I noticed in a subsequent email Tristan would also like to see a new vote.if the transparency committee feels that the board violated policy the committee could bring both items to the agenda. That's what the committee is chartered to do. Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> </div><div>Date:02/24/2015 5:03 AM (GMT-07:00) </div><div>To: seanroberts66@gmail.com, foundation@lists.openstack.org </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Fwd: Re: [Foundation Board] propose 2015board meeting dates </div><div> </div>
"Alan Clark" <aclark@suse.com> 02/24/2015 05:04 >>> Thanks Sean. The mailing list issue has been festering for a long time. We should have circled back to this sooner. If someone wants to go thorough the complaint process that's fine but I propose that it will be best if we put it on the board meeting agenda. This latest thread shows that we have several areas that need to be addressed.so that we all operate under the same premise. AlanClark
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: sean roberts <seanroberts66@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:02/23/2015 7:03 PM (GMT-07:00) </div><div>To: "<foundation@lists.openstack.org>" <foundation@lists.openstack.org> </div><div>Cc: Alan Clark <ACLARK@suse.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Fwd: Re: [Foundation Board] propose 2015 board meeting dates </div><div> </div>As one of the new transparancy committee members, it is one of my responsibilities to report on the board transparency. The transparancy policy as adopted by the board and posted here http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/ generally states that information not falling under the heading confidential information, will be made public through the foundation mailing list. This is not explicit however. The selection of the board meeting locations does not seem to be confidential. I am open to discussing how it could be considered so. In the spirit of being a community that works together in the open, I would like to see the future discussions around selecting board meeting locations be made in the open like most everything else we do. I think an agreement to do this on the ML would be enough to move forward and past this specific issue. If this is a problem that cannot be solved here and needs formal resolution, I would recommend that the process to file a complaint with Jonathan outlined in section 5 of the transparency policy be followed. On Monday, February 23, 2015, Steve Noble <snoble@sonn.com> wrote: 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. -- ~sean