[OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013)
Hi, Based on feedback from the community, the Board made several proposals to improve the election process for January 2013. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001246.html The first three proposals were implemented. That is: - clear statements from each candidates, - more information for voters about the individual member election, - request to organizations to act honourably and guide their staff to vote in the interest of the community. One of the goal of these proposals was to encourage and help every voter to vote for candidates who best represent the Community. This was one of the answers to the concerns that were raised about the influence of corporate entities in the individual member election before and after the August 2012 election. For the August 2012 election, some statistics were sent to help quantify the role employers played in the election: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html To help the community evaluate if the changes in the election process had a positive impact, the election inspectors have created the same statistics for the January 2013 election. Like for the statistics from August 2012, we are not drawing any conclusions in this report, rather we are attempting to present the information relevant to the aforementioned concerns. All credits for this should still go to James, as we used the same script, and his explanations for each table are used below. Thanks, Vincent ======== While each vote is anonymous, the affiliates that each Individual Member specified when applying for Foundation Membership was recorded with the vote. That stated affiliation is the basis for the analysis below. Keep in mind that the affiliation field is free-form and not verified, and members may have provided incorrect or unusable data. For instance, it is apparent that some people misinterpreted the field, needlessly providing multiple affiliations, affiliations that clearly don't match the criteria specified on the form, or just plain non-sequiturs. Therefore the numbers below should be close to reality, but may not be exact. The following table lists the election results for the top 8 candidates, including the weighted vote (the sum of all the votes cast for that candidate), the percent of the total weighted vote which was cast for that candidate, the number of voters who individually cast at least part of their vote for that candidate, and the percentage of the total voters who cast at least part of their vote for that candidate. Results for top 8 Candidates +------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+ | Name | Weighted | %Weighted | Voters | %Voters | +------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+ | Monty Taylor | 1709.00 | 15.38 % | 413 | 29.73 % | | Rob Hirschfeld | 1591.00 | 14.32 % | 371 | 26.71 % | | Troy Toman | 1335.00 | 12.01 % | 342 | 24.62 % | | Hui Cheng | 1022.00 | 9.20 % | 286 | 20.59 % | | Tim Bell | 907.00 | 8.16 % | 385 | 27.72 % | | Lauren Sell | 701.00 | 6.31 % | 303 | 21.81 % | | Mark McLoughlin | 582.00 | 5.24 % | 242 | 17.42 % | | Tristan Goode | 498.00 | 4.48 % | 188 | 13.53 % | +------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+ The following table lists the sources of votes for the top 8 candidates classified by the employer of the voter. Four categories are listed; the first, "%Employer", is the percentage of voters for that candidate with the same employer as the candidate. The second, "%Major", is the percentage of voters from a "major" employer, which is to say an employer that was specified by at least 5 voters overall (there are about 20 "major" employers in the data set by this calculation). The third, "%Minor", is the percentage from a "minor" employer, i.e., one specified by less than 5 individuals. The last, "%None", is the percentage who listed no affiliation. Source of Votes for Top 8 Candidates +-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+ | Name | Employer | %Employer | %Major | %Minor | %None | +-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+ | Monty Taylor | HP | 57 % | 22 % | 14 % | 7 % | | Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 59 % | 23 % | 13 % | 5 % | | Troy Toman | Rackspace | 68 % | 18 % | 10 % | 4 % | | Hui Cheng | SINA | | | 29 % | 31 % | | Tim Bell | CERN | | | 23 % | 10 % | | Lauren Sell | OpenStack Foundation | | | 19 % | 8 % | | Mark McLoughlin | Red Hat | | | 24 % | 9 % | | Tristan Goode | Aptira | | | 30 % | 12 % | +-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+ [Some values have been omitted to preserve anonymity.] The following table shows how voters who identified as affiliates of "major" employers (see above) voted. Only the "major" employers with at least 50 affiliated voters and at least 10% of their affiliates voting for at least one candidate employed by the subject employer are listed to preserve anonymity. The first column after the name of the organization indicates the number of voters claiming affiliation with that organization. Three percentages are then listed: the first, "%Only Affiliated" is the percentage of those voters who voted only for candidates employed by their affiliate organization. The second, "%Including Affiliated", is the percentage who voted for at least one candidate employed by their affiliate organization. The third, "%Non Affiliated" is the percentage who did not vote for any employee of their affiliate organization. How Affiliates Voted +-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ | | Number | %Only | %Including | %Non | | Name | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated | +-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ | Dell | 242 | 52 % | 90 % | 10 % | | HP | 273 | 40 % | 87 % | 13 % | | Rackspace | 261 | 32 % | 90 % | 10 % | +-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:06 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: ...
All credits for this should still go to James, as we used the same script, and his explanations for each table are used below.
Excellent work again, kudos guys. ...
The following table lists the sources of votes for the top 8 candidates classified by the employer of the voter. Four categories are listed; the first, "%Employer", is the percentage of voters for that candidate with the same employer as the candidate. The second, "%Major", is the percentage of voters from a "major" employer, which is to say an employer that was specified by at least 5 voters overall (there are about 20 "major" employers in the data set by this calculation). The third, "%Minor", is the percentage from a "minor" employer, i.e., one specified by less than 5 individuals. The last, "%None", is the percentage who listed no affiliation.
Source of Votes for Top 8 Candidates +-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+ | Name | Employer | %Employer | %Major | %Minor | %None | +-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+ | Monty Taylor | HP | 57 % | 22 % | 14 % | 7 % | | Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 59 % | 23 % | 13 % | 5 % | | Troy Toman | Rackspace | 68 % | 18 % | 10 % | 4 % | | Hui Cheng | SINA | | | 29 % | 31 % | | Tim Bell | CERN | | | 23 % | 10 % | | Lauren Sell | OpenStack Foundation | | | 19 % | 8 % | | Mark McLoughlin | Red Hat | | | 24 % | 9 % | | Tristan Goode | Aptira | | | 30 % | 12 % | +-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+ [Some values have been omitted to preserve anonymity.]
What I'd focus on here is %Employer Last time around it was: | Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 86 % | Monty Taylor | HP | 75 % | Joseph George | Dell | 88 % | Troy Toman | Rackspace | 76 % The smaller numbers this time around means the candidates' votes were from a more diverse set of voters. That's definitely a solid improvement, but it still looks to me like the big blocks of affiliated voters have an overly large influence over the result. If the affiliated blocks who voted for the top 3 candidates were a more average size, I'm guessing they still would rank highly (which is great) but it would be a much more closely run thing.
The following table shows how voters who identified as affiliates of "major" employers (see above) voted. Only the "major" employers with at least 50 affiliated voters and at least 10% of their affiliates voting for at least one candidate employed by the subject employer are listed to preserve anonymity.
The first column after the name of the organization indicates the number of voters claiming affiliation with that organization. Three percentages are then listed: the first, "%Only Affiliated" is the percentage of those voters who voted only for candidates employed by their affiliate organization. The second, "%Including Affiliated", is the percentage who voted for at least one candidate employed by their affiliate organization. The third, "%Non Affiliated" is the percentage who did not vote for any employee of their affiliate organization.
How Affiliates Voted +-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ | | Number | %Only | %Including | %Non | | Name | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated | +-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ | Dell | 242 | 52 % | 90 % | 10 % | | HP | 273 | 40 % | 87 % | 13 % | | Rackspace | 261 | 32 % | 90 % | 10 % | +-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
Compared to this last year: | Dell | 470 | 81 % | 97 % | 3 % | | HP | 304 | 55 % | 91 % | 9 % | | Rackspace | 244 | 25 % | 85 % | 15 % | it again looks like a good improvement - i.e. more diversity in voting and smaller blocks of voters - but the numbers of voters affiliated with these companies still seem surprisingly high, at least to me. Cheers, Mark.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:06 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: ...
All credits for this should still go to James, as we used the same script, and his explanations for each table are used below.
Excellent work again, kudos guys.
...
