Open Stack

Mark I agree with your comments 100%.

Thanks,

Ryan van Wyk
Assistant Vice President (AVP) – Member of Technical Staff
Network Cloud & Infrastructure, Network Cloud Software Engineering


From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 3:46 PM
To: Graham Hayes <gr at ham.ie>
Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] Bylaws change proposed at next week's OpenStack board meeting to support Open Infrastructure project confirmation



On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:02 PM Graham Hayes <gr at ham.ie<mailto:gr at ham.ie>> wrote:
On 02/04/2019 14:43, Alan Clark wrote:
<snip>
> 4.16 Open Meetings and Records.  Except as necessary to protect
> attorney-client privilege, sensitive personnel information, discuss the
> candidacy of potential Gold Member and Platinum Members, /and discuss
> the review and approval of Open Infrastructure Projects, /the Board of
> Directors shall: (i) permit observation of its meetings by Members via
> remote teleconference or other electronic means, and (ii) publish the
> Board of Directors minutes and make available to any Member on request
> other information and records of the Foundation as required by Delaware
> Corporate Law.
>
>
>
> If, during confirmation discussions, a project lead or Director feels
> that there is sensitive information that needs to be protected this
> amendment provides a mechanism for such discussion.
>
I am still not sure what could be required for an executive session that
is not covered by "sensitive personnel information" that would require
this.

Personally, for me, this looks like we are not abiding by our own ethos
of the Four Opens - I do understand if there is personel issues with a
potential project, we would want to have it discussed behind closed
doors, but everything else should be in the open. If the project
that is about to be included has large enough personnel issues that
they could cause issues for its inclusion in the foundation, there
is a very high chance that they are going to fail some of the
confirmation guidelines, and that *is* something the community
should have visiblity into.

Even from an optics perspective - the board deciding to include or
not include a project behind closed doors is not something that
is representitive of the OpenStack community, and not something
I think the community should be supporting.

I know there's some lingering concern about this, and I'm generally against matters of wider community interest being discussed in executive session, but I'm comfortable about this proposal because:

a) There is no default expectation of having an executive session before every confirmation vote - indeed, we've had two now with no executive session

b) Anyone who does request an executive session will have to justify to the board why the topic is so sensitive that it requires executive session

c) Confirming a project means the OSF making a long-term commitment to that project - I'd much rather there to be some mechanism for people to raise sensitive concerns, rather than risk projects being confirmed without those concerns ever getting raised

d) The confirmation vote will happen in public - if there is any controversy, I expect it would be apparent from the voting, and I expect board members would feel compelled to give some explanation for their voting rather than leave the community completely in the dark

Hope that helps,
Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20190430/9bdd130a/attachment.html>