January 2012 - Foundation - lists.openinfra.dev

[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Foundation
by Jim Curry 04 Feb '12

04 Feb '12

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

10 17

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Linux Foundation as an inspiration
by Mark Collier 14 Jan '12

14 Jan '12

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(a)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(a)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-f… >> >> (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(a)lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation >_______________________________________________ >Foundation mailing list >Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

3 2

[OpenStack Foundation] Linux Foundation as an inspiration
by Mark McLoughlin 14 Jan '12

14 Jan '12

Hey, This article was re-tweeted by the OpenStack twitter account: http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/241213/openstack-steps-towards-its-f… (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.

4 3

[OpenStack Foundation] Self-governing meritocracy
by Mark McLoughlin 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

Hey, One of the things I raised on the previous thread was whether we could enshrine the principle of "OpenStack is a self-governing meritocracy" on the mission statement. Maybe the lack of replies on that means that everyone agrees and this is part of the consensus Jonathan mentioned. It be good to hear that though :) Related to this, I've quoted some the bits from the Apache and GNOME Foundations' blurbs that I really like. There are a couple of pieces of language in the discussion about the Foundation that I think are very different in tone from the bits I quoted and I'm not sure that's intentional, so I thought I'd mention it. - "business friendly" - this *is* important and OpenStack *has* done well on this front so far. Each time it was mentioned in the webinar it as accompanied by well articulated reasons why this is important and how to ensure the goal is met. However, I'd be cautious about putting it front and centre too much in the language of the foundation mission as I think it de-emphasises the importance of individuals (affiliated or not) contributing (in the broadest sense) to OpenStack as opposed to the companies contributing. Even though many of the individuals contributing are employees of companies investing in OpenStack (as is the case for GNOME and Apache), I think the emphasis in the governance and mission of the foundation should be on individuals. - "the foundation co-ordinates resources" - the point being made here is important too. This legal entity isn't going to employ or closely manage a phalanx of developers etc. to do the work of the project. Nor will it own a bunch of hardware etc. Those "resources" will continue to be contributed by companies or individuals investing in the project. However, this really makes it sound like the foundation is separate from the individuals (the "resources"). The blurbs below talk more about the individuals making up the foundation. We are the foundation. So, the foundation is doing more than co-ordinating. Through its membership, the foundation *is* in fact doing the work of the project. Cheers, Mark. http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ "the foundation will provide a forum that is elected by the GNOME community, that is accountable to that community, and that will conduct its affairs in the open." "The foundation should not be exclusionary or elitist. Every GNOME contributor, however small his or her contribution, must have the opportunity to participate in determining the direction and actions of the project. " "This principle has real, concrete meaning for the foundation: All discussions must be publicly viewable, any person must have the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process, and every GNOME contributor must have the direct ability to influence the decisions which are made. The foundation must be democratic and friendly to those responsible for making GNOME what it is. " "Participation in the foundation is intended only for those individuals who are making contributions to the GNOME project and the software which makes up GNOME. A corporation, organization or individual should not be granted a place in the foundation unless its presence is justified by the merits of its contribution. Money cannot buy influence in the GNOME project: show us the code (or documentation, or translations, or leadership, or webmastering...). " http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html "When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be part of the development community, they granted direct access to the code repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability of the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it more effectively. We call this basic principle "meritocracy": literally, government by merit. [..] newcomers were seen as volunteers that wanted to help, rather than people that wanted to steal a position." "We firmly believe in hats. Your role at the ASF is one assigned to you personally, and is bestowed on you by your peers. It is not tied to your job or current employer or company." "Individuals compose the ASF All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal contributions. Unless they specifically state otherwise, whatever they post on any mailing list is done as themselves. It is the individual point-of-view, wearing their personal hat and not as a mouthpiece for whatever company happens to be signing their paychecks right now, and not even as a director of the ASF. All of those ASF people implicitly have multiple hats, especially the Board, the other officers, and the PMC chairs. They sometimes need to talk about a matter of policy, so to avoid appearing to be expressing a personal opinion, they will state that they are talking in their special capacity. However, most of the time this is not necessary, personal opinions work well. Some people declare their hats by using a special footer to their email, others enclose their statements in special quotation marks, others use their apache.org email address when otherwise they would use their personal one. This latter method is not reliable, as many people use their apache.org address all of the time."

3 3

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Linux Foundation as an inspiration
by Mark Collier 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)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(a)lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Presenting OpenStack Foundation mission and roadmap [webinar]
by Stefano Maffulli 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

Hello all Jonathan Bryce and Mark Collier will host two webinars to illustrate the draft mission for the future OpenStack Foundation. The draft was published on http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/ and it’s the fist building block of the organisation that was announced in Boston. They will be available to answer questions about the roadmap and deadlines proposed for the project. We believe a live conversation will complement the online discussion on the foundation mailing list. We picked the times of the webinars to accommodate the needs of people living across the world and we picked the technology that is most accessible. You can use your favourite operating system or dial in using toll free numbers for virtually anywhere in the world. If you encounter problems please let us know. The first webinar will be held on Thursday Jan 12, 2012 at 06:00 PM CST (register here https://cc.readytalk.com/r/ogxx717wjy06) and the following day on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM CST (register here https://cc.readytalk.com/r/9o9bdh6hb3vn). You may find the converter useful http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html to find your local time. /stef

2 1

[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Mission & Goals
by Thierry Carrez 06 Jan '12

06 Jan '12

Hello everyone, During the town hall meeting at the Conference, lots of different people raised the need to define the OpenStack mission as the very first step to setting up a Foundation. I tend to agree that defining the OpenStack goals helps, in turn, to define the Foundation scope (what should the foundation actually own, see prior thread), which is rather critical in deciding the best setup. That said, I'm not sure there can be lazy consensus in the "community" around OpenStack goals. Some value-add partner will prefer if OpenStack Core projects don't enter his space (restrict goals), while some public cloud provider might prefer a wider ecosystem (expand goals). So this discussion on "what is OpenStack and what is not" might have to happen after the Foundation is set up and you have boards with the responsibility to decide and vote on that... Thoughts ? Should the egg happen before the chicken ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack _______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

16 27

[OpenStack Foundation] What's happening with the foundation formation? (was: OpenStack Mission & Goals)
by Ryan Lane 04 Jan '12

04 Jan '12

> I think it was mostly a matter of people waiting for those types of answers > (what can we do? what is allowed? who is going to tell us what is > kosher?)... and sometimes, in these situations, it's best for the people who > are interested to forge ahead and start exploring/testing the boundaries > without asking someone to draw those lines for them. Asking for forgiveness > rather than begging for permission, etc. :) > > And as Rick said, without any pressure from the community, the priority > level drops dramatically. If people really want it, noise gets attention, > generally. > Well, I don't mind adding into the noise, then. My level of participation in OpenStack is slightly crippled by OpenStack being owned by a private organization. Anything promotion-wise I do can be construed as promoting a private organization, and that's something I'm not allowed to do. This includes actively recruiting members of my movement to work on OpenStack related issues that affect us. I was definitely hoping to see more activity by this point in time. At the last summit there was discussion about having a lot of the initial work done that was necessary to begin this process within a month after the summit. Can we get a time frame as to when this work might be done? There isn't really much the community can do without the first steps being taken. At minimum, can we get an update on the progress of the foundation formation? - Ryan

2 1