missed two board meeting this year, one which was scheduled in the middle of my night, the other because I had to give a presentation on the role of a board member which was scheduled at the same time. In both case I tried to catch up immediately after (thanks for Alan´s help).
I do think these cases (and there are certainly others) are valid reason to be exceptionally excused and would be consider a mandatory/no excuse rule be completely counter productive to our objectives.
Nick
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com<mailto:rfontana@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:56:35PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 14:42 +0000, Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> > And finally, for many parts of the OpenStack community, this is our
> > *job*. We get paid to do this. Dialing into a Board meeting and
> > listening in should be as important in attending as the various
> > meetings and con calls and all-hands and stand-ups that we do for our
> > employers. Where were all the PTLs, the TC members, the couple of
> > dozen other community engagement folks?
>
> If I wasn't on the board, and if there was a detailed summary of the
> topics published after the meeting, then I'd read that rather than
> dialling in just to listen.
>
> I do think it would be worthwhile for people to attend in-person for an
> hour or two if they happen to be convenient to the venue, but that's
> more from a "look these are real people, people who care about
> OpenStack" perspective.
I've attended part or all of a couple of the board meetings by phone.
One thing I have found rather puzzling is the orientation towards use
of webex, though I realize there is a backup traditional dialin. I
have wondered whether this might have some subtle effect in
discouraging some to attend the meetings virtually, since the natural
assumption is that webex is going to provide some fuller experience
(as otherwise I am not sure why it would be used at all).
In the case of one meeting, I struggled without success in trying to
use webex via two devices I had available and the annoyance of that
experience almost led me to decide not to then dial in. I dunno,
perhaps my experience is atypical. What precisely does webex provide
that a traditional conference call service would not, for purposes of
OpenStack Foundation board meetings?
In the case of one of the in-person board meetings I attended by
dialing in, it was possible to hear at best 40% or so of what was
said.
- RF
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
--
Nick Barcet <nick@enovance.com<mailto:nick@enovance.com>>
VP Products - eNovance
a.k.a. nicolas, nijaba
There are many other criteria that we can apply such as membership of a user group, participation in mailing lists, blogging their experiences or attendance at summits which is a more significant contribution than dialing in for a 6 hour call ending at 2 a.m. in the morning.
In choosing to stand for election, the candidate accepts the activities that come with it. However, to require people to do their 'articles' before consideration for board membership does not seem the most effective use of some excellent community contributors.
Let's find some other criteria.
Tim
From: Nick Barcet [mailto:nick@enovance.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 17:34
To: Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Agreement on requiring board candidates to attend the meetings, and, why didn't this dogpile dial into the last meeting?
My 2c on this is that making participation mandatory is ok, as long as we also accept valid excuses for exceptional reasons, which can cover: time compatibility, prior engagements, etc... I've missed two board meeting this year, one which was scheduled in the middle of my night, the other because I had to give a presentation on the role of a board member which was scheduled at the same time. In both case I tried to catch up immediately after (thanks for Alan´s help).
I do think these cases (and there are certainly others) are valid reason to be exceptionally excused and would be consider a mandatory/no excuse rule be completely counter productive to our objectives.
Nick
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com<mailto:rfontana@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:56:35PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 14:42 +0000, Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> > And finally, for many parts of the OpenStack community, this is our
> > *job*. We get paid to do this. Dialing into a Board meeting and
> > listening in should be as important in attending as the various
> > meetings and con calls and all-hands and stand-ups that we do for our
> > employers. Where were all the PTLs, the TC members, the couple of
> > dozen other community engagement folks?
>
> If I wasn't on the board, and if there was a detailed summary of the
> topics published after the meeting, then I'd read that rather than
> dialling in just to listen.
>
> I do think it would be worthwhile for people to attend in-person for an
> hour or two if they happen to be convenient to the venue, but that's
> more from a "look these are real people, people who care about
> OpenStack" perspective.
I've attended part or all of a couple of the board meetings by phone.
One thing I have found rather puzzling is the orientation towards use
of webex, though I realize there is a backup traditional dialin. I
have wondered whether this might have some subtle effect in
discouraging some to attend the meetings virtually, since the natural
assumption is that webex is going to provide some fuller experience
(as otherwise I am not sure why it would be used at all).
In the case of one meeting, I struggled without success in trying to
use webex via two devices I had available and the annoyance of that
experience almost led me to decide not to then dial in. I dunno,
perhaps my experience is atypical. What precisely does webex provide
that a traditional conference call service would not, for purposes of
OpenStack Foundation board meetings?
In the case of one of the in-person board meetings I attended by
dialing in, it was possible to hear at best 40% or so of what was
said.
- RF
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
--
Nick Barcet <nick@enovance.com<mailto:nick@enovance.com>>
VP Products - eNovance
a.k.a. nicolas, nijaba