Mailing List Archive

Sounds like a good change.
Alan,
Do you propose we vote on it at Denver?
Thanks,
Arkady

From: Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 8:43 AM
To: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Bylaws change proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open Infrastructure project confirmation


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point out, many factors go into the board's decisions. To ensure that the board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as follows: (changed text in italics).

4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, and discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request other information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.

If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.

Thanks,
Alan Clark


[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines

I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it sound
like it will be the norm that discussing the review and approval of these
projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.

I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there any way
to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall under the first
two items mentioned to not be public?

Sean


On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org> wrote:

> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus and as
> the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the OpenStack board
> desires to do its part in helping the projects thrive and grow. A key step
> in project advancement is the project confirmation by the Board.
> Confirmation will enable the Foundation to apply additional Foundation
> resources towards that project. In support of this process, the board at
> its last meeting, approved the OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As
> the Guidelines point out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To
> ensure that the board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as
> possible to the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the
> board will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
> follows: (changed text in italics).
>
>
>
> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the
> candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, *and discuss the
> review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, *the Board of
> Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via
> remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the Board
> of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request other
> information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate
> Law.
>
>
>
> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels that
> there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this amendment
> provides a mechanism for such discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>

Thanks for the input Sean. I’ll circle with Legal to see if the wording can be clarified.

-AlanClark



From: Sean McGinnis [mailto:sean.mcginnis@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 7:55 AM
To: AlanClark@openstack.org
Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Bylaws change proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open Infrastructure project confirmation



I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and approval of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.



I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there any way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall under the first two items mentioned to not be public?



Sean





On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org> > wrote:

As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To ensure that the board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as follows: (changed text in italics).



4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, and discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request other information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.



If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.



Thanks,

Alan Clark





[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines



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

On 02/04/2019 14:43, Alan Clark wrote:
<snip>
> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the
> candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and discuss
> the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, /the Board of
> Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via
> remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the
> Board of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request
> other information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware
> Corporate Law.
>
>
>
> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels
> that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this
> amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.
>
I am still not sure what could be required for an executive session that
is not covered by "sensitive personnel information" that would require
this.

Personally, for me, this looks like we are not abiding by our own ethos
of the Four Opens - I do understand if there is personel issues with a
potential project, we would want to have it discussed behind closed
doors, but everything else should be in the open. If the project
that is about to be included has large enough personnel issues that
they could cause issues for its inclusion in the foundation, there
is a very high chance that they are going to fail some of the
confirmation guidelines, and that *is* something the community
should have visiblity into.

Even from an optics perspective - the board deciding to include or
not include a project behind closed doors is not something that
is representitive of the OpenStack community, and not something
I think the community should be supporting.

We talked about this in the board meeting today, and thought that
"Except as necessary" at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient for
the bylaws to express that open meetings are the norm, and executive
sessions are only for special limited circumstances. But, since our
process for the Gold and Platinum Member candidacy is to always schedule
an executive session, that might create an assumption that we will do
the same for project confirmation. We thought the best place to be
explicit that open meetings are the normal process for confirmation
review would be in the process section at the bottom of the project
confirmation guidelines:

https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines

I volunteered to make a first draft, so here is a bullet point, to add
just after the point "Representatives of the pilot project will attend a
discussion meeting with the Board..."

======
The discussion meeting will be an open meeting. The Board, the
Foundation staff, or the pilot project may optionally request an
executive session for part of the meeting, if some discussion topics
have special sensitivity for legal or privacy reasons.
======

The idea is that we'll refine the wording here on the mailing lists, and
then the Board will vote on the wording change to the confirmation
guidelines at the same Board meeting where we vote on the Bylaws wording
change.

Allison

On 4/2/19 2:54 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it
> sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and approval
> of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.
>
> I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there any
> way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall under the
> first two items mentioned to not be public?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org
> <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org>> wrote:
>
> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus
> and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the
> OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects
> thrive and grow.  A key step in project advancement is the project
> confirmation by the Board.  Confirmation will enable the Foundation
> to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project.  In
> support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the
> OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1].  As the Guidelines point
> out, many factors go into the board’s decisions.  To ensure that the
> board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to
> the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board
> will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
> follows: (changed text in italics).____
>
> __ __
>
> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records.  Except as necessary to protect
> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss
> the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and
> discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects,
> /the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its
> meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic
> means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make
> available to any Member on request other information and records of
> the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.____
>
> __ __
>
> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director
> feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected
> this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.____
>
> __ __
>
> Thanks,____
>
> Alan Clark____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines____
>
> __ __
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Allison, Thank you for leading this task. I would like to suggest an additional thought to include in the wording.

That the official voting will be performed within the open meetings. The same is done for Gold and Platinum member discussions today.

Regards,
AlanClark

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Allison Randal [mailto:allison@lohutok.net]
>Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 11:21 AM
>To: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
>Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] Bylaws change
>proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open
>Infrastructure project confirmation
>
>We talked about this in the board meeting today, and thought that "Except as
>necessary" at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient for the bylaws to express
>that open meetings are the norm, and executive sessions are only for special
>limited circumstances. But, since our process for the Gold and Platinum Member
>candidacy is to always schedule an executive session, that might create an
>assumption that we will do the same for project confirmation. We thought the
>best place to be explicit that open meetings are the normal process for
>confirmation review would be in the process section at the bottom of the project
>confirmation guidelines:
>
>https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Governance/Foundation/OSFProje
>ctConfirmationGuidelines
>
>I volunteered to make a first draft, so here is a bullet point, to add just after the
>point "Representatives of the pilot project will attend a discussion meeting with
>the Board..."
>
>======
>The discussion meeting will be an open meeting. The Board, the Foundation staff,
>or the pilot project may optionally request an executive session for part of the
>meeting, if some discussion topics have special sensitivity for legal or privacy
>reasons.
>======
>
>The idea is that we'll refine the wording here on the mailing lists, and then the
>Board will vote on the wording change to the confirmation guidelines at the same
>Board meeting where we vote on the Bylaws wording change.
>
>Allison
>
>On 4/2/19 2:54 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>> I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it
>> sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and approval
>> of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.
>>
>> I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there
>> any way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall
>> under the first two items mentioned to not be public?
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org
>> <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org>> wrote:
>>
>> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus
>> and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the
>> OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects
>> thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project
>> confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation
>> to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In
>> support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the
>> OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point
>> out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To ensure that the
>> board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to
>> the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board
>> will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
>> follows: (changed text in italics).____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
>> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss
>> the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and
>> discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects,
>> /the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its
>> meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic
>> means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make
>> available to any Member on request other information and records of
>> the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director
>> feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected
>> this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Thanks,____
>>
>> Alan Clark____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfir
>> mationGuidelines____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>> <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Hi Alan,

That sounds like a good addition. To keep the wording simple, I'll
suggest changing the last line of the process section to read:

==========
The Board will review the project's application and vote whether to
confirm it in the open meeting.
==========

Allison

On 4/9/19 6:25 PM, Alan Clark wrote:
> Allison, Thank you for leading this task. I would like to suggest an additional thought to include in the wording.
>
> That the official voting will be performed within the open meetings. The same is done for Gold and Platinum member discussions today.
>
> Regards,
> AlanClark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Allison Randal [mailto:allison@lohutok.net]
>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 11:21 AM
>> To: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
>> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] Bylaws change
>> proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open
>> Infrastructure project confirmation
>>
>> We talked about this in the board meeting today, and thought that "Except as
>> necessary" at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient for the bylaws to express
>> that open meetings are the norm, and executive sessions are only for special
>> limited circumstances. But, since our process for the Gold and Platinum Member
>> candidacy is to always schedule an executive session, that might create an
>> assumption that we will do the same for project confirmation. We thought the
>> best place to be explicit that open meetings are the normal process for
>> confirmation review would be in the process section at the bottom of the project
>> confirmation guidelines:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Governance/Foundation/OSFProje
>> ctConfirmationGuidelines
>>
>> I volunteered to make a first draft, so here is a bullet point, to add just after the
>> point "Representatives of the pilot project will attend a discussion meeting with
>> the Board..."
>>
>> ======
>> The discussion meeting will be an open meeting. The Board, the Foundation staff,
>> or the pilot project may optionally request an executive session for part of the
>> meeting, if some discussion topics have special sensitivity for legal or privacy
>> reasons.
>> ======
>>
>> The idea is that we'll refine the wording here on the mailing lists, and then the
>> Board will vote on the wording change to the confirmation guidelines at the same
>> Board meeting where we vote on the Bylaws wording change.
>>
>> Allison
>>
>> On 4/2/19 2:54 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>> I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it
>>> sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and approval
>>> of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.
>>>
>>> I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there
>>> any way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall
>>> under the first two items mentioned to not be public?
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org
>>> <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus
>>> and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the
>>> OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects
>>> thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project
>>> confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation
>>> to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In
>>> support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the
>>> OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point
>>> out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To ensure that the
>>> board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to
>>> the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board
>>> will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
>>> follows: (changed text in italics).____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
>>> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss
>>> the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and
>>> discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects,
>>> /the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its
>>> meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic
>>> means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make
>>> available to any Member on request other information and records of
>>> the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director
>>> feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected
>>> this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> Thanks,____
>>>
>>> Alan Clark____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfir
>>> mationGuidelines____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation-board mailing list
>>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>>> <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

I think that this approach is fine if included in the process section.
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 7:19 AM
To: AlanClark@openstack.org; 'Sean McGinnis' <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] Bylaws change proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open Infrastructure project confirmation

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Alan,

That sounds like a good addition. To keep the wording simple, I'll suggest changing the last line of the process section to read:

==========
The Board will review the project's application and vote whether to confirm it in the open meeting.
==========

Allison

On 4/9/19 6:25 PM, Alan Clark wrote:
> Allison, Thank you for leading this task. I would like to suggest an additional thought to include in the wording.
>
> That the official voting will be performed within the open meetings. The same is done for Gold and Platinum member discussions today.
>
> Regards,
> AlanClark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Allison Randal [mailto:allison@lohutok.net]
>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 11:21 AM
>> To: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
>> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org;
>> foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] Bylaws change
>> proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open
>> Infrastructure project confirmation
>>
>> We talked about this in the board meeting today, and thought that
>> "Except as necessary" at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient
>> for the bylaws to express that open meetings are the norm, and
>> executive sessions are only for special limited circumstances. But,
>> since our process for the Gold and Platinum Member candidacy is to
>> always schedule an executive session, that might create an assumption
>> that we will do the same for project confirmation. We thought the
>> best place to be explicit that open meetings are the normal process
>> for confirmation review would be in the process section at the bottom of the project confirmation guidelines:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Governance/Foundation/OS
>> FProje
>> ctConfirmationGuidelines
>>
>> I volunteered to make a first draft, so here is a bullet point, to
>> add just after the point "Representatives of the pilot project will
>> attend a discussion meeting with the Board..."
>>
>> ======
>> The discussion meeting will be an open meeting. The Board, the
>> Foundation staff, or the pilot project may optionally request an
>> executive session for part of the meeting, if some discussion topics
>> have special sensitivity for legal or privacy reasons.
>> ======
>>
>> The idea is that we'll refine the wording here on the mailing lists,
>> and then the Board will vote on the wording change to the
>> confirmation guidelines at the same Board meeting where we vote on the Bylaws wording change.
>>
>> Allison
>>
>> On 4/2/19 2:54 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>> I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it
>>> sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and
>>> approval of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.
>>>
>>> I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there
>>> any way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall
>>> under the first two items mentioned to not be public?
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org
>>> <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus
>>> and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the
>>> OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects
>>> thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project
>>> confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation
>>> to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In
>>> support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the
>>> OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point
>>> out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To ensure that the
>>> board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to
>>> the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board
>>> will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
>>> follows: (changed text in italics).____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
>>> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss
>>> the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and
>>> discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects,
>>> /the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its
>>> meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic
>>> means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make
>>> available to any Member on request other information and records of
>>> the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director
>>> feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected
>>> this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> Thanks,____
>>>
>>> Alan Clark____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConf
>>> ir
>>> mationGuidelines____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation-board mailing list
>>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>>> <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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-board mailing list
Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

All,

Very good proposal, thanks!

