I fully agree - it was not made clear in the last board meeting that unless the board specifically requested a decision, the decision would be made by the foundation team.
To find that a decision has been made and plans put in motion is disturbing. This is a significant change for OpenStack and should not be pushed through as a fait accompli.



Best Regards


Mark Baker


On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:

While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might not all be able to make the larger discussion event (https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478)

I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad.

Tim




On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" <mordred@inaugust.com> wrote:

>On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
>> the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
>> summit/design summit.
>>
>> When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?
>
>My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
>there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
>handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation