Open Stack

On 08/01/2012 06:25 PM, George Reese wrote:
> It's not about Ben or me or anyone else questioning the integrity of any
> individual person.
> 
> It's about the perception of how OpenStack governance is handled. If all
> independent board seats are held by corporate sponsors, the integrity of
> OpenStack governance will constantly be in question.

Yes. I agree - and I want nothing more than for the governance to be
excellent.

> And the reality is that no matter how well intentioned you are, your
> employer DOES exert influence over you and can leverage your individual
> membership to gain undue influence over OpenStack.

Nope. Still don't stipulate this point. If a vote came up to the board
that would cost HP a billion dollars but that made sense for OpenStack
and is something I would vote for it I worked elsewhere,  I would still
vote for it without blinking an eye.

I will stipulate that in general, it is possible that employers do exert
influence over employees, and that policy might need to take that in to
account. I will not stipulate that employers always influence employees.

> -George
> 
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com
> <mailto:matt at nycresistor.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
> --
> George Reese (george.reese at imaginary.com
> <mailto:george.reese at imaginary.com>)
> t: @GeorgeReese               m: +1(207)956-0217               Skype:
> nspollution
> cal: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>