The following table lists the sources of votes for the top 8 candidates classified by the employer of the voter. Four categories are listed; the first, "%Employer", is the percentage of voters for that candidate with the same employer as the candidate. The second, "%Major", is the percentage of voters from a "major" employer, which is to say an employer that was specified by at least 5 voters overall (there are about 20 "major" employers in the data set by this calculation). The third, "%Minor", is the percentage from a "minor" employer, i.e., one specified by less than 5 individuals. The last, "%None", is the percentage who listed no affiliation.
Source of Votes for Top 8 Candidates
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
| Name | Employer | %Employer | %Major | %Minor | %None |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
| Monty Taylor | HP | 57 % | 22 % | 14 % | 7 % | | Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 59 % | 23 % | 13 % | 5 % | | Troy Toman | Rackspace | 68 % | 18 % | 10 % | 4 % | | Hui Cheng | SINA | | | 29 % | 31 % | | Tim Bell | CERN | | | 23 % | 10 % | | Lauren Sell | OpenStack Foundation | | | 19 % | 8 % | | Mark McLoughlin | Red Hat | | | 24 % | 9 % | | Tristan Goode | Aptira | | | 30 % | 12 % |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
[Some values have been omitted to preserve anonymity.]
What I'd focus on here is %Employer
Last time around it was:
| Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 86 % | Monty Taylor | HP | 75 % | Joseph George | Dell | 88 % | Troy Toman | Rackspace | 76 %
The smaller numbers this time around means the candidates' votes were from a more diverse set of voters.
That's definitely a solid improvement, but it still looks to me like the big blocks of affiliated voters have an overly large influence over the result. If the affiliated blocks who voted for the top 3 candidates were a more average size, I'm guessing they still would rank highly (which is great) but it would be a much more closely run thing.
Thanks for providing this data Vincent! I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base. Reviewing this information now, it seems important to put it in the context of the number of voters, and the affiliations of that pool. Number of voters: 1389 · Group size: 4999 · Percentage voted: 27.79 (27.79 of total weight) https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2888d7aPUFe5Euveb5kiYNGT vs from the August election: Number of voters: 1935 · Group size: 5002 · Percentage voted: 38.68 https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2601EKAFniDP554rVJb9RBxx That is almost a 30% drop in participation. This would be a real call to action if everyone didn't already know the reality of the pool. I suspect that if the affiliations where examined we would see a disproportionate drop off in the affiliations where senior leadership of those organizations did not make the same well-meaning encouragement for participation this time around. And, of course, because of the 6+ month membership requirement, there was no ability to swell the ranks of the electorate before the election . I'm thankful that Mark Collier agreed to drop out of the race right before voting began as two Foundation executives on the board in "Individual" spots would have been a huge distraction to the success of the Foundation in 2013. We need to protect against this ever happening, and I am eager to see real reform of the elections this year and protection of diversity. (We're all responsible for the system failing to elect Anne Gentle, a candidate with solid and diverse support being beaten by affiliated weighted votes in the August 2012 election). Thank you, -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/
Hi, On 02/08/2013 08:37 PM, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base.
I would like to think that the OpenStack Foundation is not being seen as a subsidiary of Rackspace! It's very important that it be both independent and seen to be independent.
That is almost a 30% drop in participation. This would be a real call to action if everyone didn't already know the reality of the pool. I suspect that if the affiliations where examined we would see a disproportionate drop off in the affiliations where senior leadership of those organizations did not make the same well-meaning encouragement for participation this time around. And, of course, because of the 6+ month membership requirement, there was no ability to swell the ranks of the electorate before the election .
Do we have a way to sunset memberships on a regular basis (say, someone is no linger a member if after 2 years they don't renew their membership)?
We need to protect against this ever happening, and I am eager to see real reform of the elections this year and protection of diversity. (We're all responsible for the system failing to elect Anne Gentle, a candidate with solid and diverse support being beaten by affiliated weighted votes in the August 2012 election).
While I can see where you're coming from, I don't think it would have been bad to have Mark on the board. I don't know him, but he has seemed fair-minded and passionate about OpenStack in all my dealings with him to date. The question is: do we want a special rule that no more than one employee of the OpenStack Foundation can be on the board? I can see the point (especially in the context of your subtle hint that most employees to date have come from Rackspace), but shouldn't the OpenStack Foundation be considered like an employer like any other now that it is an independent entity? Thanks, Dave. -- Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
Hi, Le vendredi 08 février 2013, à 20:52 +0100, Dave Neary a écrit :
Hi,
On 02/08/2013 08:37 PM, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base.
