From thierry at openstack.org  Wed May 12 09:23:41 2021
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 11:23:41 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
Message-ID: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>

Hello everyone,

During the informal call on Monday I introduced the idea of creating a 
new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members".

Rationale:

The Open Infrastructure Foundation mission is to develop, support, 
protect, and promote open infrastructure software projects (open source 
solutions to build infrastructure for further innovation). Integration 
between those projects has been identified as a key issue hindering 
further adoption of those solutions. While the Foundation directly 
supports and promotes a number of projects, its mission goes beyond the 
projects it directly hosts. We currently don’t have any program allowing 
us to formally engage with non-profit organizations sustaining open 
infrastructure projects, and help us better collaborate around events, 
promotion, and cross-community discussions.

We also have a lot of connections with the academic world (through 
OpenInfra Labs and our education initiatives) and a lot of open 
infrastructure users in the public research space. Those traditionally 
do not sign up as members, despite being very engaged (CERN, for 
example, is not a member). This makes it difficult to apply 
“member-first” thinking in some cases, and we miss out on showcasing 
those illustrious institutions as Foundation members.

Proposal:

Create a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate 
members". That tier would be free to join, and the Executive Director of 
the Foundation would be empowered to approve any interested organization 
fitting the criteria. Two criteria would be defined:

- Non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects
- Notable academic and public research institutions making extensive use 
of open infrastructure projects.

Please let me know of any question, concern, or comment on this 
proposal. My goal is to get it approved by the Board on our end of June 
meeting, and roll it out with initial candidates during Q3.

Regards,

-- 
Thierry Carrez


From kurt at garloff.de  Wed May 12 10:23:54 2021
From: kurt at garloff.de (Kurt Garloff)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 12:23:54 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>

Hi Thierry,

I really like the idea -- I would indeed have expected the CERN to be somehow formally connected to the OIF ...
It has not hindered us from working together closely -- but sometimes it helps to have instruments in place to record such a close collaboration.
Create a bit more visibility and in general be on the radar for events, consultation, discussions, ... but also communicating to the outside world.

Thanks,
-- 
Kurt Garloff <garloff at osb-alliance.com <mailto:garloff at osb-alliance.com>>

CTO Sovereign Cloud Stack <https://scs.community/>

[SCS logo]

OSB Alliance <https://osb-alliance.com/>

Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V.
Breitscheidstr. 4, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany
VR7217 (AG Stuttgart) - Chairman of the Board: Peter H. Ganten
Sovereign Cloud Stack, SCS & SCS-Logo are protected trademarks of the OSB 
Alliance.

On 12/05/2021 11:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> During the informal call on Monday I introduced the idea of creating a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members".
>
> Rationale:
>
> The Open Infrastructure Foundation mission is to develop, support, protect, and promote open infrastructure software projects (open source solutions to build infrastructure for further innovation). Integration between 
those projects has been identified as a key issue hindering further adoption of those solutions. While the Foundation directly supports and promotes a number of projects, its mission goes beyond the projects it directly 
hosts. We currently don’t have any program allowing us to formally engage with non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects, and help us better collaborate around events, promotion, and cross-community discussions.
>
> We also have a lot of connections with the academic world (through OpenInfra Labs and our education initiatives) and a lot of open infrastructure users in the public research space. Those traditionally do not sign up as members, despite being very engaged (CERN, for example, is not a member). This makes it difficult to apply “member-first” thinking in some cases, and we miss out on showcasing those illustrious institutions as Foundation members.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Create a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members". That tier would be free to join, and the Executive Director of the Foundation would be empowered to approve any interested organization fitting the criteria. Two criteria would be defined:
>
> - Non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects
> - Notable academic and public research institutions making extensive use of open infrastructure projects.
>
> Please let me know of any question, concern, or comment on this proposal. My goal is to get it approved by the Board on our end of June meeting, 
and roll it out with initial candidates during Q3.
>
> Regards,
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/336f3ec8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCS-Horizontal-230x48.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/336f3ec8/attachment-0001.png>

From tim.bell at cern.ch  Wed May 12 12:27:15 2021
From: tim.bell at cern.ch (Tim Bell)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 14:27:15 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
Message-ID: <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>


Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.

I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN could join.

