Open Stack

Hi Prakash,

It looks like several of the questions are asking about the unchanged sections that weren’t included in the PDF redlines. Those are all available in the word doc I sent over this morning, so I think that address Questions 5, 6 and 9. I couldn’t find a Question 8 in your doc, but I’ve added answers for the other questions below


Q1. Are OIP MC members and OIP TC members considered for the purpose of code of conduct & compliances meeting the requirements same as Openstack TC members?

A1. Yes. The Open Infrastructure Projects' committee members are included explicitly in the amended version of 4.20


Q2. Notes: Individual members the limit is?

A2. There is no limit on the number of individual members. This is stated in 2.2(c)


Q3. Note (c) is being dropped & (e) is being added for TC

A3. I don’t understand what the question is here. 4.13(c) and (e) are unrelated. The original “mediator” clause of 4.13(c) was moved to the Technical Member Policy 2(d) to put it more directly under the TC section. 4.13(e) has to do with new Open Infrastructure Projects.


Q4. Note 4.14(c) is not being dropped? Why is it different for UC? but (f) is added?

A4. This was changed between the version from last week (v5) and the version from this week (v7). The UC and the TC provisions are now aligned here.


Q7. Does 7.1 eith CLA says it will ensure Apache Lince 2.0 and same is contradicted in (c) Board may approve licenses other that Apache license 2.0? Any explaination as what this means for usage of code  restrictive versus non-restrictive usage?

A7. ASL 2.0 has been a principle for the OpenStack from the projects since the beginning. This leaves that in place and adds 7.1(c) which would allow non-OpenStack projects that the Foundation is hosting to use a different OSI-approved license besides ASL 2.0


Q10. Needs some explanation on the background to this change? Is this the amendment replacing (TC earlier reference: Q3. Note (c) is being dropped & (e) is being added for TC)
Noted as in 9.2(d) above: The amendment of the Technical Committee Member Policy shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of the Board of Directors and the majority of the Technical Committee.

A10. This is not directly related to 4.13(c) and (e), but rather with putting the TC Member Policy under the joint control of the Board of Directors and the Technical Committee. As the Foundation membership has grown to include tens of thousands of individuals, meeting the very high bar amendment requirement is not something that we can do on a frequent basis and has made it difficult to correct simple errors like the typo in the TC Member Policy. Also, as the membership of the Foundation grows beyond solely the OpenStack project, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to have the entire membership body vote on OpenStack TC-specific items.


Q11. Note that to get elected/nominated as TC member you must be activeIndividual member and once elected and start serving during the course you as Individual member can resign, without loosing your position and Board finds a replacement. Is this correct?

A11. To be nominated/elected one must be an active Individual Member of the Foundation. If during the term they cease to be an Individual Member of the Foundation, they can continue during that Term. There is no need to find a replacement.


Q12. Does everyone confirm that siteen month term for TC will be revised starting Jan 2019 to 12 months and election cycle will be adjusted to 8 months?

This section has been rewritten in the most recent version (v7) to capture the outcome of the discussion last week. The election cycles will continue to be set by the TC with the requirement that they must happen twice a year (these are normally around development cycles and therefore are not on a perfectly regular cadence). The terms will vary slightly because of this and need to be published at election time, otherwise they default to 12 months.




> On Nov 1, 2018, at 1:01 PM, prakash RAMCHANDRAN <pramchan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Here are 12 questions which we can review time permitting or fix some offline today
> These are based on Jonathan's v5 document we discussed last meeting.
> 
> Thanks
> Prakash
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Jonathan Bryce
> <jonathan at openstack.org> wrote:
> The PDFs I shared publicly removed pages that had no changes to make it easier to spot all the changes. I’m including an attachment here of the most recent version (v7) as a redline from the full bylaws.
> 
> Also, note the email you responded to is from last week, so v7 has changes that are not in last week’s revision. This version is also what I sent to the Foundation mailing list for community review.
> 
> If you want to isolate just the changes from last week, you can also review my last Board email that has just the most recent round of revisions: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/2018-October/000451.html
> 
> Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks,
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> <Untitled.txt><BYLAWS OF THE OPENSTACK FOUNDATION-v.5-comments.txt>