Open Stack

On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 14:52 -0700, Benjamin Black wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 14:26 -0700, Benjamin Black wrote:
> >> One of the growing pains of moving from a tightly-controlled project
> >> run by a company to an open and inclusive one run by a foundation is
> >> accepting that there are no longer any individual entitlements,
> >> regardless of contribution.
> >
> > Say what? In order for the project to be open and inclusive, employed
> > contributors must at all times represent their employer rather than
> > themselves? I must be misunderstanding your point?
> >
> 
> You are.  As part of being open and inclusive, major contributors to
> the project must be prepared to not get the organizational leadership
> positions they want or feel they deserve.

That's an odd statement. OpenStack prides itself on being a meritocracy
where leadership positions are awarded based on how much the individual
deserves it based on their contributions.

> The elections for the
> individual board seats is not a referendum on the contributions or
> value to the project of the nominees and should not be turned into
> one.  Similarly, being appointed to the board does not also make
> someone a committer (and glad we all should be of that).

The election is a referendum on the candidate's value as a director on
the board of the foundation. That is clearly separate from any
candidate's value as a contributor of code the project.

I would expect those who contribute most to technical leadership of the
project to be awarded seats on the Technical Committee. And, similarly,
those who contribute most to the mission of the foundation to be awarded
with seats on the board.

Mark.