[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Foundation

Todd Willey todd at ansolabs.com
Thu Jan 5 23:29:57 UTC 2012

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 15:16 -0500, mark at openstack.org wrote:
>> As Jim mentioned, I'm going to focus on establishing the foundation
>> this year and am really excited to be able to dedicate the time and
>> attention it deserves, alongside Jonathan, Stef, and many others.
>> I've found myself spread a bit too thin the past few months, as I'm
>> sure we all have in the crazy whirlwind of the OpenStack universe.
>> To kick things off I've created a Foundation page on the wiki and
>> published a "Foundation Mission" draft for comment
> Nicely done on the Foundation Mission. It covers a lot of ground
> concisely. Great start. Really.
> At first glance, one thing that seems missing is "OpenStack is a
> self-governing meritocracy". Compare with the GNOME Charter, "How the
> ASF works" and the Document Foundation Manifesto.
> There's lots of ways we could reflect this principle of meritocracy -
> e.g. to highlight that the foundation is not an entity separated from
> its members, but rather its members are the foundation. Members are
> empowered beyond the points you list; they are empowered to
> fundamentally shift the direction of the foundation itself. Influence in
> the foundation is based solely on what one is doing to drive the project
> forward. etc.
> Another thing I wouldn't be too keen on is the overly negative "defend
> the trademark" references. I'd go for "determining the appropriate use
> of the trademark". The trademark is an asset of the foundation that
> needs to be fairly shared amongst the foundation membership, not some
> precious jewel to be locked in a basement and jealously guarded.
> But, again ... great start.
> In some ways the mission statement is fundamental to the foundation, but
> in other ways it won't nearly have as much impact on the success of the
> foundation as its structure, governance and culture. For that reason,
> I'd tend to say "the mission statement looks fine, let's get on to the
> meaty stuff".
> RAX have a lot to be commended for and will be worthy of high praise
> indeed if this is done right. The feedback below is purely my little bit
> to help make that happen.
>>  as well a a rough timeline for the next couple of months:
>> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation
>> The first thing you'll notice is that I tried to keep it simple and
>> stay out of the questions of HOW the foundation will achieve the
>> mission, because I think it's good to start with an idea of the
>> purpose before debating the many ways in which a foundation could be
>> structured to achieve it (as several people pointed out on the list).
>> So much of the HOW is too be discussed, debated, and ultimately
>> determined, but if you look at the timeline you'll see that in about a
>> month our goal is t have a draft structure to review with everyone.
>> I'm hopeful that we can rally around the Mission between now and then
>> and get it finalized.
> Having to wait another month before any discussion of the structure is
> very disappointing.
> It sounds like there are "numerous other" RAX employees who have the
> privilege of some insight into the ongoing drafting. That may have been
> intended to convey RAX's commitment to establishing the foundation, but
> it comes across to me like there's a party going on that the rest of us
> aren't invited to.
> I assume some basic principles for the structure of the foundation have
> been settled on in the months since the announcement. I really don't see
> why those principles can't be shared and debated on in advance of the
> full blown verbiage.
>> Jonathan and I will host a webinar in the next week or so as an
>> additional method of gathering feedback.  We are also thinking an in
>> person meeting in February in Santa Clara might be helpful, and can
>> add other forums.
> IMHO, the mailing list is the one forum available to us which enables a
> truly open debate.
> I think the emphasis should be on encouraging that debate here on the
> mailing list for all to see, archived for posterity.
> The previous thread here that I contributed to felt a little like
> Thierry and I chatting alone in a giant cavern.
> That concerns me for two reasons - (1) the silence of all those
> excellent RAX OpenStack developers suggests that those folks are either
> afraid to publicly speak their mind on these matters, or they are
> ambivalent about them and (2) there are obviously many other discussions
> happening away from the transparency of this mailing list.

Speaking for myself: I'm more interested in driving the code base
forward than the foundation.

The foundation bits are in the hands of trustworthy people that are
very approachable.  Knowing I can ask about it at any time, and that
it is moving forward without having to constantly bird-dog it makes me
happy and able to be productive in other ways.

I don't think there is going to be any publicly holding back from
developers once there are more substantial bits that we have opinions
on, and we'll register them on the list the same way as everyone else.
 Looking at the foundation archives, I'm not sure how you construed
silence on behalf of RAX developers more than anyone else in the first
place.  It is very low volume so you have a poor sample to begin with,
and a lot of what is there is in fact from Rackspace employees.


>> And of course we'll have lots of time dedicated during the Conference
>> in April, details of which are coming together so stay tuned for an
>> update on that from Lauren & Stef very soon.
> I look forward to the foundation planning these events openly and
> transparently :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

More information about the Foundation mailing list