Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

They are not at-large seats, they are individual member seats.  Their
purpose is exactly to give a voice to members of the community who
would otherwise be excluded because of the cost of the corporate
seats.  I want those seats used for their intended purpose.  While
eliminating the possibility of undue influence by a corporate member
is clearly out of the question, taking reasonable steps to reduce
opportunities for it and increase opportunities for wider community
participation is worthwhile.  Excluding corporate member employees
from the individual member seats is such a reasonable step.


b