Open Stack

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)