Open Stack

On 08/01/2012 07:03 PM, George Reese wrote:
> 
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com
> <mailto:mordred at inaugust.com>> wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I did not say they always influence employees.
> 
> I said they can (and sometimes will) influence employees. Shouldn't we
> have a few board positions that are free of that possibility of influence? 

You know - I'd support the existence of a number of seats that are for
that purpose - as long as it isn't ALL of the at-large seats.

That being said - I'm not sure how you're qualify a person as being free
of possibility of influence. Even if the person's corporation isn't
represented by gold or platinum, if you stipulate the possibility of
corporate corruption, then really the only people I can think of who
would fit this criteria are people who are either indigent or
independently wealthy. I could nominate David Axmark, who was one of the
founders of MySQL and since has not started or joined any other
companies, but I don't know that he cares enough to serve on our board.
My girlfriend is a non-technology affiliated law student, but then her
relationship with me could be considered influence. Perhaps her friend
David who is a tattoo artist? Enough levels of separation to be safe?

I mean, I'm with you - I don't want undue influence negative - but I
think that to a degree we need to get that by being careful in who we
elect to pick people who we, as an electorate, make good decisions aside
from whether they have any corporate thought associated with them.

I agree with something you wrote in your other email, too, about one of
our people problems being a perception of undue corporate influence. But
I think also that we've had a similar problem of assuming that all
corporate related thoughts are an Oracle-level of evil. I do think we
need a well crafted governance to protect against abuse, but if we see
it around every corner we're not going to get anywhere either.

Monty