Mailing List Archive

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>

> ? ?OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
> ? ?otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
> ? ?ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
> ? ?a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs

Terms like "ultimate responsibility" and "delegate" in this context
make me a little uncomfortable.

The foundation's role needs to be protect, promote, and support the
OpenStack community, and otherwise get out of the way of the
participants designing, coding, and creating supplemental. Anything
else is artificial and constraining, and a sure path to forks.

I'm thankful that the current mission statement draft says about the
same thing: "The OpenStack Foundation is an independent body providing
shared resources to help achieve the OpenStack Mission by Protecting,
Empowering, and Promoting OpenStack software and the community around
it, including users, developers and the entire ecosystem."

Reading http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about it's easy to see how the
Linux Foundations work could have influenced the OpenStack mission
draft.


Particularly when it comes to the presented "Responsibilties" for the
OpenStack Mission, I'm hoping in implementation that the development
related responsibilities are loosely coupled to the foundation, or I
maybe I should say roles and elections facilitated by the foundation
-- that the best participants are in each role with transparent
sponsorship directly from member organizations. This is a natural
system.


Best regards,
Lloyd

Well said.

The linux foundation comment was just meant to be a tip of the hat for the clear writing style on that page. This stuff is hard to put into words and I found a lot of inspiration in others' work.

Thanks to everyone that attended the webinar! We'll get the recording up.



Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> ? ?OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
>> ? ?otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
>> ? ?ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
>> ? ?a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs
>
>Terms like "ultimate responsibility" and "delegate" in this context
>make me a little uncomfortable.
>
>The foundation's role needs to be protect, promote, and support the
>OpenStack community, and otherwise get out of the way of the
>participants designing, coding, and creating supplemental. Anything
>else is artificial and constraining, and a sure path to forks.
>
>I'm thankful that the current mission statement draft says about the
>same thing: "The OpenStack Foundation is an independent body providing
>shared resources to help achieve the OpenStack Mission by Protecting,
>Empowering, and Promoting OpenStack software and the community around
>it, including users, developers and the entire ecosystem."
>
>Reading http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about it's easy to see how the
>Linux Foundations work could have influenced the OpenStack mission
>draft.
>
>
>Particularly when it comes to the presented "Responsibilties" for the
>OpenStack Mission, I'm hoping in implementation that the development
>related responsibilities are loosely coupled to the foundation, or I
>maybe I should say roles and elections facilitated by the foundation
>-- that the best participants are in each role with transparent
>sponsorship directly from member organizations. This is a natural
>system.
>
>
>Best regards,
>Lloyd
>_______________________________________________
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

2012/1/13 Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>> ? ?OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
>> ? ?otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
>> ? ?ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
>> ? ?a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs
> Terms like "ultimate responsibility" and "delegate" in this context
> make me a little uncomfortable.
>
> The foundation's role needs to be protect, promote, and support the
> OpenStack community, and otherwise get out of the way of the
> participants designing, coding, and creating supplemental. Anything
> else is artificial and constraining, and a sure path to forks.

I don't follow this at all. Can you elaborate?

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

Based on discussions from a few months past, I thought the model was
more going to be like the Apache foundation. A governance body,
project meritocracy and the ability allow and guide incubator projects
either into full core products, combine with another core project or
suggest valid alternatives.

It already maps so closely to many of the other needs/wants under
OpenStack, that I thought that would be a shoe-in.

What's changed?

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> This article was re-tweeted by the OpenStack twitter account:
>
> ?http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/241213/openstack-steps-towards-its-foundation-future
>
> (I'm guessing that it must be somewhat accurate if it was re-tweeted :-)
>
> ?"Interestingly, Collier said the mission statement of the OpenStack
> ?Foundation was influenced by the mission statement of another such
> ?organization.
>
> ?The Linux Foundation's mission was a inspiration for the theme of the
> ?mission statement," Collier said. Some elements of the Linux
> ?Foundation's mission statement fit well for the OpenStack Foundation,
> ?he said."
>
> I'd see the Linux Foundation as a radically different organization from
> what I'd like to see for the OpenStack foundation e.g.
>
> ?- the Linux project is completely independent from the Linux
> ? ?Foundation, the latter is just there to support and promote the
> ? ?former
>
> ? ?the project has a benevolent dictator who decides a release
> ? ?schedule, where the code repositories live, what the policies of
> ? ?the project are etc.
>
> ? ?OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
> ? ?otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
> ? ?ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
> ? ?a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs
>
> ?- individual Linux contributors aren't members of the foundation.
> ? ?Membership is split into gold/silver/bronze classes depending on
> ? ?how much you pay
>
> So, could someone highlight which elements of the Linux foundation wiki
> are a good fit for OpenStack?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Dont read too much into the linux foundation comment. I just liked the clear writing style on their page, that's it.



Thor Wolpert <thor at wolpert.ca> wrote:

>Based on discussions from a few months past, I thought the model was
>more going to be like the Apache foundation. A governance body,
>project meritocracy and the ability allow and guide incubator projects
>either into full core products, combine with another core project or
>suggest valid alternatives.
>
>It already maps so closely to many of the other needs/wants under
>OpenStack, that I thought that would be a shoe-in.
>
>What's changed?
>
>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> This article was re-tweeted by the OpenStack twitter account:
>>
>> ?http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/241213/openstack-steps-towards-its-foundation-future
>>
>> (I'm guessing that it must be somewhat accurate if it was re-tweeted :-)
>>
>> ?"Interestingly, Collier said the mission statement of the OpenStack
>> ?Foundation was influenced by the mission statement of another such
>> ?organization.
>>
>> ?The Linux Foundation's mission was a inspiration for the theme of the
>> ?mission statement," Collier said. Some elements of the Linux
>> ?Foundation's mission statement fit well for the OpenStack Foundation,
>> ?he said."
>>
>> I'd see the Linux Foundation as a radically different organization from
>> what I'd like to see for the OpenStack foundation e.g.
>>
>> ?- the Linux project is completely independent from the Linux
>> ? ?Foundation, the latter is just there to support and promote the
>> ? ?former
>>
>> ? ?the project has a benevolent dictator who decides a release
>> ? ?schedule, where the code repositories live, what the policies of
>> ? ?the project are etc.
>>
>> ? ?OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
>> ? ?otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
>> ? ?ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
>> ? ?a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs
>>
>> ?- individual Linux contributors aren't members of the foundation.
>> ? ?Membership is split into gold/silver/bronze classes depending on
>> ? ?how much you pay
>>
>> So, could someone highlight which elements of the Linux foundation wiki
>> are a good fit for OpenStack?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>_______________________________________________
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the clarification.

~sean

On Jan 14, 2012, at 8:56 AM, "Mark Collier" <mark at openstack.org> wrote:

> Dont read too much into the linux foundation comment. I just liked the clear writing style on their page, that's it.
>
>
>
> Thor Wolpert <thor at wolpert.ca> wrote:
>
>> Based on discussions from a few months past, I thought the model was
>> more going to be like the Apache foundation. A governance body,
>> project meritocracy and the ability allow and guide incubator projects
>> either into full core products, combine with another core project or
>> suggest valid alternatives.
>>
>> It already maps so closely to many of the other needs/wants under
>> OpenStack, that I thought that would be a shoe-in.
>>
>> What's changed?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> This article was re-tweeted by the OpenStack twitter account:
>>>
>>> http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/241213/openstack-steps-towards-its-foundation-future
>>>
>>> (I'm guessing that it must be somewhat accurate if it was re-tweeted :-)
>>>
>>> "Interestingly, Collier said the mission statement of the OpenStack
>>> Foundation was influenced by the mission statement of another such
>>> organization.
>>>
>>> The Linux Foundation's mission was a inspiration for the theme of the
>>> mission statement," Collier said. Some elements of the Linux
>>> Foundation's mission statement fit well for the OpenStack Foundation,
>>> he said."
>>>
>>> I'd see the Linux Foundation as a radically different organization from
>>> what I'd like to see for the OpenStack foundation e.g.
>>>
>>> - the Linux project is completely independent from the Linux
>>> Foundation, the latter is just there to support and promote the
>>> former
>>>
>>> the project has a benevolent dictator who decides a release
>>> schedule, where the code repositories live, what the policies of
>>> the project are etc.
>>>
>>> OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
>>> otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
>>> ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
>>> a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs
>>>
>>> - individual Linux contributors aren't members of the foundation.
>>> Membership is split into gold/silver/bronze classes depending on
>>> how much you pay
>>>
>>> So, could someone highlight which elements of the Linux foundation wiki
>>> are a good fit for OpenStack?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

I figured I'd chime in here as the cloud advisor to the Linux Foundation. The Linux foundation has recently launched The Foundation Labs<http://www.linuxfoundation.org/labs> which may or may not be known to any/all of you.

There are exactly 3 things that need talking about before we should even be discussing anything else.

1. The legal aspect of the foundation including laws and bylaws, non profit business structure etc.
2. The charter and mission of the foundation
3. How we get there

Making this thing any more complicated than discussing those 3 things first will just lengthen this process (which is already going to be lengthy). I have spoken to quite a few people post webinar and everything on ether pad<http://etherpad.openstack.org/foundation-webinar-2012-01-13> falls under 1 of the 3 above topics.

The structure(#3) for how to effectively communicate is still what's missing. I love mailing lists as much as the next person but we all know that won't cut it. Several organizations, including ours, are betting on the success of this project so getting it right is important. VMWare and Amazon would love this to be where Openstack falls on it's face. Obviously no-one here should want that so lets work with Rackspace and the community to ensure Openstack's success.

Cole

On 1/14/12 9:09 AM, "Sean Roberts" <seanrob at yahoo-inc.com<mailto:seanrob at yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the clarification.

~sean

On Jan 14, 2012, at 8:56 AM, "Mark Collier" <mark at openstack.org<mailto:mark at openstack.org>> wrote:

Dont read too much into the linux foundation comment. I just liked the clear writing style on their page, that's it.
Thor Wolpert <thor at wolpert.ca<mailto:thor at wolpert.ca>> wrote:
Based on discussions from a few months past, I thought the model was
more going to be like the Apache foundation. A governance body,
project meritocracy and the ability allow and guide incubator projects
either into full core products, combine with another core project or
suggest valid alternatives.
It already maps so closely to many of the other needs/wants under
OpenStack, that I thought that would be a shoe-in.
What's changed?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com<mailto:markmc at redhat.com>> wrote:
Hey,
This article was re-tweeted by the OpenStack twitter account:
http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/241213/openstack-steps-towards-its-foundation-future
(I'm guessing that it must be somewhat accurate if it was re-tweeted :-)
"Interestingly, Collier said the mission statement of the OpenStack
Foundation was influenced by the mission statement of another such
organization.
The Linux Foundation's mission was a inspiration for the theme of the
mission statement," Collier said. Some elements of the Linux
Foundation's mission statement fit well for the OpenStack Foundation,
he said."
I'd see the Linux Foundation as a radically different organization from
what I'd like to see for the OpenStack foundation e.g.
- the Linux project is completely independent from the Linux
Foundation, the latter is just there to support and promote the
former
the project has a benevolent dictator who decides a release
schedule, where the code repositories live, what the policies of
the project are etc.
OpenStack clearly doesn't (yet) have such a dictator (benevolent or
otherwise) so I had assumed the foundation board would assume
ultimate responsibility for the project, but delegate a lot of it to
a PPB or technical steering committee or the PTLs
- individual Linux contributors aren't members of the foundation.
Membership is split into gold/silver/bronze classes depending on
how much you pay
So, could someone highlight which elements of the Linux foundation wiki
are a good fit for OpenStack?
Thanks,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20120115/2163028a/attachment-0001.html>