Open Stack

As one of the new transparancy committee members, it is one of my
responsibilities to report on the board transparency.

The transparancy policy as adopted by the board and posted here
http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/ generally states that
information not falling under the heading confidential information, will be
made public through the foundation mailing list. This is not explicit
however. The selection of the board meeting locations does not seem to be
confidential. I am open to discussing how it could be considered so.

In the spirit of being a community that works together in the open, I would
like to see the future discussions around selecting board meeting locations
be made in the open like most everything else we do. I think an agreement
to do this on the ML would be enough to move forward and past this specific
issue.

If this is a problem that cannot be solved here and needs formal
resolution, I would recommend that the process to file a complaint with
Jonathan outlined in section 5 of the transparency policy be followed.


On Monday, February 23, 2015, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2015 4:16 PM, "Jesse Proudman" <jproudman at blueboxcloud.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jproudman at blueboxcloud.com');>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Dave Neary <dneary at redhat.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dneary at redhat.com');>> wrote:
> >>
> >> This general pattern of public proposal and debate, followed by a
> >> private executive decision which takes that debate into consideration,
> >> has proven effective at building consensus and maintaining a level of
> >> participation of the membership in the workings of the foundation.
> >
> >
> > I absolutely agree that public discussion and public recording of board
> decisions is important. The intent of my email was to comment on Tristan's
> concerns in the aggregate.
> >
>
> It has been clear to me that since the OpenStack board started having
> private, non recorded, non accessible meetings along with private voting,
> that the OpenStack board is going in a direction that does not benefit the
> community.
>
> Comments about travel costs for the board shows a very shallow view of
> what running an open source community entails. OpenStack is a _very_ well
> funded organization and most of the board members come from corporations
> that pay significantly for their spot. The cost of travel for the corporate
> delegates is minor compared to the other expenses.
>
> The people who run for the board know what the job entails. I believe that
> every one of them ran for their role to do good in the community. If a
> board member is unable or unwilling to support the common good, why are
> they are on the board at all?
>
> Transparency in a organization that uses open in the name is IMHO
> obligatory.
>


-- 
~sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20150223/41861542/attachment.html>