Open Stack

On May 26, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

> 
> Regardless of some minor phrasing improvements, I feel that Mark's blog contributes hugely to communication with the community and
> accessibility to the board.
> 
> I would strongly encourage this communication channel to continue in a very similar fashion to the past few board. It contributes to
> our goals of transparency and is always a good read :-)

I completely agree. I get concerned when we imply a need to lock down communications further. I think Mark's write-ups have been helpful.

Troy

> 
> Tim
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan at aptira.com]
>> Sent: 26 May 2013 16:10
>> To: Mark McLoughlin
>> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
>> 
>> I agree with Joshua and I support the approval process that has been in place.
>> 
>> 
>> On 26/05/2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>> A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
>>> be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
>>> Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
>>> record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
>>> board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
>>> either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are published.
>> 
>> Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue however, in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note
> that in
>> my summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.
>> 
>>> As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
>>> what was discussed during executive session - whether it was restated
>>> afterwards or not.
>> 
>> This is what you're taking issue with?
>> 
>> As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly restate their concerns with the applications that had been
> discussed during
>> the executive session.
>> 
>> It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these concerns were stated in the executive session or whether they
> were
>> raised for the first time after the executive session?
>> 
>> The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the executive session was to *restate* concerns publicly for the
> record ...
>> not to have a whole new conversation.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation