Hi Tim,
On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 14:47 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The proposals for actions to be taken for the 2013 individual elections were
> prepared by Tristan, Hui and myself. We are individual board members but do
> not have any affiliation with companies who have platinum or gold member
> seats (which is where the concern has been expressed).
That's fair.
> This is as Johnathan communicated on November 2nd
> (
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html)
> - "Discussed options for updates to the election process. Tim Bell, Hui
> Cheng and Tristan Goode are pulling together some recommendations that they
> will be sharing with the mailing list for feedback before the election
> period opens with nominations on November 26."
> Given that the board meeting to propose the sub-committee was only agreed on
> Nov 2nd, we were pleased to get the letter published on the 13th for the
> board meeting on the 16th. The time zone differences between Europe and
> Australia didn't make it easy to do it faster.
It's a reasonable turnaround from Nov 2nd, yes.
> Rob, Toby and Troy were also involved in the brainstorming prior to that to
> cover possibilities for both (as shown in the etherpad at
>
https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals). Many of these
> proposals were extracted from ideas on the mailing list. The 4
> possibilities proposed for the 2013 elections were those where the bylaws
> permitted us to change within the timescales available. The other options
> can be debated during 2013 and proposals can then be prepared to be voted on
> according to the bylaws.
get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the
process.
In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.
I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.
Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
be people who object" crowd :)
I thought you made a fair point, but didn't have anything to add at the time.
As far as the process, I perceive it in much the same way as your. Sometimes it helps to focus by assigning a task like this to a small number of people, rather than have the discussions happen with *everyone* in the community. On the other hand, in this case there was already an ongoing discussion with a small number of participants providing thoughtful input. It would have been appropriate to include them more directly in the "pulling together some recommendations" activities. It is not necessary for the board members to do all of the work of running the foundation by themselves, after all.