March 2012 - Foundation - lists.openinfra.dev

[OpenStack Foundation] Orchestration with Openstack
by Rahul Bhardwaj 26 Mar '12

26 Mar '12

I am new to this list so not sure about the relevance of question, forum or discusstion topic. I apologize if there is mismatch anywhere above. I was wondering about the possible ways of getting VM provisioning activity defined as a workflow and than managing it using the orchestrator. I have tried mCollective and celery but none worked. I was thinking, will Puppet+mCollective do the trick or maybe one of the opensource tools such as orchestra or archipel can be used to automate the workflow. Looking for some suggestions. -Rahul

2 1

[OpenStack Foundation] Structure updates and next steps
by Jonathan Bryce 18 Mar '12

18 Mar '12

Hi Everyone, In the last week, we've received a lot of feedback regarding our proposed structure and in response have made some additional changes to the version on the wiki that I would like to mention. Of course, we still have open questions and details to fill in, but at this point, I strongly feel we need to move forward to the drafting phase in order to get to the appropriate level of detail needed to answer many of those points. We're doing our best to balance a lot of interests, current and future participants, and what's best for OpenStack, while also protecting the technical processes and meritocracy within the community. So far, the tiered member structure with a clear separation between technical governance and corporate governance seems to meet those goals and have the broadest support from everyone we've talked to, so we'd like to keep things moving foward, while continuing to collect feedback, and make changes during the drafting phase. Here's a summary of the changes: * One piece of feedback we've heard consistently is that Strategic & Associate are not the best names for the membership levels, especially because we require all members to have a corporate strategy aligned with OpenStack. Following the suggestion several made, we've gone with the old familiar precious metal analogy and referred to the two membership levels as Platinum & Gold respectively. * Another important concern centered around the ability of one class of members to exercise undue influence and potentially create policies or change the balance of power in a way that favors them to the detriment of others. We've noted that changes to the Bylaws, including member rights, would require approval by a vote of the Members of the Foundation, including all Gold Members and Individual Members, not just the Board of Directors. The specific mechanics of this are one of those details that it makes sense to lay out in the legal drafts not the structure summary, but this will protect against one class gaining additional rights or privileges without the buy-in of the rest of the Membership. * The term commitment for Platinum Members has also been changed from five years to three years, still paid annually at $500K. * Instead of a $250K cap for Gold Members, the range has been changed to $50K - $200K, still based on a sliding scale of 0.25% of a company's revenue. * Another recommendation we've implemented is to reserve certain Individual Member Board seats for User Committee, Technical Committee and Academic/Research representatives. This will help ensure some greater diversity of representation on the Board while also making it less likely that all Individual Members will be employed by a small subset of corporate members. This is now reflected under the Board of Directors summary in the wiki. As the next step, we are asking organizations who intend to become corporate members of the Foundation and would like to be formally involved in the drafting process to sign a non-binding Framework Acknowledgement letter indicating their interest. The deadline for signing the letter is April 5th, after which point we will be forming a Drafting Committee comprised of committed Platinum Members and elected Gold Member representatives. The Drafting Committee will turn the framework we've developed into detailed, legal Bylaws, Articles of Organization, and Member Agreements. The Drafting Committee will publish documents along the way for review and feedback by the community. We also intend to engage an independent open-source legal representative to help interpret and publish layperson summaries of legal drafts and revisions, including how they would apply to Individual Members and contributors. We'll be publishing a detailed schedule in the wiki for the Drafting Committee plan in the next few days. Finally, we're starting a risk list in the wiki to collect a comprehensive list of potential risk and concerns that we should try to address in the drafting process. The Drafting Committee will start their work in mid-April and we can use the 3-4 weeks between now and then to flesh this list out and do some prioritizing exercises. The prioritized risks can be used as a kind of punch list for important items to address in the legal documents. Links for reference: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Structure http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Funding http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/FrameworkLetter http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/RiskList Additionally, in the next week, we would like to continue the discussions around the Technical Committee and the User Committee and reach a final proposal on those. If you have comments on either of those, please chime in. We're excited to keep the progress moving forward. Thank you all very for participating on the mailing list, in the webinar and for the time many of you have taken to speak directly with us about these suggestions. As always, continue to send feedback and comments. Jonathan 210-317-2438

2 1

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Jim Jagielski 18 Mar '12

18 Mar '12

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano(a)openstack.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 15:50 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> A true open source community cannot survive if its not on a level >> field; any entity "more equal than others" has an undue advantage. > > AFAIK Rackspace only owns the trademark. The code is owned by the > author, just like Apache. I don't see much advantage there, especially > for the past when the mark had near to zero value. > >> And >> even if they don't take advantage of it, what happens when they get >> bought out by someone? > > That hasn't happened yet. And setting up the foundation to manage the > trademark is a step to minimize this risk. > > Do you see something I don't see here? > .stef > Just an overriding desire, it seems, to favor big-name players, with deep pockets, over a real community; the desire to start *big*, and get bigger; the desire to see how much money can be pulled in, and not so much where that money goes or how it ultimately helps the *community* instead of the *foundation*. OpenStack will turn into a business consortium made up of large, well-financed companies, who will determine the course and direction of the so-called "open source projects" and unless you're able to pay up, smaller players will simply have to take what they are given. And the only personal incentive developers will have to work on the code will be their bonuses and payments. Open source communities are built around passion for the code, not passion for the foundation (or its income).

9 13

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Mark Collier 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

+1 Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann(a)dreamhost.com> wrote: >On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Jim Jagielski <jimjag(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry(a)openstack.org> >> wrote: >> > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> OpenStack will turn into a business consortium made up of large, >> >> well-financed companies, who will determine the course and direction >> >> of the so-called "open source projects" and unless you're able to pay >> > >> > I think you're overestimating the power of the Foundation board of >> > directors over the "open source projects". The current proposal sets up >> > a separate and independent technical committee, which I'm trying to make >> > sure is fully elected on a one contributor = one vote basis. Each >> > project is lead by a technical lead that is elected on a one author = >> > one vote basis. Those groups very much set the course and direction for >> > the projects. >> > >> > So the technical direction of OpenStack as a whole, and the technical >> > direction of each project, is very much *not* pay-to-play. It's >> > participate-to-play. >> > >> >> Then what does the foundation board get out of it...? >> >> What's wrong with making the tech-cmmt the actual board, and the >> proposed foundation board simply "sponsors"? >> Or "benefactors"? > > >There are a lot of different ways to contribute to a big project like this. >Over at the PSF we have found it very useful to have a separate foundation >and board made up of people from the community who have an interest in >supporting the general python community in ways that go beyond writing >code. The skills (and interests) needed to organize events such as hack >days, meetups, and conferences and especially deal with subjects like >copyright and trademark enforcement do not overlap 100% with the skills >(and interests) of the core developers. The PSF, and its board, provide a >focus for soliciting and receiving contributions of all sorts from >*everyone* in the Python community. I would expect the OpenStack Foundation >to serve a similar purpose in this community. > >Doug > >_______________________________________________ >Foundation mailing list >Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

3 2

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Mark Collier 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

Well said. Thierry Carrez <thierry(a)openstack.org> wrote: >Jim Jagielski wrote: >> OpenStack will turn into a business consortium made up of large, >> well-financed companies, who will determine the course and direction >> of the so-called "open source projects" and unless you're able to pay > >I think you're overestimating the power of the Foundation board of >directors over the "open source projects". The current proposal sets up >a separate and independent technical committee, which I'm trying to make >sure is fully elected on a one contributor = one vote basis. Each >project is lead by a technical lead that is elected on a one author = >one vote basis. Those groups very much set the course and direction for >the projects. > >So the technical direction of OpenStack as a whole, and the technical >direction of each project, is very much *not* pay-to-play. It's >participate-to-play. > >-- >Thierry Carrez (ttx) >Project Policy Board elected member >Release Manager, OpenStack >_______________________________________________ >Foundation mailing list >Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Joshua McKenty 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate contributions, to others with more... tact. But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned. The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud. The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out of reach of all but a small handful of organizations. This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it (at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall. I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to the long-term health of the project because it strangles the ecosystem of contributing companies we've worked so hard to create. The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize: - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, bugs and evangelism) along with cash - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance bodies (not tucked away in 'advisory' boards) - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest between the 'company hat' and the 'project hat' My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are the following: - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less) - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project support activities - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack users and consumers to provide input and feedback The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without getting into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd like to brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better reflects our goals for an open and democratic community. How's this for a proposal: - One class of corporate member - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) working on OpenStack in some capacity - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid annually - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a corporate member My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests and level of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack ecosystem, is that we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies involved to meet these requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000. It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't change the structure or composition of the technical committee, and it doesn't limit the ability of the foundation to raise money in other ways (sell sponsorships for events, charge admission for conferences, even license the use of the trademark for training or certification). If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market economics and enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple "meritocracy", then we can expect the most skilled and dedicated to rise to the top, provided we're extremely careful about how we measure skill and dedication. If we blend the two, I'm deeply concerned that we'll see the worst of both systems play out over time - the selfishness of market-driven economics dominating our decisions with the petulant moralism of the meritocracy. Hoping for any other outcome is, in my opinion, foolish optimism. At the core of OpenStack is the idea that a single project could address the needs of ALL of our organizations - large, small, producers, consumers, non-profits and tool makers. We need to guard that vision, and protect it from our best intentions. No one in the community, whether individual contributor or corporate sponsor, can claim to speak for (or even understand the perspective of) the majority of us. We're simply too numerous, and too diverse. If you believe, as I do, that *your* company should have a stake in OpenStack's future, then now is the time to speak up in favor of the level playing field we originally set out to create. With (attempted) diplomacy, Joshua -- Joshua McKenty Co-Founder, OpenStack CEO, Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. w: (650) 24-CLOUD m: (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

25 48

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Mark Collier 09 Mar '12

09 Mar '12

I'm all for face to face meet ups, and love that so many people have offered to hop on a plane to meet in the next week. Let's do it. However, I would say that this very list is, in fact, an open discussion that we're having right now regrading the proposals posted openly on the wiki :) I did noticed that your note was posted to the openstack mailing list -- Perhaps you aren't aware of the Foundation mailing list and have missed the discussion there? Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org We've also had a couple of online meetings and have 2 more planned for next week. And if there is another forum we should add, let's do that too. From: "William L. Franklin" <wlf(a)cloudscaling.com<mailto:wlf@cloudscaling.com>> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:04:20 -0800 To: <openstack(a)lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative Josh et al: Cloudscaling agrees that we need an open dialog about the formation of the foundation. Save the one open meetup during CloudConnect in early February I am unaware of any other open discussions. Please read http://www.cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/open-communities-deserve-o… Bill Franklin VP of Engineering Cloudscaling On 3/9/12 11:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote: I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate contributions, to others with more... tact. But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned. The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud. The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out of reach of all but a small handful of organizations. This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it (at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall. I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to the long-term health of the project because it strangles the ecosystem of contributing companies we've worked so hard to create. The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize: - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, bugs and evangelism) along with cash - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance bodies (not tucked away in 'advisory' boards) - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest between the 'company hat' and the 'project hat' My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are the following: - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less) - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project support activities - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack users and consumers to provide input and feedback The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without getting into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd like to brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better reflects our goals for an open and democratic community. How's this for a proposal: - One class of corporate member - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) working on OpenStack in some capacity - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid annually - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a corporate member My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests and level of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack ecosystem, is that we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies involved to meet these requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000. It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't change the structure or composition of the technical committee, and it doesn't limit the ability of the foundation to raise money in other ways (sell sponsorships for events, charge admission for conferences, even license the use of the trademark for training or certification). If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market economics and enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple "meritocracy", then we can expect the most skilled and dedicated to rise to the top, provided we're extremely careful about how we measure skill and dedication. If we blend the two, I'm deeply concerned that we'll see the worst of both systems play out over time - the selfishness of market-driven economics dominating our decisions with the petulant moralism of the meritocracy. Hoping for any other outcome is, in my opinion, foolish optimism. At the core of OpenStack is the idea that a single project could address the needs of ALL of our organizations - large, small, producers, consumers, non-profits and tool makers. We need to guard that vision, and protect it from our best intentions. No one in the community, whether individual contributor or corporate sponsor, can claim to speak for (or even understand the perspective of) the majority of us. We're simply too numerous, and too diverse. If you believe, as I do, that *your* company should have a stake in OpenStack's future, then now is the time to speak up in favor of the level playing field we originally set out to create. With (attempted) diplomacy, Joshua -- Joshua McKenty Co-Founder, OpenStack CEO, Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. w: (650) 24-CLOUD m: (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack(a)lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack(a)lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

2 1

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Joshua McKenty 09 Mar '12

09 Mar '12

Dumping this back onto the lists... I believe the primary challenge with the Apache foundation is that it's not structured well to fund marketing or evangelism activities, nor is it designed to take in new members that are primarily interested in a single project. OpenStack is large enough to justify its own organization, and I don't think anyone objects to that foundation being "friendly" to commercial activities - that's part of why we're Apache2 licensed. We just need to balance the commercial mechanics with the community mechanics. This is a hard problem - I don't believe ANY open source project has ever had this much commercial involvement, and certainly not this early in its evolution. But if we want to continue to have a community that's supportive of participation by a diverse set of stakeholders, we all need to speak up. On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Thor Wolpert wrote: > Joshua: > > I have not been following this, but had thought that the Foundation > was being modelled on the Apache Group. I did ask a couple of times, > and did get responses that this was the case. What it sounds like is > it continues to stray from that, and that could be the desire of some > special interest groups. > > I thought a Foundation that paid for legal, marketing and core > services; along with a hosted set of projects whose membership was > based upon meritocracy was the model. > > It is sounding like that is not going to be the case. Maybe starting > a new Foundation wasn't the right way to go and asking instead to be a > sub-project of the Apache Group, added in through the incubator > would've been better? > > > > > > With (attempted) diplomacy, > > > > Joshua > > > > -- > > Joshua McKenty > > Co-Founder, OpenStack > > CEO, Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. > > w: (650) 24-CLOUD > > m: (650) 283-6846 > > http://www.pistoncloud.com > > > > "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" > > "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Foundation mailing list > > Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org (mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org) > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation > > > > >

