Open Stack

Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 
>>So if we followed your suggestion, I think we'd actually end up with
>>something worse: one-third of the board composed of individuals not
>>that
>>much involved with OpenStack, representing companies that could not
>>pay-to-play, rather than the best possible people to represent the
>>individual membership.
> 
> This sentiment seems to be underlying this whole debate, and I think it
> is unfortunate that it is so prevalent
> within the community. It implies that those not working for a sponsoring
> company are not as invested, 
> not as involved, and possibly under-qualified to represent the
> community's interests on the board.
> 
> I realize that is probably not what Thierry meant to say; but that is
> how it comes across.

Right, my point is that who happens to be your employer shouldn't matter
at all. Individual members should elect the best amongst all of them to
represent them. They should not elect the best from an artificial subset
of them, based on who happens to write the paychecks for them at the
moment. It's not a question of under-qualification or over-qualification.

Like Soren or Monty, I feel like a very independent voice, with the
OpenStack project best interests in mind. I take offense at the
suggestion that I should be removed from the election because I happen
to be a Rackspace contractor at the moment.

So I think we should let the individual membership select who are the
best people to represent them, without artificially limiting their
choice. Since we don't live in a perfect world, it's good to have some
safeguards in place to prevent abuse by a single company: letting them
have at most 2 members out of a total of 24 board members sounds more
than enough to me.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack