Open Stack

Yeah... this is why the Python Software Foundation has membership by a
process of nomination (and to a certain degree, championing that
nomination), and then members voting the nominees in. It sometimes tends
towards elitism, but for the most part, members are interested in a diverse
membership body.

Back to this discussion, though... I think the idea here is not that we're
putting in place something that's ironclad. Rather that we're just trying
to raise the bar to entry. Those who have more than a passing fancy, who
are more than nominally interested in being members of the Foundation, will
have an opportunity to demonstrate that by taking a little effort in their
application process.

d

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Doug Davis <dug at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> And exactly who is going to be the judge of what's 'good enough'?   Sorry
> but this is kind of silly to me.  People can lie, or at least bend the
> truth, and I certainly don't want to get into appointing someone to
> "verify" people's claims of commitment.  If we really want to verify
> someone's commitment to the project then base it on something measurable -
> like "only committers can vote" or "only core developers can vote".
>  Something tangible and not subjective.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ________________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug at us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
>
>  *Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org>*
>
> 08/02/2012 07:34 PM
>   To
> Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com>
> cc
> "foundation at lists.openstack.org" <foundation at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject
> Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates
>
>
>
>
> What questions should be required for the public profile?  The current
> signup process asks for affiliation, statement of interest and which
> projects you're working on.
>
> A couple of ideas on what the additional questions could be -- (1) how
> long have you been working on OpenStack or (2) what have you or do you plan
> to contribute to the project.  We could also force more long form answers
> afround the affiliation or statement of interest with a minimum character
> requirement.  Again, just looking for ideas here.
>
> The goal is to make sure everyone voting is really serious.
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>
> > I like laurens idea as well.  Making folks jump through a few hoops to
> > demonstrate their loyalty to the party will cut back on the
> > astroturfing comrades.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org> wrote:
> >> I like Lauren's idea as well. I think we can act on it pretty quickly
> as well.
> >>
> >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just a random thought on the criteria for being an individual member
> ...
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 22:16 -0400, Mark Collier wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The definition of "individual members"
> >>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> The wiki:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> Characteristics of Individual Members:
> >>>>
> >>>> Contribute to OpenStack in a variety of ways such as code,
> >>>> documentation, translations, bug reports, testing, project
> >>>> infrastructure, advocacy, marketing, community management, legal
> >>>> guidance
> >>> [...]
> >>>> and in the by laws [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> "2.2 Individual Members.
> >>>>
> >>>> (a) Individual Members must be natural persons. Individual Members may
> >>>> be any natural person who has an interest in the purpose of the
> >>>> Foundation
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> The wiki clearly says that individual members should have contributed
> to
> >>> OpenStack in some form. I like that, and I have no problem with the
> >>> definition of "contributed" being extremely inclusive.
> >>>
> >>> However, the bylaws watered that down to "has an interest" and AFAIK
> >>> we're taking "applied for membership" as enough to demonstrate an
> >>> interest.
> >>>
> >>> Given the 700+ RAX and HP members, was this too inclusive? Would all of
> >>> those meet the criteria in the wiki? If not, how can we correct the
> >>> process now or in the future?
> >>>
> >>> I like Lauren's idea of making people fill in a "why you're interested
> >>> in OpenStack" blurb and publishing it. I also like the approach of
> >>> having an open membership committee[1] with clear guidelines.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Mark.
> >>>
> >>> [1] - e.g. https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foundation mailing list
> >> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foundation mailing list
> > Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20120802/2adc4671/attachment.html>