Associate Members
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
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
Hi Thierry, I really like the idea -- I would indeed have expected the CERN to be somehow formally connected to the OIF ... It has not hindered us from working together closely -- but sometimes it helps to have instruments in place to record such a close collaboration. Create a bit more visibility and in general be on the radar for events, consultation, discussions, ... but also communicating to the outside world. Thanks, -- Kurt Garloff <garloff@osb-alliance.com <mailto:garloff@osb-alliance.com>> CTO Sovereign Cloud Stack <https://scs.community/> [SCS logo] OSB Alliance <https://osb-alliance.com/> Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V. Breitscheidstr. 4, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany VR7217 (AG Stuttgart) - Chairman of the Board: Peter H. Ganten Sovereign Cloud Stack, SCS & SCS-Logo are protected trademarks of the OSB Alliance. On 12/05/2021 11:23, Thierry Carrez wrote: 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,
Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash. I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN could join. For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic member of Ceph (https://ceph.io/foundation/ <https://ceph.io/foundation/>) and the CNCF enduser membership (https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundati... <https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/>). For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get approval.Specifically, - Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture of one of the experiments could be used instead. However, in the past, open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be issues if there are other members with certain activities such as military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval. Cheers, Tim
On 12 May 2021, at 12:23, Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de> wrote:
Hi Thierry,
I really like the idea -- I would indeed have expected the CERN to be somehow formally connected to the OIF ... It has not hindered us from working together closely -- but sometimes it helps to have instruments in place to record such a close collaboration. Create a bit more visibility and in general be on the radar for events, consultation, discussions, ... but also communicating to the outside world.
Thanks, -- Kurt Garloff <garloff@osb-alliance.com <mailto:garloff@osb-alliance.com>>
CTO Sovereign Cloud Stack <https://scs.community/> <SCS-Horizontal-230x48.png>
OSB Alliance <https://osb-alliance.com/> Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V. Breitscheidstr. 4, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany VR7217 (AG Stuttgart) - Chairman of the Board: Peter H. Ganten Sovereign Cloud Stack, SCS & SCS-Logo are protected trademarks of the OSB Alliance.
On 12/05/2021 11:23, Thierry Carrez 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,
_______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
Tim Bell wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.
I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN could join. [...]
Of course! It was just a practical example of the type of "illustrious institutions" that could become members under the academic criteria.
For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic member of Ceph (https://ceph.io/foundation/ <https://ceph.io/foundation/>) and the CNCF enduser membership (https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundati... <https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/>).
For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get approval.Specifically,
- Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation
Thanks for the details. If we decide to move forward with this, I'll make sure to float early drafts of the membership agreement by you to get your early feedback. I suspect similar institutions will have similar rules, so it's important that the language used does not become a blocker.
The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture of one of the experiments could be used instead. However, in the past, open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be issues if there are other members with certain activities such as military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.
Noted! -- Thierry
I'm in favour of this too. It would be great to keep the language as inclusive as possible, I suspect other institutions might have hurdles too. Am I correct in assuming that there would be no voting rights beyond those any individual ATCs would have? Daniel On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 13:40, Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> wrote:
Tim Bell wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.
I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN could join. [...]
Of course! It was just a practical example of the type of "illustrious institutions" that could become members under the academic criteria.
For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic member of Ceph (https://ceph.io/foundation/ <https://ceph.io/foundation/>) and the CNCF enduser membership ( https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundati... < https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/cloud-native-computing-foundation-adds-46-new-members/>).
For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get approval.Specifically,
- Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation
Thanks for the details. If we decide to move forward with this, I'll make sure to float early drafts of the membership agreement by you to get your early feedback. I suspect similar institutions will have similar rules, so it's important that the language used does not become a blocker.
The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture of one of the experiments could be used instead. However, in the past, open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be issues if there are other members with certain activities such as military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.
Noted!
-- Thierry
_______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
-- Daniel Becker He / Him / His M: +353863888464 (If I am replying on a weekend or early/late in the day, I do not expect any response on the weekend and/or outside your working hours)
Daniel Becker wrote:
I'm in favour of this too. It would be great to keep the language as inclusive as possible, I suspect other institutions might have hurdles too.
Am I correct in assuming that there would be no voting rights beyond those any individual ATCs would have?
Those organizations would have absolutely no voting rights. But Individuals within those organizations could still join as an Individual member and vote within that class. Hope this clarifies, -- Thierry
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 -----Original Message----- From: Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:40 AM To: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Tim Bell wrote:
Sorry to have missed the call, I had a last minute clash.
I’d support the idea but it would depend on the details whether CERN could join. [...]
Of course! It was just a practical example of the type of "illustrious institutions" that could become members under the academic criteria.
For background, we’ve joined a number of programs such as Academic member of Ceph (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ceph.io/foundation/__;!!LpKI!3XmO O28-H8hNU70K5l97R5z01ucUG6LMLSrvxjJqEQVhrNWEYffq41Ihryt8p5gsLmHF$ [ceph[.]io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ceph.io/foundation/__;!!LpKI!3XmOO28-H8h... [ceph[.]io]>) and the CNCF enduser membership (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/clo... [cncf[.]io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2020/11/18/clo... [cncf[.]io]>).
For international organisations to join requires review by the CERN legal and procurement groups. The process can take up to 2 months to get approval.Specifically,
- Extensive legal text with arbitration can be problematic and needs to reflect CERN’s immunities as an international organisation - The membership must not indicate an endorsement of the foundation
Thanks for the details. If we decide to move forward with this, I'll make sure to float early drafts of the membership agreement by you to get your early feedback. I suspect similar institutions will have similar rules, so it's important that the language used does not become a blocker.
The use of CERN’s logo is not guaranteed. Alternatives such as a picture of one of the experiments could be used instead. However, in the past, open source communities may be granted permission. There can also be issues if there are other members with certain activities such as military. A mock up of the web page is usually required to get approval.
Noted! -- Thierry _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi... [lists[.]openstack[.]org]
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@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
Dell Customer Communication - Confidential Do not think so. From: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com<mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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
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@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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
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@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@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@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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
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@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@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@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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)
Thierry is correct, this will only require Board approval. -----Original Message----- From: Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:50 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com> Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL] 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@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@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@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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) _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
Dell Customer Communication - Confidential Glad that less work is needed. -----Original Message----- From: Radcliffe, Mark <mark.radcliffe@dlapiper.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:56 AM To: Thierry Carrez; Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: RE: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Thierry is correct, this will only require Board approval. -----Original Message----- From: Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:50 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com> Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL] 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@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@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@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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) _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi... [lists[.]openstack[.]org] The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
That is how Jonathan and Mark wanted it to operate. -----Original Message----- From: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:13 AM To: Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe@us.dlapiper.com>; Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com> Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: RE: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL] Dell Customer Communication - Confidential Glad that less work is needed. -----Original Message----- From: Radcliffe, Mark <mark.radcliffe@dlapiper.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:56 AM To: Thierry Carrez; Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: RE: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Thierry is correct, this will only require Board approval. -----Original Message----- From: Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:50 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com>; Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com> Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Associate Members [EXTERNAL] 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@openstack.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:34 AM To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean McGinnis Cc: foundation-board@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@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:00 AM *To:* Kanevsky, Arkady *Cc:* Thierry Carrez; foundation-board@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@dell.com <mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky@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) _______________________________________________ Foundation-board mailing list Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi... [lists[.]openstack[.]org] The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
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
participants (8)
-
Amy Marrich
-
Daniel Becker
-
Kanevsky, Arkady
-
Kurt Garloff
-
Radcliffe, Mark
-
Sean McGinnis
-
Thierry Carrez
-
Tim Bell