Interesting, I also got this comment from someone else.
I would like to think that the OpenStack Foundation is not being seen as a subsidiary of Rackspace! It's very important that it be both independent and seen to be independent.
This is one reason I didn't look into such stats. I also don't like the idea of focusing just on Lauren here: it would also makes sense to look at past employers / circles of interest of each elected person in that case. This can easily become a slippery slope.
That is almost a 30% drop in participation. This would be a real call to action if everyone didn't already know the reality of the pool. I suspect that if the affiliations where examined we would see a disproportionate drop off in the affiliations where senior leadership of those organizations did not make the same well-meaning encouragement for participation this time around. And, of course, because of the 6+ month membership requirement, there was no ability to swell the ranks of the electorate before the election .
Do we have a way to sunset memberships on a regular basis (say, someone is no linger a member if after 2 years they don't renew their membership)?
See http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/IndividualMembershipPolicy "The Secretary and the Executive Director, acting together, may, or the Board of Directors may direct the Secretary and Executive Director to, terminate an Individual Member as follows: (i) for violation of the Individual Member Agreement if the violation is not cured within the period provided in the Individual Member Agreement, (ii) for violation of the Community Code of Conduct, or (iii) failure to vote in at least 50% of the votes for Individual Members within the prior twenty-four months unless the person does not respond within thirty (30) days of notice of such termination that the person wishes to continue to be an Individual Member." So the relevant part here is "failure to vote in at least 50% of the votes for Individual Members within the prior twenty-four months". Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
On 2013-02-08 11:37:28 -0800 (-0800), Lloyd Dewolf wrote: [...]
That is almost a 30% drop in participation. This would be a real call to action if everyone didn't already know the reality of the pool. I suspect that if the affiliations where examined we would see a disproportionate drop off in the affiliations where senior leadership of those organizations did not make the same well-meaning encouragement for participation this time around. And, of course, because of the 6+ month membership requirement, there was no ability to swell the ranks of the electorate before the election. [...]
I was one of those who voted in the first election but was ineligible to cast a vote in the second due to timing. Given that there was a major call for participation within the OpenStack community immediately prior to the first round with the recent formation of the Foundation (coincident to when I joined), I wouldn't be surprised if this had a bigger impact on turn out than anyone realizes. I would have voted in the most recent election if my membership hadn't been just shy of the 6-month mark, and am honestly a little disappointed I was unable to participate. -- Jeremy Stanley
On 2013-02-08 19:56:34 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...]
I wouldn't be surprised if this had a bigger impact on turn out than anyone realizes. [...]
Nevermind. I missed that the "Group size: 4999" vs. "5002" meant there were only three of us eligible to vote in the first election and not in the second. (Thanks, Lloyd, for pointing this out.) I hereby retract my assertion that it would have had any statistically significant impact on the overall reduction in votes cast. -- Jeremy Stanley
I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement. I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I've moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation. I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same. Tim From: Lloyd Dewolf [mailto:lloydostack@gmail.com] Sent: 08 February 2013 20:37 To: Mark McLoughlin Cc: Vincent Untz; foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013) I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base. I'm thankful that Mark Collier agreed to drop out of the race right before voting began as two Foundation executives on the board in "Individual" spots would have been a huge distraction to the success of the Foundation in 2013. -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/
Firstly, I declare wholeheartedly that Lauren and Mark are outstanding representatives of OpenStack, clearly the very best, and I am certain that Lloyd's motive is not personal or malicious and nor is my reason for chiming in here. Given the large number of Rackspace employees in the membership it is reasonable to assume the electorate may view with suspicion _any_ very recent Rackspace employee's election success, so perhaps all successful candidates should be placed under the same scrutiny that Monty, Rob and Troy are. Possibly, this also highlights a potentially exploitable inadequacy in the bylaws. Why is the same rule not applied to employees of a company that their company affiliation of the last 12 months not be declared but a contractor needs to declare that? Referring to the bylaw in question, Section 4.17. (b) For the purposes of the Director Diversity Requirement, the term "Affiliated" or "Affiliation" in the Bylaws is defined as follows: (i) relationships between Members who are business entities and Members who are individuals (whether Individual Members, Gold Members or Platinum Members), the individual is a (i) board member, officer or employee of the business entity or its Affiliated Group (as defined in Section 2.5) or (ii) an independent contractor to the business entity or its Affiliated Group who has earned more than $60,000 in the most recent twelve month