Br c

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 22.04.2019 um 18:19 schrieb Radcliffe, Mark <mark.radcliffe@dlapiper.com>:
>
> I think that this approach is fine if included in the process section.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 7:19 AM
> To: AlanClark@openstack.org; 'Sean McGinnis' <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] Bylaws change proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open Infrastructure project confirmation
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> That sounds like a good addition. To keep the wording simple, I'll suggest changing the last line of the process section to read:
>
> ==========
> The Board will review the project's application and vote whether to confirm it in the open meeting.
> ==========
>
> Allison
>
>> On 4/9/19 6:25 PM, Alan Clark wrote:
>> Allison, Thank you for leading this task. I would like to suggest an additional thought to include in the wording.
>>
>> That the official voting will be performed within the open meetings. The same is done for Gold and Platinum member discussions today.
>>
>> Regards,
>> AlanClark
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Allison Randal [mailto:allison@lohutok.net]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 11:21 AM
>>> To: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org;
>>> foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] Bylaws change
>>> proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open
>>> Infrastructure project confirmation
>>>
>>> We talked about this in the board meeting today, and thought that
>>> "Except as necessary" at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient
>>> for the bylaws to express that open meetings are the norm, and
>>> executive sessions are only for special limited circumstances. But,
>>> since our process for the Gold and Platinum Member candidacy is to
>>> always schedule an executive session, that might create an assumption
>>> that we will do the same for project confirmation. We thought the
>>> best place to be explicit that open meetings are the normal process
>>> for confirmation review would be in the process section at the bottom of the project confirmation guidelines:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Governance/Foundation/OS
>>> FProje
>>> ctConfirmationGuidelines
>>>
>>> I volunteered to make a first draft, so here is a bullet point, to
>>> add just after the point "Representatives of the pilot project will
>>> attend a discussion meeting with the Board..."
>>>
>>> ======
>>> The discussion meeting will be an open meeting. The Board, the
>>> Foundation staff, or the pilot project may optionally request an
>>> executive session for part of the meeting, if some discussion topics
>>> have special sensitivity for legal or privacy reasons.
>>> ======
>>>
>>> The idea is that we'll refine the wording here on the mailing lists,
>>> and then the Board will vote on the wording change to the
>>> confirmation guidelines at the same Board meeting where we vote on the Bylaws wording change.
>>>
>>> Allison
>>>
>>>> On 4/2/19 2:54 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>>> I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it
>>>> sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and
>>>> approval of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded meetings.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there
>>>> any way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall
>>>> under the first two items mentioned to not be public?
>>>>
>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org
>>>> <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus
>>>> and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the
>>>> OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects
>>>> thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project
>>>> confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation
>>>> to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In
>>>> support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the
>>>> OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point
>>>> out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To ensure that the
>>>> board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to
>>>> the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board
>>>> will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
>>>> follows: (changed text in italics).____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
>>>> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss
>>>> the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and
>>>> discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects,
>>>> /the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its
>>>> meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic
>>>> means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make
>>>> available to any Member on request other information and records of
>>>> the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director
>>>> feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected
>>>> this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,____
>>>>
>>>> Alan Clark____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConf
>>>> ir
>>>> mationGuidelines____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foundation-board mailing list
>>>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>>>> <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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-board mailing list
> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board


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

That works!
AlanClark

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Allison Randal [mailto:allison@lohutok.net]
>Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 8:19 AM
>To: 'Sean McGinnis' <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>; AlanClark@openstack.org
>Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] Bylaws change
>proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open
>Infrastructure project confirmation
>
>Hi Alan,
>
>That sounds like a good addition. To keep the wording simple, I'll suggest
>changing the last line of the process section to read:
>
>==========
>The Board will review the project's application and vote whether to confirm it in
>the open meeting.
>==========
>
>Allison
>
>On 4/9/19 6:25 PM, Alan Clark wrote:
>> Allison, Thank you for leading this task. I would like to suggest an additional
>thought to include in the wording.
>>
>> That the official voting will be performed within the open meetings. The same
>is done for Gold and Platinum member discussions today.
>>
>> Regards,
>> AlanClark
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Allison Randal [mailto:allison@lohutok.net]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 11:21 AM
>>> To: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org;
>>> foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] Bylaws change
>>> proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open
>>> Infrastructure project confirmation
>>>
>>> We talked about this in the board meeting today, and thought that
>>> "Except as necessary" at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient
>>> for the bylaws to express that open meetings are the norm, and
>>> executive sessions are only for special limited circumstances. But,
>>> since our process for the Gold and Platinum Member candidacy is to
>>> always schedule an executive session, that might create an assumption
>>> that we will do the same for project confirmation. We thought the
>>> best place to be explicit that open meetings are the normal process
>>> for confirmation review would be in the process section at the bottom of the
>project confirmation guidelines:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Governance/Foundation/OS
>>> FProje
>>> ctConfirmationGuidelines
>>>
>>> I volunteered to make a first draft, so here is a bullet point, to
>>> add just after the point "Representatives of the pilot project will
>>> attend a discussion meeting with the Board..."
>>>
>>> ======
>>> The discussion meeting will be an open meeting. The Board, the
>>> Foundation staff, or the pilot project may optionally request an
>>> executive session for part of the meeting, if some discussion topics
>>> have special sensitivity for legal or privacy reasons.
>>> ======
>>>
>>> The idea is that we'll refine the wording here on the mailing lists,
>>> and then the Board will vote on the wording change to the
>>> confirmation guidelines at the same Board meeting where we vote on the
>Bylaws wording change.
>>>
>>> Allison
>>>
>>> On 4/2/19 2:54 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>>> I like the intent. I'm a little concerned with the wording making it
>>>> sound like it will be the norm that discussing the review and
>>>> approval of these projects will be excluded from public and recorded
>meetings.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that this enables it to happen if needed, but is there
>>>> any way to codify that this is for cases where those reviews fall
>>>> under the first two items mentioned to not be public?
>>>>
>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Alan Clark <alanclark@openstack.org
>>>> <mailto:alanclark@openstack.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As the OpenStack Foundation embraces new areas of strategic focus
>>>> and as the associated Open Infrastructure projects mature, the
>>>> OpenStack board desires to do its part in helping the projects
>>>> thrive and grow. A key step in project advancement is the project
>>>> confirmation by the Board. Confirmation will enable the Foundation
>>>> to apply additional Foundation resources towards that project. In
>>>> support of this process, the board at its last meeting, approved the
>>>> OSF Project Confirmation Guidelines[1]. As the Guidelines point
>>>> out, many factors go into the board’s decisions. To ensure that the
>>>> board has the mechanisms needed to be as sensitive as possible to
>>>> the needs and feelings for those invested in the projects, the board
>>>> will further discuss a motion to amend bylaws section 4.16 as
>>>> follows: (changed text in italics).____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
>>>> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss
>>>> the candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and
>>>> discuss the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects,
>>>> /the Board of Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its
>>>> meetings by Members via remote teleconference or other electronic
>>>> means, and (ii) publish the Board of Directors minutes and make
>>>> available to any Member on request other information and records of
>>>> the Foundation as required by Delaware Corporate Law.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director
>>>> feels that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected
>>>> this amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,____
>>>>
>>>> Alan Clark____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConf
>>>> ir
>>>> mationGuidelines____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foundation-board mailing list
>>>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>>>> <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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-board mailing list
>Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:02 PM Graham Hayes <gr@ham.ie> wrote:

> On 02/04/2019 14:43, Alan Clark wrote:
> <snip>
> > 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
> > attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the
> > candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and discuss
> > the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, /the Board of
> > Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via
> > remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the
> > Board of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request
> > other information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware
> > Corporate Law.
> >
> >
> >
> > If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels
> > that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this
> > amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.
> >
> I am still not sure what could be required for an executive session that
> is not covered by "sensitive personnel information" that would require
> this.
>
> Personally, for me, this looks like we are not abiding by our own ethos
> of the Four Opens - I do understand if there is personel issues with a
> potential project, we would want to have it discussed behind closed
> doors, but everything else should be in the open. If the project
> that is about to be included has large enough personnel issues that
> they could cause issues for its inclusion in the foundation, there
> is a very high chance that they are going to fail some of the
> confirmation guidelines, and that *is* something the community
> should have visiblity into.
>
> Even from an optics perspective - the board deciding to include or
> not include a project behind closed doors is not something that
> is representitive of the OpenStack community, and not something
> I think the community should be supporting.
>

I know there's some lingering concern about this, and I'm generally against
matters of wider community interest being discussed in executive session,
but I'm comfortable about this proposal because:

a) There is no default expectation of having an executive session before
every confirmation vote - indeed, we've had two now with no executive
session

b) Anyone who does request an executive session will have to justify to the
board why the topic is so sensitive that it requires executive session

c) Confirming a project means the OSF making a long-term commitment to that
project - I'd much rather there to be some mechanism for people to raise
sensitive concerns, rather than risk projects being confirmed without those
concerns ever getting raised

d) The confirmation vote will happen in public - if there is any
controversy, I expect it would be apparent from the voting, and I expect
board members would feel compelled to give some explanation for their
voting rather than leave the community completely in the dark

Hope that helps,
Mark.

Mark I agree with your comments 100%.

Thanks,

Ryan van Wyk
Assistant Vice President (AVP) – Member of Technical Staff
Network Cloud & Infrastructure, Network Cloud Software Engineering


From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 3:46 PM
To: Graham Hayes <gr@ham.ie>
Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] Bylaws change proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open Infrastructure project confirmation



On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:02 PM Graham Hayes <gr@ham.ie<mailto:gr@ham.ie>> wrote:
On 02/04/2019 14:43, Alan Clark wrote:
<snip>
> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records. Except as necessary to protect
> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the
> candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and discuss
> the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, /the Board of
> Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via
> remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the
> Board of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request
> other information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware
> Corporate Law.
>
>
>
> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels
> that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this
> amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.
>
I am still not sure what could be required for an executive session that
is not covered by "sensitive personnel information" that would require
this.

Personally, for me, this looks like we are not abiding by our own ethos
of the Four Opens - I do understand if there is personel issues with a
potential project, we would want to have it discussed behind closed
doors, but everything else should be in the open. If the project
that is about to be included has large enough personnel issues that
they could cause issues for its inclusion in the foundation, there
is a very high chance that they are going to fail some of the
confirmation guidelines, and that *is* something the community
should have visiblity into.

Even from an optics perspective - the board deciding to include or
not include a project behind closed doors is not something that
is representitive of the OpenStack community, and not something
I think the community should be supporting.

I know there's some lingering concern about this, and I'm generally against matters of wider community interest being discussed in executive session, but I'm comfortable about this proposal because:

a) There is no default expectation of having an executive session before every confirmation vote - indeed, we've had two now with no executive session

b) Anyone who does request an executive session will have to justify to the board why the topic is so sensitive that it requires executive session

c) Confirming a project means the OSF making a long-term commitment to that project - I'd much rather there to be some mechanism for people to raise sensitive concerns, rather than risk projects being confirmed without those concerns ever getting raised

d) The confirmation vote will happen in public - if there is any controversy, I expect it would be apparent from the voting, and I expect board members would feel compelled to give some explanation for their voting rather than leave the community completely in the dark

Hope that helps,
Mark.