On Feb 23, 2015 4:16 PM, "Jesse Proudman" <jproudman@blueboxcloud.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Dave Neary <dneary@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.