September 2012 - Foundation - lists.openinfra.dev

[OpenStack Foundation] Election Inspectors - "After-Action Report"
by Lloyd Dewolf 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

We (Jim Blair, Lloyd Dewolf, and Vincent Untz) served as the election inspectors for the "2012 OpenStack Board Election" with polls closing Friday 24 August 2012 17:00 CDT. Overall we feel that these first elections were successful. We have a number of recommendations. This email describes our recommendations based on our official capacity. 1. Under no circumstances should polling settings be changed after the start of the election. As documented in http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-August/001076.html with the best intentions, Acting Secretary Jonathan Bryce modified the poll settings after the start of the poll to allow voters to be able to change their ballet once submitted. This was the original intent for the poll. This changed the experience of the polling -- though perceivably in a benign way. The election inspectors were only informed after the polling closed. We feel we should have been informed at the time of such a decision, but our strong recommendation is that if settings need to be changed then the polling should be restarted to ensure all voters have the same experience and that the results are meaningful. 2. The Election Inspectors should receive clear instructions as to what it means to certify the results, and training on how to handle technical and procedural issues that should arise. The election inspectors for this election did not receive such training and were stuck balancing the not unexpected discrepancies (to a trained election inspector) with their desires to prove the results. 3. Upon closing of the polls Election Inspectors should receive certification of the election results from the polling solution provider. OpenStack Legal Mark Radcliffe recommended that the Election Inspectors receive certification from the polling solution provider, in this case BigPulse. Although Acting Secretary Jonathan Bryce was copied in this recommendation we have not received such certification at this time -- though we also have no outstanding concerns as to the validity of the results. 4. The Election Inspectors should be recruited earlier in the election cycle, have more time to get up to speed, and have a full week to certify the results. Being a diverse community with participants and volunteers spanning the globe, it is not unlikely that it will take full days to confirm and reach quorum. In our case, we had two inspectors in San Francisco and one in France. At each stage of the process from training on the polling solution to working to certify the results the time was very tight. We had one weekend and two “work” days to certify the results because the first Board meeting was scheduled so early after the elections. It was a busy weekend. 5. We recommend that a list of requirements and criteria be developed well in advance of the next election (ASAP) and that providers be evaluated verses that criteria. BigPulse exhibited some notable failings in this election: The software does not protect against modification to settings after the start of a poll that can result in unverifiable results. Over a couple of days of off-hour support, BigPulse Support was able to correct the Results so that they could be accounted for from the exportable/downloadable anonymoused data. (See also item 1 above.) Moreover, the BigPulse solution does not allow full verification of ballots by voters when using weighted voting: information on how the voters vote is weighted across candidates is not available as part of the vote receipt. 6. Election Inspectors should receive training and direct access to the polling solution provider. We participated in a few test elections in the days prior to the election. We would have benefited from more time, direct access to the polling solution, and a direct channel to ask our questions of BigPulse. (See also item 4 above.) 7. Election Inspectors should review the membership registry. We were not asked to, but we reviewed the web-based membership registry for any errors or anomalies such as multiple entries for an individual. We would have benefited from an export as people can continue to become members after the cut off date to vote in an election. This would also ease tool-based analysis and pattern matching. 8. Election Inspectors should explicitly confirm the ballot is correct. In other large ballots like ours, we’ve seen candidates left off. Thankfully, that didn’t occur here. We were very impressed by how Acting Secretary Jonathan Bryce and team ran these OpenStack Foundation bootstrapping elections. We hope our recommendations can help iterate the successful formula. Please let us know if you have any questions or there is anything we can elaborate on. Thank you, Jim Blair, Lloyd Dewolf, and Vincent Untz

1 0

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] 5600 vs 6024
by Lloyd Dewolf 20 Sep '12

20 Sep '12

Thanks for the details! Definitely agree that it's a great problem to have! http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/openstack/momentum/ lists only 3300 and worse the "news and resources" page, http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/openstack/resources/, doesn't look like it's been updated since the spring with the SF conference being the most recent news. Maybe with the asset transfer these pages could be forwarded to corresponding pages on openstack.org. Thanks, Lloyd On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Mark Collier <mark(a)openstack.org> wrote: > The graphics were in production over the past few days while the membership just kept growing! Good problem to have. The front page is automated. > > Maybe with a few days to recharge we can automate it too. > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.openstack.org/foundation is very cool! It has the number of >> Individual Members at 5600. The front page of openstack.org must use a >> different data source as its count is 6024. >> >> Cheers, >> Lloyd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Foundation mailing list >> Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation -- -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/

2 1

[OpenStack Foundation] 5600 vs 6024
by Lloyd Dewolf 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

http://www.openstack.org/foundation is very cool! It has the number of Individual Members at 5600. The front page of openstack.org must use a different data source as its count is 6024. Cheers, Lloyd

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Foundation Board Meeting
by Jonathan Bryce 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

I wanted to inform everyone the OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors has scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday, September 18, 2012. This meeting is scheduled solely to cover Foundation personnel, and therefore will not be open for public participation, in accordance with the bylaws. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Jonathan 210-317-2438

5 5

[OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Blogged
by Lloyd Dewolf 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

Hello fellow foundation members, http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-accepting-vmware-was-a-mistake/ left me uncomfortable since I first read it. I have held off on seeking my fellow members thoughts as I had hoped that the first board meeting minutes would provide context for the conversation. As there is currently no ETA on when the minutes will be released, and as the blog post has been picked up by the media [1] I'd like to share my thoughts. I think if not Boris Renski's blog post, it would have been someone else's. I dislike discussions in the abstract and I know Boris Renski has a thick skin. Having spent five years of my career at WordPress working every day with big media and bloggers what first caught my eye was that there was not clear, explicit, called out disclosure of Boris' membership of the board and the nature of his personal opinion. I share everyone's frustration for how manipulative some members of the media are, and that this sort of thing is necessary. At end of the article there was "we, at the foundation board,", but I feel the article would have further benefited from including "disclosure" at the beginning of the article. What really bothers me about this article though is that only other members of the board can respond intelligently to it. The mandate, membership, and resulting criteria of the Gold Application Committee (or whatever it is called) has not yet been shared with the Foundation membership, nor has the meeting minutes. It seems like we'd all benefit with some etiquette recommendations around this. Thank you, -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/ 1. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/091712-vmware-openstack-262515.html?h…

3 2

[OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Minutes - approval needed?
by Rob_Hirschfeld＠Dell.com 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

For minutes, should we be approving them as part of our process before they are officially posted? I don't want to add overhead but that helps ensure the board as a whole can vouch for them. -----Original Message----- From: foundation-request(a)lists.openstack.org [mailto:foundation-request@lists.openstack.org] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:00 AM To: foundation(a)lists.openstack.org Subject: Foundation Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32 Send Foundation mailing list submissions to foundation(a)lists.openstack.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to foundation-request(a)lists.openstack.org You can reach the person managing the list at foundation-owner(a)lists.openstack.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Foundation digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Board Meeting Tuesday (Mark McLoughlin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:52:49 +0100 From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com> To: Jonathan Bryce <jonathan(a)openstack.org> Cc: foundation(a)lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting Tuesday Message-ID: <1346334769.7106.1.camel@sorcha> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Jonathan, On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 10:36 -0500, Jonathan Bryce wrote: > The first full Board meeting of the OpenStack Foundation is scheduled > for Tuesday August 28th at 11:00am PDT/1800 UTC. The current draft > agenda is on the wiki: > http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Aug2012BoardAgenda > > The agenda contains information that you can use to listen to the > Board meeting online or through a conference dial-in. It also contains > the Gold Member applications of several new companies. Are the minutes of the board meeting going to be posted soon? Thanks, Mark. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation End of Foundation Digest, Vol 9, Issue 32 *****************************************

5 5

[OpenStack Foundation] Notice of board meetings? -was- Re: Foundation Minutes - approval needed?
by Lloyd Dewolf 17 Sep '12

17 Sep '12

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Bryce <jbryce(a)rackspace.com> wrote: > We'll be trying to cover this and some other leftover business from last week's meeting at a special teleconference meeting of the Board today: > > http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/07Sept2012BoardMeeting Hi Jonathan, Did I miss the thread where this meeting was announced? Or was this notice 30 minutes before the meeting the only notice to the community? Thank you, -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/

3 5

[OpenStack Foundation] AUTO: Melahn is out of the office. (returning 09/17/2012)
by Gregory Melahn 08 Sep '12

08 Sep '12

I am out of the office until 09/17/2012. I am traveling through September 7. During that time I will have intermittent access to email. Then I will be on vacation until September 17, and will not have access to email. For urgent technical issues, please contact Cody Clapp (cclapp(a)us.ibm.com). For other urgent issues, please contact my manager James Hoyt (hoytj(a)us.ibm.com). Note: This is an automated response to your message Foundation Digest, Vol 10, Issue 5 sent on 09/08/2012 6:00:01. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] New Gold Members
by Jonathan Bryce 07 Sep '12

07 Sep '12

Today, the OpenStack Board of Directors approved the applications of three companies wishing to become Gold Members: Intel, NEC and VMware. The factors considered by the Board included a commitment to helping achieve the OpenStack Foundation Mission through demonstrated and potential contribution to the OpenStack community in terms of code, adoption into product roadmaps, adoption as an end user, geographic and industry diversity and community development efforts. New Gold Members will be represented by the eight elected Gold Member directors currently serving on the Board. We would like to welcome them to the Foundation, and look forward to their continued contributions to our community. Jonathan

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Individual director election needs to be better organized
by Sean Chen 05 Sep '12

05 Sep '12

Jonathan, I think individual directors should be voted by contributors only, or at least people with some sort of involvement with OpenStack. There was no doorman on voter registration, the results can be much too easily skewed to be unrepresentative of the rights and interests of the actual people involved. In fairness, Project Technical Lead election was much better organized. -- Sean

5 5