[OpenStack Foundation] Board of directors: scope and composition (a.k.a. the Money board)
frans at meruvian.org
Thu Oct 20 13:22:25 UTC 2011
I am founder of openstack-id, indonesian chapter, we just starting community
and workshop program, my foundation, meruvian, focus in education adaption
What will u do in foundation schema? Should user group get permission to use
the logo in jew entity, i dont find logo brand license, will we have mascot.
Any nonprofit org become asociate member, where meruvian is eclipse
In eclipse, to do community day, should asoicate member, which there is user
On Oct 20, 2011 8:01 PM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 15:23 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> From Jay's original email:
> >>> How are participating organizations going to join the foundation, and
> >>> what dollar amounts grant the donor organization what rights? Is it a
> >>> good idea to look at separating the (currently singular) Project
> >>> Policy Board into at least two boards, one focused on technical
> >>> matters and another focused on legal, copyright, and trademark issues?
> >> As I said during the Town Hall session at the Conference, I think there
> >> needs to be a Board of directors (where membership is linked to your
> >> company commitment to OpenStack, including monetary) that is separate
> >> from the Technical board (which should become a pure elected code
> >> committer meritocracy).
> >> This board of directors should handle how the Foundation money is spent
> >> (including setting compensation for Foundation employees, if any),
> >> should encourage participation and focus on legal issues. Should they
> >> also handle (or participate to) the OpenStack scope definition ?
> >> The board of directors could have Strategic members (that show a
> >> multi-year monetary commitment, together with some measurable level of
> >> strategic involvement in the project, to be defined) with one seat each.
> >> It should also have Sustaining members: a number of seats for
> >> representatives of the wider ecosystem of companies showing interest in
> >> OpenStack. For example, if you have 5 strategic members and 80 ordinary
> >> companies, you could have a total of 9 seats, with all ordinary
> >> companies holding an election to decide who should represent them on
> >> their 4 board seats.
> > Restricting the board to company representatives jars a little with me,
> > I must admit.
> > I like how GNOME have it structured:
> > - The board is composed of individuals elected by the members of the
> > foundation, where each director tries to represent the foundation
> > membership rather than their employer. Directors do their best to
> > leave their affiliation aside when wearing their director hat. Even
> > still, no single company can have employees which make up more than
> > 40% of the board.
> > - There is an advisory board composed of representatives of companies
> > who sponsor the foundation with either $10k or $20k a year,
> > depending on company size. Members of this board are explicitly
> > there to represent their employer and provide a perspective that
> > may be lacking on the board of directors.
> > I think this recognizes the contribution of cash to the foundation with
> > a very real voice in the governance of the foundation.
> > But it also recognizes that cash isn't the most important thing the
> > foundation needs. To be truly sustainable, it first and foremost needs
> > the commitment of the individual foundation members (whether sponsored
> > or not) to do the work which the foundation is there to enable.
> > - i.e. the "doers" in community drive the direction of the foundation -
> > and not just the technical direction - but they do so with the input and
> > guidance of sponsoring companies.
> > The board is so critical to the foundation that we need the directors of
> > our foundation to make a serious commitment to that role. They also need
> > to represent the community, not their employers. While both of those
> > requirements aren't incompatible with appointments based on affiliation,
> > I think we'd do a lot better with an election open to all foundation
> > members.
> I guess it depends on the respective attributions of the different
> boards. You are advocating for three boards:
> - Directors board (elected by the general community)
> - Advisory (or "Money") board (paid for by contributing companies)
> - Technical board (elected by code contributors)
> One issue with this setup is the need to define "general community".
> What gives you a right to vote on that election ? Some level of
> involvement ? The other two corpus (corpi ?) are well defined -- code
> contributors and companies contributing money. What makes a general
> community member, with the ability to pick the best directors ? Should
> we setup, first and foremost, a membership board that decides if a given
> individual contribution is enough to make him a "community member" ?
> The second issue is the respective authority of each board. For example,
> who defines what should be accepted as a core project ? Is it a proposal
> of the technical board that can be vetoed by the directors board ?
> Vetoed by the directors board and the advisory board ? What are the
> actual rights of the advisory board, the way you propose to set it up ?
> What would the directors board do that couldn't fall on the shoulders of
> either the money board or technical board ?
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Foundation