3 3

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
by Gil Yehuda 09 Mar '12

09 Mar '12

Why not just create a marketing association if that's what you are really looking to have? Has anyone considered to run the technical part of the projects in some existing Open source foundation structure (that already provides legal protection, corporate independence, recruitment of developers, a well-understood management and governance process) like Apache (or one of the others), and then create a separate trade association (a 501(c)(6), which is what I assume you were planning to create anyway) for the marketing and promotion of the ecosystem partners around the project? Those companies who plan to make money from Open Stack could join the Open Stack trade association / foundation -- something that will promote the community, fund conferences and sponsorships, and improve the visibility of the many smaller commercial players in the space. And those companies who simply seek to develop, enhance, and use the code -- as a purely open source project can do so focused on the technical project as managed in a familiar existing foundation. This way the marketing needs don't drive the technical governance / direction setting process. Those who care about marketing, create the foundation, and those who care about code don't have to worry about inventing new foundations who's real goal is to be a marketing engine. The resulting trade association should raise funds and work with the existing open source foundation to enhance their ability to promote their project. (do I hear a "win-win"?) As to Apache's lack of ability to take in new members who only care about one project -- I'm not sure if that's really a deal breaker here. Open Stack is already more than one project. And there are many Apache participants who are only focused on one or two of the many projects they manage. That said, you don't have to go with Apache for my suggestion to have merit. Just have to decouple the marketing needs from the open source governance piece, and I think you'll have a much simpler problem to solve. One that might sell better too, since it positioning itself with much more clarity about its purpose. I'm hoping this helps. I'm not sure if this already came up, but if not, I hope you chew on this and discuss if this might be an option. This is in reaction to ... ****** Joshua McKenty Wrote: I believe the primary challenge with the Apache foundation is that it's not structured well to fund marketing or evangelism activities, nor is it designed to take in new members that are primarily interested in a single project. OpenStack is large enough to justify its own organization, and I don't think anyone objects to that foundation being "friendly" to commercial activities - that's part of why we're Apache2 licensed. We just need to balance the commercial mechanics with the community mechanics. [...], we all need to speak up. ****** Gil Yehuda Open Source guy at Yahoo!

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Update to proposal on Foundation structure
by Mark Collier 08 Mar '12

08 Mar '12

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion on the Foundation structure over the past few weeks. As I see it, the feedback has fallen into two main buckets--structure of the Board and make up of the Technical Committee--along with a few other tactical, but important details that are probably better worked out in the next phase. On the Board structure the most consist feedback we heard was to make it easier for a more diverse set of organizations to be involved in the Board. To make it more accessible, we have created a new membership class: Associate Members. Associate Members would pay significantly lower fees, adjusted for company size, and as a class elect one person to the Board for each Strategic seat. Individual Members would also elect one person to the Board for each Strategic seat. The new Board structure would therefore be 1/3 elected by Individual Members, 1/3 elected by Associate Members, and 1/3 appointed by Strategic Members. The wiki was updated to reflect this: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Structure While there are other Board options that have been floated around (all individuals, no individuals and everything in between), this type of mixed structure still seems to have the broadest support. There are also open questions about the mechanics of the Technical Committee, such as the role of PTLs on it, what qualifiers (if any) are placed on those who wish to vote in the elections, etc., so the Structure draft just makes note of that fact for now. I think we should keep that discussion going in the existing threads on the topic and Thierry's draft in the wiki. We can just incorporate that document into the Structure as it gets closer to being done. The next phase will kick off the Drafting Committee mentioned in a previous email. We'll be publishing a commitment letter this week and asking companies that intend to become members to sign to that effect. We would like to set an aggressive deadline (late March) for signatures by interested companies so that we can keep the process moving. After the deadline, the Drafting Committee will be formed with each potential Strategic Member assigning an attorney to assist Alice King in the drafting process. The committee will produce drafts of the legal documents to be published in the open for review and comment. These documents will be a good place to get into those finer details, such as the question of how a Board member could be removed or what happens in the case of an acquisition or merger between corporate members. We'll hold webinars on Thurdsday & Friday this week (March 8 & 9) to gather additional feedback. Thanks again for caring so much about the future of OpenStack! Mark @sparkycollier cell: 512-791-0356

1 1