Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 16:02 -0700, Benjamin Black wrote:
>> The question there is not whether _you_, or any other specific person,
>> can be trusted to act independently of their employer.  The question
>> is whether permitting member company employees to hold individual
>> seats _in general_ will serve the community and the project over the
>> long-term.  In this I take a pretty liberal view of the democratic
>> process: I am much more trusting of the electorate and much less
>> trusting of the candidates.
>
> Trust the electorate to figure out which of the candidates can act
> independently of their employer, then.
>

That flies in the face of numbers really.

Rackspace and HP are showing 700 users who are now members of
openstack community.

Their development numbers don't really reflect anywhere near that
level of participation in openstack.

We know for a fact that rack promoted the idea of general employees
joining the foundation.  They had no incentive to do so otherwise.  We
now have a flood of people who are a part of the foundation solely
because of incentives created by rackspace.  I am not saying this is
in any way rackspaces fault.  But the reality is it introduces a bias
in which there are now members in the foundation who do not have
openstack's success are their foremost concern.  Not only that there
is arguably a significant percentage of the overall membership that is
not involved in any meaningful way with the community.

=/

That's not a good thing.