Mailing List Archive

As Jim mentioned, I'm going to focus on establishing the foundation this year and am really excited to be able to dedicate the time and attention it deserves, alongside Jonathan, Stef, and many others. I've found myself spread a bit too thin the past few months, as I'm sure we all have in the crazy whirlwind of the OpenStack universe.

To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation

The first thing you'll notice is that I tried to keep it simple and stay out of the questions of HOW the foundation will achieve the mission, because I think it's good to start with an idea of the purpose before debating the many ways in which a foundation could be structured to achieve it (as several people pointed out on the list). So much of the HOW is too be discussed, debated, and ultimately determined, but if you look at the timeline you'll see that in about a month our goal is t have a draft structure to review with everyone. I'm hopeful that we can rally around the Mission between now and then and get it finalized.

Jonathan and I will host a webinar in the next week or so as an additional method of gathering feedback. We are also thinking an in person meeting in February in Santa Clara might be helpful, and can add other forums. And of course we'll have lots of time dedicated during the Conference in April, details of which are coming together so stay tuned for an update on that from Lauren & Stef very soon.

@sparkycollier
Cell: 512-791-0356



-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim Curry" <jim.curry@rackspace.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 1:42pm
To: "openstack at lists.launchpad.net" <openstack at lists.launchpad.net>, "foundation at lists.openstack.org" <foundation at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Foundation

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

First, an apology. It has been 3 months since we announced our intention to move OpenStack into a foundation in 2012. Since that time, we have done a poor job of updating you on the status of our efforts and involving you in the process. Jan, Cole, Ryan and others are all more than justified in asking for better communication. We are going to improve our efforts starting today and will continue to actively communicate with you throughout the formation of the foundation. Responsibility and accountability for this effort at Rackspace rests with me, so I offer my apologies and promise that this will be improved.

So now for the update. In reality, there has been a ton of work occurring to build a proposal that can serve as the basis for a constructive community conversation. I firmly believe that the best way to have a conversation with a group as diverse and large as the OpenStack community is to start with a very defined proposal that everyone can react to ? positively or negatively. This proposal is not meant to be anything other than a framework to manage the discussion. No decisions are being made without the involvement of the broad community. Trying to handle the large number of complex issues over a mailing list without a base framework would be impossible to manage. It is also unfair to community members who don't live on the mailing lists day to day, but do want to review the plans and provide comments. We are basing this initial proposal on a lot of input received from the community and beyond ? developers, users, companies, other open source projects and foundations, lawyers, specific country experts, etc. As you might imagine, the diversity of opinion received is large (we are not a shy group!) and pulling that together into a starting point in and of itself is a challenge. But we are about done with it and will be posting the initial proposal in the next few days. Looking back on our initial setup of OpenStack, I wish we had had more time to have solicited broader input and completed additional diligence as there are likely decisions that would have been made differently. In the hopefully long life of the OpenStack foundation, I believe a 3 month investment in setting up the right framework for a discussion is a justified investment.

Rackspace has a number of resources dedicated to this effort:

1. Jonathan Bryce has been 100% focused on this effort since the announcement, and has been actively soliciting feedback from the constituencies I mentioned above.
2. Mark Collier has given up his other responsibilities to focus on getting the foundation setup with Jonathan.
3. Alice King is leading the legal efforts and actively working with other legal counsel in the community

We also have numerous other team members devoting a substantial portion of their time to the foundation including our community manager, Stefano Maffulli, and other members of my team. Not to mention those of you who have generously helped along the way!

I sincerely appreciate the goodwill the community demonstrates towards Rackspace. We are not perfect, and we absolutely make mistakes along the way. Its easiest to assume the worst ? that Rackspace has ill intentions or is incompetent in the management of this process. But the vast majority of you are supportive even if we don't always deserve your support. Many outside this community are eagerly seeking signs of division. Lets please not give it to them. I am asking for your trust that we are good to our word, and that we will transition this project from Rackspace to you as soon as possible. Rackspace wants the foundation to happen as much as any member of this community does. We committed to you that it will happen in 2012, and it will ? hopefully sooner rather than later. But much work remains to be done, and we need your active feedback, support, and patience during this process.

I look forward to working with you on this effort in the coming months.

Jim Curry
@jimcurry

Hi Mark,

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 15:16 -0500, mark at openstack.org wrote:
> As Jim mentioned, I'm going to focus on establishing the foundation
> this year and am really excited to be able to dedicate the time and
> attention it deserves, alongside Jonathan, Stef, and many others.
> I've found myself spread a bit too thin the past few months, as I'm
> sure we all have in the crazy whirlwind of the OpenStack universe.
>
> To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and
> published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment

Nicely done on the Foundation Mission. It covers a lot of ground
concisely. Great start. Really.

At first glance, one thing that seems missing is "OpenStack is a
self-governing meritocracy". Compare with the GNOME Charter, "How the
ASF works" and the Document Foundation Manifesto.

There's lots of ways we could reflect this principle of meritocracy -
e.g. to highlight that the foundation is not an entity separated from
its members, but rather its members are the foundation. Members are
empowered beyond the points you list; they are empowered to
fundamentally shift the direction of the foundation itself. Influence in
the foundation is based solely on what one is doing to drive the project
forward. etc.

Another thing I wouldn't be too keen on is the overly negative "defend
the trademark" references. I'd go for "determining the appropriate use
of the trademark". The trademark is an asset of the foundation that
needs to be fairly shared amongst the foundation membership, not some
precious jewel to be locked in a basement and jealously guarded.

But, again ... great start.

In some ways the mission statement is fundamental to the foundation, but
in other ways it won't nearly have as much impact on the success of the
foundation as its structure, governance and culture. For that reason,
I'd tend to say "the mission statement looks fine, let's get on to the
meaty stuff".

RAX have a lot to be commended for and will be worthy of high praise
indeed if this is done right. The feedback below is purely my little bit
to help make that happen.

> as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation
>
> The first thing you'll notice is that I tried to keep it simple and
> stay out of the questions of HOW the foundation will achieve the
> mission, because I think it's good to start with an idea of the
> purpose before debating the many ways in which a foundation could be
> structured to achieve it (as several people pointed out on the list).
> So much of the HOW is too be discussed, debated, and ultimately
> determined, but if you look at the timeline you'll see that in about a
> month our goal is t have a draft structure to review with everyone.
> I'm hopeful that we can rally around the Mission between now and then
> and get it finalized.

Having to wait another month before any discussion of the structure is
very disappointing.

It sounds like there are "numerous other" RAX employees who have the
privilege of some insight into the ongoing drafting. That may have been
intended to convey RAX's commitment to establishing the foundation, but
it comes across to me like there's a party going on that the rest of us
aren't invited to.

I assume some basic principles for the structure of the foundation have
been settled on in the months since the announcement. I really don't see
why those principles can't be shared and debated on in advance of the
full blown verbiage.

> Jonathan and I will host a webinar in the next week or so as an
> additional method of gathering feedback. We are also thinking an in
> person meeting in February in Santa Clara might be helpful, and can
> add other forums.

IMHO, the mailing list is the one forum available to us which enables a
truly open debate.

I think the emphasis should be on encouraging that debate here on the
mailing list for all to see, archived for posterity.

The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.

That concerns me for two reasons - (1) the silence of all those
excellent RAX OpenStack developers suggests that those folks are either
afraid to publicly speak their mind on these matters, or they are
ambivalent about them and (2) there are obviously many other discussions
happening away from the transparency of this mailing list.

> And of course we'll have lots of time dedicated during the Conference
> in April, details of which are coming together so stay tuned for an
> update on that from Lauren & Stef very soon.