For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic member  of Ceph (https://ceph.io/foundation/ <https://ceph.io/foundation/>) and the CNCF enduser membership (https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/ <https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/>). 

For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get approval.Specifically,

- Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation
- The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation

The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture of one of the experiments could be used  instead. However, in the past, open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be issues if there are other members with certain activities such as military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.

Cheers,
Tim

> On 12 May 2021, at 12:23, Kurt Garloff <kurt at garloff.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> I really like the idea -- I would indeed have expected the CERN to be somehow formally connected to the OIF ...
> It has not hindered us from working together closely -- but sometimes it helps to have instruments in place to record such a close collaboration.
> Create a bit more visibility and in general be on the radar for events, consultation, discussions, ... but also communicating to the outside world.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Kurt Garloff <garloff at osb-alliance.com <mailto:garloff at osb-alliance.com>>
> 
> CTO Sovereign Cloud Stack <https://scs.community/>
> <SCS-Horizontal-230x48.png>
> 
> OSB Alliance <https://osb-alliance.com/>
> Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V.
> Breitscheidstr. 4, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany
> VR7217 (AG Stuttgart) - Chairman of the Board: Peter H. Ganten
> Sovereign Cloud Stack, SCS & SCS-Logo are protected trademarks of the OSB Alliance.
> 
> On 12/05/2021 11:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hello everyone, 
>> 
>> During the informal call on Monday I introduced the idea of creating a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members". 
>> 
>> Rationale: 
>> 
>> The Open Infrastructure Foundation mission is to develop, support, protect, and promote open infrastructure software projects (open source solutions to build infrastructure for further innovation). Integration between those projects has been identified as a key issue hindering further adoption of those solutions. While the Foundation directly supports and promotes a number of projects, its mission goes beyond the projects it directly hosts. We currently don’t have any program allowing us to formally engage with non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects, and help us better collaborate around events, promotion, and cross-community discussions. 
>> 
>> We also have a lot of connections with the academic world (through OpenInfra Labs and our education initiatives) and a lot of open infrastructure users in the public research space. Those traditionally do not sign up as members, despite being very engaged (CERN, for example, is not a member). This makes it difficult to apply “member-first” thinking in some cases, and we miss out on showcasing those illustrious institutions as Foundation members. 
>> 
>> Proposal: 
>> 
>> Create a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members". That tier would be free to join, and the Executive Director of the Foundation would be empowered to approve any interested organization fitting the criteria. Two criteria would be defined: 
>> 
>> - Non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects 
>> - Notable academic and public research institutions making extensive use of open infrastructure projects. 
>> 
>> Please let me know of any question, concern, or comment on this proposal. My goal is to get it approved by the Board on our end of June meeting, and roll it out with initial candidates during Q3. 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/e9539652/attachment.html>

From thierry at openstack.org  Wed May 12 12:40:03 2021
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 14:40:03 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
Message-ID: <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>

Tim Bell wrote:
> Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.
> 
> I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN 
> could join. [...]

Of course! It was just a practical example of the type of "illustrious 
institutions" that could become members under the academic criteria.

> For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic 
> member  of Ceph (https://ceph.io/foundation/ 
> <https://ceph.io/foundation/>) and the CNCF enduser membership 
> (https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/ 
> <https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/>). 
> 
> For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN 
> legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get 
> approval.Specifically,
> 
> - Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to 
> reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation
> - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation

Thanks for the details. If we decide to move forward with this, I'll 
make sure to float early drafts of the membership agreement by you to 
get your early feedback. I suspect similar institutions will have 
similar rules, so it's important that the language used does not become 
a blocker.

> The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture 
> of one of the experiments could be used  instead. However, in the past, 
> open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be 
> issues if there are other members with certain activities such as 
> military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.

Noted!

-- 
Thierry


From dbecker at redhat.com  Wed May 12 12:48:57 2021
From: dbecker at redhat.com (Daniel Becker)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 13:48:57 +0100
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <CACzm6X-LW1OR5sxDasDEr26D_QXoHX1neOBCdDo-cv2MnEb7iw@mail.gmail.com>

I'm  in favour of this too.
It would be great to keep the language as inclusive as possible, I suspect
other institutions might have hurdles too.

Am I correct in assuming that there would be no voting rights beyond those
any individual ATCs would have?

Daniel

On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 13:40, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

> Tim Bell wrote:
> > Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.
> >
> > I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN
> > could join. [...]
>
> Of course! It was just a practical example of the type of "illustrious
> institutions" that could become members under the academic criteria.
>
> > For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic
> > member  of Ceph (https://ceph.io/foundation/
> > <https://ceph.io/foundation/>) and the CNCF enduser membership
> > (
> https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/
> > <
> https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/>).
>
> >
> > For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN
> > legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get
> > approval.Specifically,
> >
> > - Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to
> > reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation
> > - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation
>
> Thanks for the details. If we decide to move forward with this, I'll
> make sure to float early drafts of the membership agreement by you to
> get your early feedback. I suspect similar institutions will have
> similar rules, so it's important that the language used does not become
> a blocker.
>
> > The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture
> > of one of the experiments could be used  instead. However, in the past,
> > open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be
> > issues if there are other members with certain activities such as
> > military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.
>
> Noted!
>
> --
> Thierry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>


-- 
Daniel Becker
He / Him / His
M: +353863888464
(If I am replying on a weekend or early/late in the day, I do not expect
any response on the weekend and/or outside your working hours)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/b5e9d91f/attachment-0001.html>

From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Wed May 12 12:55:41 2021
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 12:55:41 +0000
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
One is non-profit organization.
Another is Academic and Government institutions.
These are two very different entities and criteria need to be precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated membership.
I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out to them with this proposal to join?
Thanks,
Arkady

-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:40 AM
To: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

Tim Bell wrote:
> Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.
> 
> I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN 
> could join. [...]

Of course! It was just a practical example of the type of "illustrious institutions" that could become members under the academic criteria.

> For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic 
> member  of Ceph 
> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ceph.io/foundation/__;!!LpKI!3XmO
> O28-H8hNU70K5l97R5z01ucUG6LMLSrvxjJqEQVhrNWEYffq41Ihryt8p5gsLmHF$ 
> [ceph[.]io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ceph.io/foundation/__;!!LpKI!3XmOO28-H8hNU70K5l97R5z01ucUG6LMLSrvxjJqEQVhrNWEYffq41Ihryt8p5gsLmHF$ [ceph[.]io]>) and the CNCF enduser membership (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/__;!!LpKI!3XmOO28-H8hNU70K5l97R5z01ucUG6LMLSrvxjJqEQVhrNWEYffq41Ihryt8p4T512b-$ [cncf[.]io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/__;!!LpKI!3XmOO28-H8hNU70K5l97R5z01ucUG6LMLSrvxjJqEQVhrNWEYffq41Ihryt8p4T512b-$ [cncf[.]io]>).
> 
> For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN 
> legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to 
> get approval.Specifically,
> 
> - Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs 
> to reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation
> - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation

Thanks for the details. If we decide to move forward with this, I'll make sure to float early drafts of the membership agreement by you to get your early feedback. I suspect similar institutions will have similar rules, so it's important that the language used does not become a blocker.

> The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a 
> picture of one of the experiments could be used  instead. However, in 
> the past, open source communities may be granted permission. There can 
> also be issues if there are other members with certain activities such 
> as military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.

Noted!

--
Thierry

_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board__;!!LpKI!3XmOO28-H8hNU70K5l97R5z01ucUG6LMLSrvxjJqEQVhrNWEYffq41Ihryt8p79pA8qV$ [lists[.]openstack[.]org]

From sean.mcginnis at gmail.com  Wed May 12 12:59:36 2021
From: sean.mcginnis at gmail.com (Sean McGinnis)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 07:59:36 -0500
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>

Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as Associate
Membership is concerned?

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>
wrote:

> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
> I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
> One is non-profit organization.
> Another is Academic and Government institutions.
> These are two very different entities and criteria need to be precise that
> either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated membership.
> I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out to
> them with this proposal to join?
> Thanks,
> Arkady
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/2f4c4306/attachment.html>

From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Wed May 12 13:03:00 2021
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 13:03:00 +0000
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Do not think so.

From: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
To: Kanevsky, Arkady
Cc: Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as Associate Membership is concerned?

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com<mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
One is non-profit organization.
Another is Academic and Government institutions.
These are two very different entities and criteria need to be precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated membership.
I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out to them with this proposal to join?
Thanks,
Arkady
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/2ce62d15/attachment-0001.html>

From thierry at openstack.org  Wed May 12 14:33:36 2021
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 16:33:36 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <CACzm6X-LW1OR5sxDasDEr26D_QXoHX1neOBCdDo-cv2MnEb7iw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <CACzm6X-LW1OR5sxDasDEr26D_QXoHX1neOBCdDo-cv2MnEb7iw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b26fb28b-25ab-216d-fe5b-88c53fdce7a6@openstack.org>

Daniel Becker wrote:
> I'm  in favour of this too.
> It would be great to keep the language as inclusive as possible, I 
> suspect other institutions might have hurdles too.
> 
> Am I correct in assuming that there would be no voting rights beyond 
> those any individual ATCs would have?

Those organizations would have absolutely no voting rights. But 
Individuals within those organizations could still join as an Individual 
member and vote within that class.

Hope this clarifies,

-- 
Thierry


From thierry at openstack.org  Wed May 12 14:34:11 2021
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 16:34:11 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>

I agree those are two different things: the criteria will be different, 
and the agreement to sign to join would also be different.

But in the end as far as the Foundation is concerned those would be two 
types of "associate members" (which basically would mean "free 
non-voting member").

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
> 
> Do not think so.
> 
> *From:* Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
> *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady
> *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> 
> Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as Associate 
> Membership is concerned?
> 
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady 
> <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
> 
>     I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
>     One is non-profit organization.
>     Another is Academic and Government institutions.
>     These are two very different entities and criteria need to be
>     precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated
>     membership.
>     I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out
>     to them with this proposal to join?
>     Thanks,
>     Arkady


From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Wed May 12 14:40:22 2021
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 14:40:22 +0000
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB4695940D7D2C0EADD647FF09F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

I am fine with that.
Basically new class "associate members" will be non-paying "non-voting members" .
That will have to go into bylaws.
I trust foundation legal will generate right criteria for this class.

Thanks,
Arkady

-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM
To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

I agree those are two different things: the criteria will be different, and the agreement to sign to join would also be different.

But in the end as far as the Foundation is concerned those would be two types of "associate members" (which basically would mean "free non-voting member").

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
> 
> Do not think so.
> 
> *From:* Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
> *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady
> *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> 
> Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as Associate 
> Membership is concerned?
> 
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady 
> <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
> 
>     I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
>     One is non-profit organization.
>     Another is Academic and Government institutions.
>     These are two very different entities and criteria need to be
>     precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated
>     membership.
>     I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out
>     to them with this proposal to join?
>     Thanks,
>     Arkady


From thierry at openstack.org  Wed May 12 14:50:13 2021
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 16:50:13 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB4695940D7D2C0EADD647FF09F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695940D7D2C0EADD647FF09F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <8be7c5f3-e0f4-960e-e135-39a85c1687d6@openstack.org>

Re: need for a bylaws change:

Section 2.1 of the Amended Bylaws allow the Board to create non-voting 
member classes. So as long as the new class is non-voting, its creation 
should not require a bylaws change.

The Board used that amendment to create the Silver member class back in 
January.

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
> 
> I am fine with that.
> Basically new class "associate members" will be non-paying "non-voting members" .
> That will have to go into bylaws.
> I trust foundation legal will generate right criteria for this class.
> 
> Thanks,
> Arkady
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
> Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
> 
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> 
> I agree those are two different things: the criteria will be different, and the agreement to sign to join would also be different.
> 
> But in the end as far as the Foundation is concerned those would be two types of "associate members" (which basically would mean "free non-voting member").
> 
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
>> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>> Do not think so.
>>
>> *From:* Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
>> *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady
>> *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as Associate
>> Membership is concerned?
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady
>> <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>>      I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
>>      One is non-profit organization.
>>      Another is Academic and Government institutions.
>>      These are two very different entities and criteria need to be
>>      precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated
>>      membership.
>>      I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out
>>      to them with this proposal to join?
>>      Thanks,
>>      Arkady


-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)


From mark.radcliffe at dlapiper.com  Wed May 12 14:56:17 2021
From: mark.radcliffe at dlapiper.com (Radcliffe, Mark)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 14:56:17 +0000
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <8be7c5f3-e0f4-960e-e135-39a85c1687d6@openstack.org>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695940D7D2C0EADD647FF09F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <8be7c5f3-e0f4-960e-e135-39a85c1687d6@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <BY3PR17MB52670DE7996A54AFCA108D65C5529@BY3PR17MB5267.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>

Thierry is correct, this will only require Board approval.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:50 AM
To: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members

[EXTERNAL]

Re: need for a bylaws change:

Section 2.1 of the Amended Bylaws allow the Board to create non-voting member classes. So as long as the new class is non-voting, its creation should not require a bylaws change.

The Board used that amendment to create the Silver member class back in January.

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
> I am fine with that.
> Basically new class "associate members" will be non-paying "non-voting members" .
> That will have to go into bylaws.
> I trust foundation legal will generate right criteria for this class.
>
> Thanks,
> Arkady
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
> Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> I agree those are two different things: the criteria will be different, and the agreement to sign to join would also be different.
>
> But in the end as far as the Foundation is concerned those would be two types of "associate members" (which basically would mean "free non-voting member").
>
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
>> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>> Do not think so.
>>
>> *From:* Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
>> *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady
>> *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as
>> Associate Membership is concerned?
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady
>> <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>>      I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
>>      One is non-profit organization.
>>      Another is Academic and Government institutions.
>>      These are two very different entities and criteria need to be
>>      precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated
>>      membership.
>>      I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out
>>      to them with this proposal to join?
>>      Thanks,
>>      Arkady


--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board



The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.

From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Wed May 12 15:12:52 2021
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:12:52 +0000
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR17MB52670DE7996A54AFCA108D65C5529@BY3PR17MB5267.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695940D7D2C0EADD647FF09F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <8be7c5f3-e0f4-960e-e135-39a85c1687d6@openstack.org>
 <BY3PR17MB52670DE7996A54AFCA108D65C5529@BY3PR17MB5267.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB46950FFD970E144FE2BB3DD2F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Glad that less work is needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Radcliffe, Mark <mark.radcliffe at dlapiper.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:56 AM
To: Thierry Carrez; Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: RE: [Foundation Board] Associate Members


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

Thierry is correct, this will only require Board approval.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:50 AM
To: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members

[EXTERNAL]

Re: need for a bylaws change:

Section 2.1 of the Amended Bylaws allow the Board to create non-voting member classes. So as long as the new class is non-voting, its creation should not require a bylaws change.

The Board used that amendment to create the Silver member class back in January.

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
> I am fine with that.
> Basically new class "associate members" will be non-paying "non-voting members" .
> That will have to go into bylaws.
> I trust foundation legal will generate right criteria for this class.
>
> Thanks,
> Arkady
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
> Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> I agree those are two different things: the criteria will be different, and the agreement to sign to join would also be different.
>
> But in the end as far as the Foundation is concerned those would be two types of "associate members" (which basically would mean "free non-voting member").
>
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
>> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>> Do not think so.
>>
>> *From:* Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
>> *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady
>> *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as 
>> Associate Membership is concerned?
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady 
>> <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>>      I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
>>      One is non-profit organization.
>>      Another is Academic and Government institutions.
>>      These are two very different entities and criteria need to be
>>      precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated
>>      membership.
>>      I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out
>>      to them with this proposal to join?
>>      Thanks,
>>      Arkady


--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board__;!!LpKI!2uRZCMw3YLhVojzstaJ4CB9HOEvhEX_hy-9BmfxR8k7KyiOrYr0TeWaxrOLujEKXgrJx$ [lists[.]openstack[.]org]



The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.

From mark.radcliffe at dlapiper.com  Wed May 12 15:27:53 2021
From: mark.radcliffe at dlapiper.com (Radcliffe, Mark)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:27:53 +0000
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB46950FFD970E144FE2BB3DD2F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
 <2c875ba4-5718-99bf-1853-4262b6d1f4a6@garloff.de>
 <9997D47E-D6E0-494B-953D-1BA7B6A90916@cern.ch>
 <3171cb13-b4c2-3d5e-e88e-6dfcc77b0cb8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB46950BEE817B55C92324914DF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALvgmaS58giixiAzKBHAbZWspQwFMnbuQdwDuCnS0OoBEL0GcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E307CBF8836B7522E79AF9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <4ae3dbd2-c1b8-7d4b-64fa-c77abdb63718@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695940D7D2C0EADD647FF09F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <8be7c5f3-e0f4-960e-e135-39a85c1687d6@openstack.org>
 <BY3PR17MB52670DE7996A54AFCA108D65C5529@BY3PR17MB5267.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
 <DM5PR19MB46950FFD970E144FE2BB3DD2F9529@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <BY3PR17MB52677A74F0454886214B1557C5529@BY3PR17MB5267.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>

That is how Jonathan and Mark wanted it to operate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:13 AM
To: Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe at us.dlapiper.com>; Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: RE: [Foundation Board] Associate Members

[EXTERNAL]

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Glad that less work is needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Radcliffe, Mark <mark.radcliffe at dlapiper.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:56 AM
To: Thierry Carrez; Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: RE: [Foundation Board] Associate Members


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]

Thierry is correct, this will only require Board approval.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:50 AM
To: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members

[EXTERNAL]

Re: need for a bylaws change:

Section 2.1 of the Amended Bylaws allow the Board to create non-voting member classes. So as long as the new class is non-voting, its creation should not require a bylaws change.

The Board used that amendment to create the Silver member class back in January.

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
> I am fine with that.
> Basically new class "associate members" will be non-paying "non-voting members" .
> That will have to go into bylaws.
> I trust foundation legal will generate right criteria for this class.
>
> Thanks,
> Arkady
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis
> Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> I agree those are two different things: the criteria will be different, and the agreement to sign to join would also be different.
>
> But in the end as far as the Foundation is concerned those would be two types of "associate members" (which basically would mean "free non-voting member").
>
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
>> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>> Do not think so.
>>
>> *From:* Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM
>> *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady
>> *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> Would there be a reason to treat these differently as far as
>> Associate Membership is concerned?
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kanevsky, Arkady
>> <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>>      I like the idea but I think we are mixing two things.
>>      One is non-profit organization.
>>      Another is Academic and Government institutions.
>>      These are two very different entities and criteria need to be
>>      precise that either of these 2 entities are eligible for associated
>>      membership.
>>      I recall that PNNL was active at some time ago. Have we reached out
>>      to them with this proposal to join?
>>      Thanks,
>>      Arkady


--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board__;!!LpKI!2uRZCMw3YLhVojzstaJ4CB9HOEvhEX_hy-9BmfxR8k7KyiOrYr0TeWaxrOLujEKXgrJx$ [lists[.]openstack[.]org]



The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.


The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.

From amy at demarco.com  Wed May 12 20:08:05 2021
From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:08:05 -0500
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
References: <b231916c-afad-975d-7879-ec5993daa2a8@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <CAFs83Qpg0+O-p1jOkvV8ovCOcuMUkfS7YHGqZ+HOvnu2nrJR_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Responding a little late but I thought this was a good idea during the
meeting on Monday. I can't see any negatives to this as we'd be reaching
out to folks we already collaborate with or who join our projects. I think
the fact they would be non-voting protects us and no fees for them protects
them.

Thanks,

Amy

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:24 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> During the informal call on Monday I introduced the idea of creating a
> new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members".
>
> Rationale:
>
> The Open Infrastructure Foundation mission is to develop, support,
> protect, and promote open infrastructure software projects (open source
> solutions to build infrastructure for further innovation). Integration
> between those projects has been identified as a key issue hindering
> further adoption of those solutions. While the Foundation directly
> supports and promotes a number of projects, its mission goes beyond the
> projects it directly hosts. We currently don’t have any program allowing
> us to formally engage with non-profit organizations sustaining open
> infrastructure projects, and help us better collaborate around events,
> promotion, and cross-community discussions.
>
> We also have a lot of connections with the academic world (through
> OpenInfra Labs and our education initiatives) and a lot of open
> infrastructure users in the public research space. Those traditionally
> do not sign up as members, despite being very engaged (CERN, for
> example, is not a member). This makes it difficult to apply
> “member-first” thinking in some cases, and we miss out on showcasing
> those illustrious institutions as Foundation members.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Create a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate
> members". That tier would be free to join, and the Executive Director of
> the Foundation would be empowered to approve any interested organization
> fitting the criteria. Two criteria would be defined:
>
> - Non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects
> - Notable academic and public research institutions making extensive use
> of open infrastructure projects.
>
> Please let me know of any question, concern, or comment on this
> proposal. My goal is to get it approved by the Board on our end of June
> meeting, and roll it out with initial candidates during Q3.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210512/3d8cb131/attachment.html>

From johan.christenson at citynetwork.eu  Thu May 13 07:44:11 2021
From: johan.christenson at citynetwork.eu (Johan Christenson)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 09:44:11 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
Message-ID: <83a2163d1ef44ad1c4a959eead8d85eb@citynetwork.eu>


Adding my 2 cents here as well and I too can only find positives to this.  Reaching these types of organizations better would be a great win in many ways.
/Johan

----- Original Message -----
From: Amy Marrich (amy at demarco.com)
Date: 05/12/2021 22:08
To: Thierry Carrez (thierry at openstack.org)
Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members


Responding a little late but I thought this was a good idea during the meeting on Monday. I can't see any negatives to this as we'd be reaching out to folks we already collaborate with or who join our projects. I think the fact they would be non-voting protects us and no fees for them protects them.

Thanks,

Amy

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:24 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,

During the informal call on Monday I introduced the idea of creating a
new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members".

Rationale:

The Open Infrastructure Foundation mission is to develop, support,
protect, and promote open infrastructure software projects (open source
solutions to build infrastructure for further innovation). Integration
between those projects has been identified as a key issue hindering
further adoption of those solutions. While the Foundation directly
supports and promotes a number of projects, its mission goes beyond the
projects it directly hosts. We currently don’t have any program allowing
us to formally engage with non-profit organizations sustaining open
infrastructure projects, and help us better collaborate around events,
promotion, and cross-community discussions.

We also have a lot of connections with the academic world (through
OpenInfra Labs and our education initiatives) and a lot of open
infrastructure users in the public research space. Those traditionally
do not sign up as members, despite being very engaged (CERN, for
example, is not a member). This makes it difficult to apply
“member-first” thinking in some cases, and we miss out on showcasing
those illustrious institutions as Foundation members.

Proposal:

Create a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate
members". That tier would be free to join, and the Executive Director of
the Foundation would be empowered to approve any interested organization
fitting the criteria. Two criteria would be defined:

- Non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects
- Notable academic and public research institutions making extensive use
of open infrastructure projects.

Please let me know of any question, concern, or comment on this
proposal. My goal is to get it approved by the Board on our end of June
meeting, and roll it out with initial candidates during Q3.

Regards,

--
Thierry Carrez

_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210513/ddfa783c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2106 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20210513/ddfa783c/attachment.bin>

From juliaashleykreger at gmail.com  Mon May 17 14:31:48 2021
From: juliaashleykreger at gmail.com (Julia Kreger)
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 07:31:48 -0700
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <83a2163d1ef44ad1c4a959eead8d85eb@citynetwork.eu>
References: <83a2163d1ef44ad1c4a959eead8d85eb@citynetwork.eu>
Message-ID: <CAF7gwdgzEHS+YLeAwd1JKZrp3=Kdk=g0sgbS_-zittVRcupDyQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for completely missing the call. Family matters took precedence last week.

I agree with the idea and everything said here so far. I believe it
definitely provides an opportunity for institution outreach and
visibility, at least terms permitting.

Of course, navigating the matter of visibility, and how it is
conveyed, is a whole other question and I suspect other research
institutions in the US would have similar constraints about
perceptions of endorsement and related logo use. I guess the question
this mentally leads *me* to is what does the institution gain by
joining? What can they perceive as value from the relationship? Would
we be building a special communication or feedback channel to help
enable and provide that value perception?

I guess, the creation of the member class may also need the additional
context of how precisely it will be used for the benefit of the
proposed member class. I think such detail would be beneficial to the
eventual legal reviews of members looking to join the membership
class, since this would also not involve updating the bylaws, at least
as discussed thus far.

-Julia


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 12:45 AM Johan Christenson
<johan.christenson at citynetwork.eu> wrote:
>
> Adding my 2 cents here as well and I too can only find positives to this.  Reaching these types of organizations better would be a great win in many ways.
>
> /Johan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> ________________________________
> From: Amy Marrich (amy at demarco.com)
> Date: 05/12/2021 22:08
> To: Thierry Carrez (thierry at openstack.org)
> Cc: foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
>
> Responding a little late but I thought this was a good idea during the meeting on Monday. I can't see any negatives to this as we'd be reaching out to folks we already collaborate with or who join our projects. I think the fact they would be non-voting protects us and no fees for them protects them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:24 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> During the informal call on Monday I introduced the idea of creating a
>> new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate members".
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The Open Infrastructure Foundation mission is to develop, support,
>> protect, and promote open infrastructure software projects (open source
>> solutions to build infrastructure for further innovation). Integration
>> between those projects has been identified as a key issue hindering
>> further adoption of those solutions. While the Foundation directly
>> supports and promotes a number of projects, its mission goes beyond the
>> projects it directly hosts. We currently don’t have any program allowing
>> us to formally engage with non-profit organizations sustaining open
>> infrastructure projects, and help us better collaborate around events,
>> promotion, and cross-community discussions.
>>
>> We also have a lot of connections with the academic world (through
>> OpenInfra Labs and our education initiatives) and a lot of open
>> infrastructure users in the public research space. Those traditionally
>> do not sign up as members, despite being very engaged (CERN, for
>> example, is not a member). This makes it difficult to apply
>> “member-first” thinking in some cases, and we miss out on showcasing
>> those illustrious institutions as Foundation members.
>>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> Create a new Foundation non-voting membership tier called "Associate
>> members". That tier would be free to join, and the Executive Director of
>> the Foundation would be empowered to approve any interested organization
>> fitting the criteria. Two criteria would be defined:
>>
>> - Non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure projects
>> - Notable academic and public research institutions making extensive use
>> of open infrastructure projects.
>>
>> Please let me know of any question, concern, or comment on this
>> proposal. My goal is to get it approved by the Board on our end of June
>> meeting, and roll it out with initial candidates during Q3.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board


From thierry at openstack.org  Tue May 18 09:27:03 2021
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 11:27:03 +0200
Subject: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
In-Reply-To: <CAF7gwdgzEHS+YLeAwd1JKZrp3=Kdk=g0sgbS_-zittVRcupDyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83a2163d1ef44ad1c4a959eead8d85eb@citynetwork.eu>
 <CAF7gwdgzEHS+YLeAwd1JKZrp3=Kdk=g0sgbS_-zittVRcupDyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b588e2d0-cd5e-28eb-77cc-72122f698c76@openstack.org>

Julia Kreger wrote:
> [...]
> I agree with the idea and everything said here so far. I believe it
> definitely provides an opportunity for institution outreach and
> visibility, at least terms permitting.
> 
> Of course, navigating the matter of visibility, and how it is
> conveyed, is a whole other question and I suspect other research
> institutions in the US would have similar constraints about
> perceptions of endorsement and related logo use. I guess the question
> this mentally leads *me* to is what does the institution gain by
> joining? What can they perceive as value from the relationship? Would
> we be building a special communication or feedback channel to help
> enable and provide that value perception?

That's a good point.

For the "non-profit organizations sustaining open infrastructure 
projects" associate members, the benefit for them is reciprocity, and 
access to our marketing channels and events.

For the "notable academic and public research institutions making 
extensive use of open infrastructure projects" associate members, the 
benefit for them is to be considered as a Foundation member and get 
membership benefits for free. We have a number of benefits directed to 
user members, and since this criteria requires that the institution 
makes direct use of open infra projects, they would qualify. This 
includes getting help from Foundation staff to navigate the open source 
project(s) they use, or getting warned when a community decision might 
adversely affect your deployment.

> I guess, the creation of the member class may also need the additional
> context of how precisely it will be used for the benefit of the
> proposed member class. I think such detail would be beneficial to the
> eventual legal reviews of members looking to join the membership
> class, since this would also not involve updating the bylaws, at least
> as discussed thus far.

We are planning to renew our membership program web pages in the coming 
months to make it clearer what benefits are tied to the various levels 
of membership. Hopefully this should all make it a lot clearer.

Cheers,

-- 
Thierry Carrez