period; or Perhaps it should be more along the lines of: (b) For the purposes of the Director Diversity Requirement, the term "Affiliated" or "Affiliation" in the Bylaws is defined as follows: (i) relationships between Members who are business entities and Members who are individuals (whether Individual Members, Gold Members or Platinum Members), the individual is a (a) board member, officer or employee of the business entity or its Affiliated Group (as defined in Section 2.5); or (b) an independent contractor to the business entity or its Affiliated Group who has earned more than $60,000; in the most recent twelve month period; or Aside from the current clause's poor formatting and numbering (the (i) within (i)'s) this clause should possibly not just declare contractors but anyone's employment in the last 12 months as an affiliation. The current wording allows that someone can be an employee, officer or board member up to the day before nomination, then quit on that day and the day after they are no longer affiliated. From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch] Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 6:30 AM To: Lloyd Dewolf Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013) I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement. I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I've moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation. I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same. Tim From: Lloyd Dewolf [mailto:lloydostack@gmail.com] Sent: 08 February 2013 20:37 To: Mark McLoughlin Cc: Vincent Untz; foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013) I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base. I'm thankful that Mark Collier agreed to drop out of the race right before voting began as two Foundation executives on the board in "Individual" spots would have been a huge distraction to the success of the Foundation in 2013. -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/
Something that was pointed out to me this morning: most of the world's contractors can never be considered affiliated - they don't earn enough. "who has earned more than $60,000 in the most recent twelve month period" From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan@aptira.com] Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 12:08 PM To: 'Tim Bell'; 'Lloyd Dewolf' Cc: 'foundation@lists.openstack.org' Subject: RE: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013) Firstly, I declare wholeheartedly that Lauren and Mark are outstanding representatives of OpenStack, clearly the very best, and I am certain that Lloyd's motive is not personal or malicious and nor is my reason for chiming in here. Given the large number of Rackspace employees in the membership it is reasonable to assume the electorate may view with suspicion _any_ very recent Rackspace employee's election success, so perhaps all successful candidates should be placed under the same scrutiny that Monty, Rob and Troy are. Possibly, this also highlights a potentially exploitable inadequacy in the bylaws. Why is the same rule not applied to employees of a company that their company affiliation of the last 12 months not be declared but a contractor needs to declare that? Referring to the bylaw in question, Section 4.17. (b) For the purposes of the Director Diversity Requirement, the term "Affiliated" or "Affiliation" in the Bylaws is defined as follows: (i) relationships between Members who are business entities and Members who are individuals (whether Individual Members, Gold Members or Platinum Members), the individual is a (i) board member, officer or employee of the business entity or its Affiliated Group (as defined in Section 2.5) or (ii) an independent contractor to the business entity or its Affiliated Group who has earned more than $60,000 in the most recent twelve month period; or Perhaps it should be more along the lines of: (b) For the purposes of the Director Diversity Requirement, the term "Affiliated" or "Affiliation" in the Bylaws is defined as follows: (i) relationships between Members who are business entities and Members who are individuals (whether Individual Members, Gold Members or Platinum Members), the individual is a (a) board member, officer or employee of the business entity or its Affiliated Group (as defined in Section 2.5); or (b) an independent contractor to the business entity or its Affiliated Group who has earned more than $60,000; in the most recent twelve month period; or Aside from the current clause's poor formatting and numbering (the (i) within (i)'s) this clause should possibly not just declare contractors but anyone's employment in the last 12 months as an affiliation. The current wording allows that someone can be an employee, officer or board member up to the day before nomination, then quit on that day and the day after they are no longer affiliated. From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch] Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 6:30 AM To: Lloyd Dewolf Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013) I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement. I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I've moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation. I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same. Tim From: Lloyd Dewolf [mailto:lloydostack@gmail.com] Sent: 08 February 2013 20:37 To: Mark McLoughlin Cc: Vincent Untz; foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013) I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base. I'm thankful that Mark Collier agreed to drop out of the race right before voting began as two Foundation executives on the board in "Individual" spots would have been a huge distraction to the success of the Foundation in 2013. -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 19:30 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement.
To be fair to Lloyd, I read his comment as "some people might label Lauren as a Rackspace stooge but looking at the Rackspace voting stats would show how diverse her support is". i.e. I actually read it as a positive comment and agree with the sentiment. It's important to counter any FUD about Rackspace influence over the Foundation but I wouldn't like to see a single individual subjected to more scrutiny than other candidates.
I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I've moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation.
I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same.
I feel very strongly that I'm representing the Individual Members rather than my employer, if that's what you mean. Cheers, Mark.
From: Lloyd Dewolf [mailto:lloydostack@gmail.com] Sent: 08 February 2013 20:37 To: Mark McLoughlin Cc: Vincent Untz; foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013)
I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base.
I'm thankful that Mark Collier agreed to drop out of the race right before voting began as two Foundation executives on the board in "Individual" spots would have been a huge distraction to the success of the Foundation in 2013.
--
@lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/
_______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list Foundation@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:
I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement.
I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I’ve moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation.
I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same.
I'm surprised by the implication of an implication. It's without question that Jonathan, Mark, and Lauren conduct has been exemplar and that they have spent years doing everything to create a meritocratic and long-lasting open infrastructure solution -- I could say at the risk of their own careers. They are among the most ethical and facilitating people I know. Based on all the conversations a large number of people feel the same. I'm confident their support comes from very broad bases. Under analysis here is how the membership votes, and the successfulness of measures to encourage the membership to vote not based on their affiliations. The bylaws' -- possibly only because of delaware legalize -- diversity rules have some language around "in the most recent twelve month period", though it is specific to *$60,000+ *contractors. Although, my preference would be for affiliation to be strictly based on current relationship, contractor or employee, I'd still find as a confident, data-interested community candidates recent employment by a large-membership affiliate is essential data to understand the success of the measures already taken and more generally to all the processes and mechanisms used. Making the OpenStack Foundation approachable and accessible for membership, industrial partnership, and industrial and media analysis requires more balance and diversity. Thank you, -- @lloyddewolf http://www.pistoncloud.com/
On 02/11/2013 12:53 PM, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch <mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch>> wrote:
I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement.
I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I’ve moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation.
I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same.
Just for the record, I do actually feel the same. I am not a representative of Hewlett-Packard's interests on the board, and if a situation arises where voting for something that is in the interests of OpenStack would be at odds with the interests of HP, I will quite happily vote for that something. (Although I get that it's "how folks in the big corporations vote" that's at issue, not suspected bias by those currently voted in)
I'm surprised by the implication of an implication.
It's without question that Jonathan, Mark, and Lauren conduct has been exemplar and that they have spent years doing everything to create a meritocratic and long-lasting open infrastructure solution -- I could say at the risk of their own careers. They are among the most ethical and facilitating people I know. Based on all the conversations a large number of people feel the same. I'm confident their support comes from very broad bases.
Under analysis here is how the membership votes, and the successfulness of measures to encourage the membership to vote not based on their affiliations. The bylaws' -- possibly only because of delaware legalize -- diversity rules have some language around "in the most recent twelve month period", though it is specific to /$60,000+ /contractors. Although, my preference would be for affiliation to be strictly based on current relationship, contractor or employee, I'd still find as a confident, data-interested community candidates recent employment by a large-membership affiliate is essential data to understand the success of the measures already taken and more generally to all the processes and mechanisms used.
Totally agree - although I still think we're focusing a bit too much on corporate affiliation and not enough on the voting mechanism and the make up of the foundation membership itself.
Making the OpenStack Foundation approachable and accessible for membership, industrial partnership, and industrial and media analysis requires more balance and diversity.
