Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members
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@demarco.com) Date: 05/12/2021 22:08 To: Thierry Carrez (thierry@openstack.org) Cc: foundation-board@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@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@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
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@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@demarco.com) Date: 05/12/2021 22:08 To: Thierry Carrez (thierry@openstack.org) Cc: foundation-board@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@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@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
________________________________ _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
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
participants (3)
-
Johan Christenson
-
Julia Kreger
-
Thierry Carrez