I look forward to the foundation planning these events openly and
transparently :-)

Cheers,
Mark.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 15:16 -0500, mark at openstack.org wrote:
>> As Jim mentioned, I'm going to focus on establishing the foundation
>> this year and am really excited to be able to dedicate the time and
>> attention it deserves, alongside Jonathan, Stef, and many others.
>> I've found myself spread a bit too thin the past few months, as I'm
>> sure we all have in the crazy whirlwind of the OpenStack universe.
>>
>> To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and
>> published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment
>
> Nicely done on the Foundation Mission. It covers a lot of ground
> concisely. Great start. Really.
>
> At first glance, one thing that seems missing is "OpenStack is a
> self-governing meritocracy". Compare with the GNOME Charter, "How the
> ASF works" and the Document Foundation Manifesto.
>
> There's lots of ways we could reflect this principle of meritocracy -
> e.g. to highlight that the foundation is not an entity separated from
> its members, but rather its members are the foundation. Members are
> empowered beyond the points you list; they are empowered to
> fundamentally shift the direction of the foundation itself. Influence in
> the foundation is based solely on what one is doing to drive the project
> forward. etc.
>
> Another thing I wouldn't be too keen on is the overly negative "defend
> the trademark" references. I'd go for "determining the appropriate use
> of the trademark". The trademark is an asset of the foundation that
> needs to be fairly shared amongst the foundation membership, not some
> precious jewel to be locked in a basement and jealously guarded.
>
> But, again ... great start.
>
> In some ways the mission statement is fundamental to the foundation, but
> in other ways it won't nearly have as much impact on the success of the
> foundation as its structure, governance and culture. For that reason,
> I'd tend to say "the mission statement looks fine, let's get on to the
> meaty stuff".
>
> RAX have a lot to be commended for and will be worthy of high praise
> indeed if this is done right. The feedback below is purely my little bit
> to help make that happen.
>
>> ?as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months:
>> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation
>>
>> The first thing you'll notice is that I tried to keep it simple and
>> stay out of the questions of HOW the foundation will achieve the
>> mission, because I think it's good to start with an idea of the
>> purpose before debating the many ways in which a foundation could be
>> structured to achieve it (as several people pointed out on the list).
>> So much of the HOW is too be discussed, debated, and ultimately
>> determined, but if you look at the timeline you'll see that in about a
>> month our goal is t have a draft structure to review with everyone.
>> I'm hopeful that we can rally around the Mission between now and then
>> and get it finalized.
>
> Having to wait another month before any discussion of the structure is
> very disappointing.
>
> It sounds like there are "numerous other" RAX employees who have the
> privilege of some insight into the ongoing drafting. That may have been
> intended to convey RAX's commitment to establishing the foundation, but
> it comes across to me like there's a party going on that the rest of us
> aren't invited to.
>
> I assume some basic principles for the structure of the foundation have
> been settled on in the months since the announcement. I really don't see
> why those principles can't be shared and debated on in advance of the
> full blown verbiage.
>
>> Jonathan and I will host a webinar in the next week or so as an
>> additional method of gathering feedback. ?We are also thinking an in
>> person meeting in February in Santa Clara might be helpful, and can
>> add other forums.
>
> IMHO, the mailing list is the one forum available to us which enables a
> truly open debate.
>
> I think the emphasis should be on encouraging that debate here on the
> mailing list for all to see, archived for posterity.
>
> The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
> Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.
>
> That concerns me for two reasons - (1) the silence of all those
> excellent RAX OpenStack developers suggests that those folks are either
> afraid to publicly speak their mind on these matters, or they are
> ambivalent about them and (2) there are obviously many other discussions
> happening away from the transparency of this mailing list.

Speaking for myself: I'm more interested in driving the code base
forward than the foundation.

The foundation bits are in the hands of trustworthy people that are
very approachable. Knowing I can ask about it at any time, and that
it is moving forward without having to constantly bird-dog it makes me
happy and able to be productive in other ways.

I don't think there is going to be any publicly holding back from
developers once there are more substantial bits that we have opinions
on, and we'll register them on the list the same way as everyone else.
Looking at the foundation archives, I'm not sure how you construed
silence on behalf of RAX developers more than anyone else in the first
place. It is very low volume so you have a poor sample to begin with,
and a lot of what is there is in fact from Rackspace employees.

-todd[1]

>
>> And of course we'll have lots of time dedicated during the Conference
>> in April, details of which are coming together so stay tuned for an
>> update on that from Lauren & Stef very soon.
>
> I look forward to the foundation planning these events openly and
> transparently :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 01/05/2012 02:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> In some ways the mission statement is fundamental to the foundation,
> but in other ways it won't nearly have as much impact on the success
> of the foundation as its structure, governance and culture.

The structure and everything else depends intimately from the mission:
only once you know exactly *where* you're going you can decide on the
equipment, the route and everything else. I would be very careful to
dismiss this defining phase lightly as 'looks good' because we may end
up with a structure and governance that is misaligned with objectives of
the foundation.

> Having to wait another month before any discussion of the structure is
> very disappointing.

This time will be used to make sure everybody understands and agrees on
the mission of the future OpenStack Foundation, what it will do and what
it will not do. I hope this will be a 'meaty' discussion as this will
set the base for the new organization. The existing OpenStack community
will have to identify itself in it.

> I assume some basic principles for the structure of the foundation have
> been settled on in the months since the announcement.

If you weren't in Boston when the plan for the foundation was announced,
I suggest you to watch the recording of the open discussion we all had
there: http://vimeo.com/31216912. The only basic principle that was
clear at the time is that, whatever happens, OpenStack must continue to
be a successful project. Everything else is being decided now, with
valuable input from the whole community.

> I think the emphasis should be on encouraging that debate here on the
> mailing list for all to see, archived for posterity.

In my experience there is no way to limit human interactions to one tool
only. I will meet people for drinks and get ideas by talking to them.
You, Jim, Mark... will all talk to people and share ideas regarding the
foundation. This interaction will happen and will shape the foundation,
whether we declare one mailing list the *official* forum.

That said, of course the foundation mailing list is the best place to
send proposals, ideas and comments on the draft published today. I
suggest we stop cross-posting to the (mainly) technical mailing list now.

Cheers,
stef

2012/1/5 Jim Curry <jim.curry at rackspace.com>:
> So now for the update. ?In reality, there has been a ton of work
> occurring to build a proposal that can serve as the basis for a
> constructive community conversation. ?I firmly believe that the best
> way to have a conversation with a group as diverse and large as the
> OpenStack community is to start with a very defined proposal that
> everyone can react to ? positively or negatively. ?This proposal is
> not meant to be anything other than a framework to manage the
> discussion. ?No decisions are being made without the involvement of
> the broad community.

What does that mean?

From what I understand so far, someone at Rackspace will eventually
publish some documents for discussion and will "listen to feedback".
What if this feedback isn't unanimous? Are shooting for a minimum that
we can reach consensus on (by ripping out everything that anyone at all
disagrees with) or will there be a vote on individual points of
contention? Will the documents as a whole be put to a vote? If so,
what if they're rejected? In both cases, who gets a vote?

> Trying to handle the large number of complex issues over a mailing
> list without a base framework would be impossible to manage. ?It is
> also unfair to community members who don't live on the mailing lists
> day to day, but do want to review the plans and provide comments.

I'm much more concerned about the quality of the feedback than the
quantity. Twitter only lets you make a point in 140 characters. That's
hardly enough for a delicate discussion like this. A webinar isn't any
better, because these things need carefully thought out arguments, not
just whatever you can come up right there on the spot. Honestly, if
people have strong opinions on this subject, but can't be bothered to
send an e-mail, that's sad.

>?We are basing this initial proposal on a lot of input received from the
> community and beyond ? developers, users, companies, other open source
> projects and foundations, lawyers, specific country experts, etc.

How has this worked? Have these people (who?) been asked a specific set
of questions? Can we see them so that we can consider the same
questions? Can we see the feedback itself?

If you expect the foundation after it's been established to take it into
consideration at all, it needs to be disclosed, otherwise the first
revision of the bylaws/constitution might go against this feedback
entirely, and then it's been a waste of time.

--
Soren Hansen ? ? ? ?| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer ? ?| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

Hi Todd,

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:29 -0500, Todd Willey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
> > Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.
> >
> > That concerns me for two reasons - (1) the silence of all those
> > excellent RAX OpenStack developers suggests that those folks are either
> > afraid to publicly speak their mind on these matters, or they are
> > ambivalent about them and (2) there are obviously many other discussions
> > happening away from the transparency of this mailing list.
>
> Speaking for myself: I'm more interested in driving the code base
> forward than the foundation.
>
> The foundation bits are in the hands of trustworthy people that are
> very approachable. Knowing I can ask about it at any time, and that
> it is moving forward without having to constantly bird-dog it makes me
> happy and able to be productive in other ways.

So, generally speaking, RAX hackers are regularly talking (in-person, on
private mail, irc, phone?) to the folks working on establishing the
foundation and are reassured by what they are hearing back?

I'm reassured that you're reassured (genuinely), but I'd be more
reassured if such questions and assurances were happening on this list
where I too could be directly reassured by the assurances given ... if
you follow me :-)

> I don't think there is going to be any publicly holding back from
> developers once there are more substantial bits that we have opinions
> on, and we'll register them on the list the same way as everyone else.
> Looking at the foundation archives, I'm not sure how you construed
> silence on behalf of RAX developers more than anyone else in the first
> place. It is very low volume so you have a poor sample to begin with,
> and a lot of what is there is in fact from Rackspace employees.

Ok, cool. I'm really looking forward to hearing the thoughts of more
developers on this stuff.

Thanks for the perspective Todd.

Cheers,
Mark.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:29 -0500, Todd Willey wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
>> > Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.
>> >
>> > That concerns me for two reasons - (1) the silence of all those
>> > excellent RAX OpenStack developers suggests that those folks are either
>> > afraid to publicly speak their mind on these matters, or they are
>> > ambivalent about them and (2) there are obviously many other discussions
>> > happening away from the transparency of this mailing list.
>>
>> Speaking for myself: I'm more interested in driving the code base
>> forward than the foundation.
>>
>> The foundation bits are in the hands of trustworthy people that are
>> very approachable. ?Knowing I can ask about it at any time, and that
>> it is moving forward without having to constantly bird-dog it makes me
>> happy and able to be productive in other ways.
>
> So, generally speaking, RAX hackers are regularly talking (in-person, on
> private mail, irc, phone?) to the folks working on establishing the
> foundation and are reassured by what they are hearing back?

Sorry, the point I was trying to get across is that I don't
necessarily need to be in discussions to feel confident. I don't
think I've ever had a conversation about it, but I know they'll be
responsive when pinged, and the people involved have been active in
responding to this thread in the last couple of days.

>
> I'm reassured that you're reassured (genuinely), but I'd be more
> reassured if such questions and assurances were happening on this list
> where I too could be directly reassured by the assurances given ... if
> you follow me :-)

I follow you. I just wanted to point out that the reason I'm not
asking on the list is that I'm not asking at all, because I haven't
felt any concerns I needed to voice (yet). I think the early stages
are likely to be very political and getting founding members to feel
good about their positions in the new foundation. Once the
discussions are less strategic and more tactical about how we actually
implement very specific parts of our mission, I'll likely be more
active. I assume other developers are in the same boat as we often
make better tacticians than politicians.

>
>> I don't think there is going to be any publicly holding back from
>> developers once there are more substantial bits that we have opinions
>> on, and we'll register them on the list the same way as everyone else.
>> ?Looking at the foundation archives, I'm not sure how you construed
>> silence on behalf of RAX developers more than anyone else in the first
>> place. ?It is very low volume so you have a poor sample to begin with,
>> and a lot of what is there is in fact from Rackspace employees.
>
> Ok, cool. I'm really looking forward to hearing the thoughts of more
> developers on this stuff.
>
> Thanks for the perspective Todd.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>

2012/1/5 <mark at openstack.org>:
> To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months: ?http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation

I've always imagined the foundation would be responsible for ensuring
that developers will have access to a set of reference platforms for
testing as well as ensuring that we have relatively continuous access
to means for conducting large-scale testing.

Can you weave that in there somehow?

--
Soren Hansen ? ? ? ?| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer ? ?| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Soren Hansen <soren at linux2go.dk> wrote:
> 2012/1/5 ?<mark at openstack.org>:
>> To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months: ?http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation
>
> I've always imagined the foundation would be responsible for ensuring
> that developers will have access to a set of reference platforms for
> testing as well as ensuring that we have relatively continuous access
> to means for conducting large-scale testing.
>
> Can you weave that in there somehow?

I think this is an excellent point. The details of how contributing
organizations "donate" or provide access to these test clusters can be
worked out in time, but this is an important point to get on the
mission/charter early on.

Cheers,
-jay

I think that shared resources are a key part of the foundation's role, and love the idea of having reference platforms for testing (quality, scale, compatibility are all testing areas I would imagine would benefit). I'll work on weaving that in and also keep it in mind as we pull resource estimates together.

Thanks Soren

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: "Soren Hansen" <soren@linux2go.dk>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 5:37am
To: mark at openstack.org
Cc: "Jim Curry" <jim.curry at rackspace.com>, "foundation at lists.openstack.org" <foundation at lists.openstack.org>, "openstack at lists.launchpad.net" <openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Foundation

2012/1/5 <mark at openstack.org>:
> To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months: ?http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation

I've always imagined the foundation would be responsible for ensuring
that developers will have access to a set of reference platforms for
testing as well as ensuring that we have relatively continuous access
to means for conducting large-scale testing.

Can you weave that in there somehow?

--
Soren Hansen ? ? ? ?| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer ? ?| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

It is now Feb 4th. The has been no updates since Jan 5th. Not that I've
noticed, at least.

The schedule on http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation says a
revised (or final?) mission statement would have been posted last week.
Also, a draft structure should have been posted this week? Can we still
expect that?

--
Soren Hansen ? ? ? ?| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer ? ?| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

2012/2/4 Soren Hansen <soren at linux2go.dk>:
> The schedule on http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation says a
> revised (or final?) mission statement would have been posted last week.

Ah, since I wrote my e-mail yesterday, it seems that page has been
updated. Sorry.

We were promised more communication. I think the absolute minimum would
be announcing changes to the schedule on the mailing list. More info
about what is actually going on would also be nice.

--
Soren Hansen ? ? ? ?| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer ? ?| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

On 02/04/2012 04:20 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2012/2/4 Soren Hansen<soren at linux2go.dk>:
>> The schedule on http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation says a
>> revised (or final?) mission statement would have been posted last week.
>
> Ah, since I wrote my e-mail yesterday, it seems that page has been
> updated. Sorry.
>
> We were promised more communication. I think the absolute minimum would
> be announcing changes to the schedule on the mailing list. More info
> about what is actually going on would also be nice.
>

I know that there are private meetings going on. Rackspace needs to
understand that regardless of the good intent, it is not visible to the
majority of the community and appears to be a private endeavor. I'm not
questioning the intent, just the communication. If there is going to be
a period of gathering requirements from major participants, just put
that on the schedule, so everyone knows that something is happening,
instead of just radio silence.

2012/2/4 Soren Hansen <soren at linux2go.dk>:
> 2012/2/4 Soren Hansen <soren at linux2go.dk>:
>> The schedule on http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation says
>> a revised (or final?) mission statement would have been posted last
>> week.
> Ah, since I wrote my e-mail yesterday, it seems that page has been
> updated. Sorry.

I also see that the "DRAFT FOR COMMENT" designation at the top of the
Mission page was removed a couple of days ago[1]. Is that intentional?

[1]: http://goo.gl/e8lHf

--
Soren Hansen ? ? ? ?| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer ? ?| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/