Yup. Agree. I'm guessing that if we get voting mechanism fixed, we'll see several improvements.
Thank you, -- @lloyddewolf http://www..pistoncloud.com/ <http://www.pistoncloud.com/>
_______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list Foundation@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
I've been largely silent on this issue, despite my earlier loudness in the last election. I think, that the issue we have today, is that there are a great many members of the foundation who may or may not be inadvertent astroturfing. ( I prefer to believe no one would intentionally astroturf us. ) In short, we may have members who are not really invested or even interested in the success of OpenStack who are voting in large numbers. This poses a problem. Our signal to noise ratio on the voice of the community could be too heavy on noise, and the signal may be impacted negatively. The concern is equal parts unquantifiable and unprovable. But, the numbers we see during voting, are alarming enough that we voice concerns in spite of the lack of clarity on the issue. I think ultimately, we want to remain open to membership, but at the same time we need a barrier of entry that will reduce the possibility of astroturfing in our community to acceptable levels. More signal, less noise. We've discussed this before and there were many possibilities laid out. I think the discussion we should be having lies along those lines. How do we cut back on the noise so that the signal can be heard better? -Matt Joyce Astroturfing def: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Under analysis here is how the membership votes, and the successfulness of measures to encourage the membership to vote not based on their affiliations. The bylaws' -- possibly only because of delaware legalize -- diversity rules have some language around "in the most recent twelve month period", though it is specific to /$60,000+ /contractors. Although, my preference would be for affiliation to be strictly based on current relationship, contractor or employee, I'd still find as a confident, data-interested community candidates recent employment by a large-membership affiliate is essential data to understand the success of the measures already taken and more generally to all the processes and mechanisms used.
Totally agree - although I still think we're focusing a bit too much on corporate affiliation and not enough on the voting mechanism and the make up of the foundation membership itself.
Making the OpenStack Foundation approachable and accessible for membership, industrial partnership, and industrial and media analysis requires more balance and diversity.
Yup. Agree.
I'm guessing that if we get voting mechanism fixed, we'll see several improvements.
Well said - and I agree. On 02/11/2013 02:02 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
I've been largely silent on this issue, despite my earlier loudness in the last election. I think, that the issue we have today, is that there are a great many members of the foundation who may or may not be inadvertent astroturfing. ( I prefer to believe no one would intentionally astroturf us. )
In short, we may have members who are not really invested or even interested in the success of OpenStack who are voting in large numbers. This poses a problem. Our signal to noise ratio on the voice of the community could be too heavy on noise, and the signal may be impacted negatively.
The concern is equal parts unquantifiable and unprovable. But, the numbers we see during voting, are alarming enough that we voice concerns in spite of the lack of clarity on the issue.
I think ultimately, we want to remain open to membership, but at the same time we need a barrier of entry that will reduce the possibility of astroturfing in our community to acceptable levels. More signal, less noise.
We've discussed this before and there were many possibilities laid out. I think the discussion we should be having lies along those lines. How do we cut back on the noise so that the signal can be heard better?
-Matt Joyce
Astroturfing def: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Under analysis here is how the membership votes, and the successfulness of measures to encourage the membership to vote not based on their affiliations. The bylaws' -- possibly only because of delaware legalize -- diversity rules have some language around "in the most recent twelve month period", though it is specific to /$60,000+ /contractors. Although, my preference would be for affiliation to be strictly based on current relationship, contractor or employee, I'd still find as a confident, data-interested community candidates recent employment by a large-membership affiliate is essential data to understand the success of the measures already taken and more generally to all the processes and mechanisms used.
Totally agree - although I still think we're focusing a bit too much on corporate affiliation and not enough on the voting mechanism and the make up of the foundation membership itself.
Making the OpenStack Foundation approachable and accessible for membership, industrial partnership, and industrial and media analysis requires more balance and diversity.
Yup. Agree.
I'm guessing that if we get voting mechanism fixed, we'll see several improvements.
participants (9)
-
Dave Neary
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Lloyd Dewolf
-
Mark McLoughlin
-
Matt Joyce
-
Monty Taylor
-
Tim Bell
-
Tristan Goode
-
Vincent Untz