Open Stack

Thanks for the feedback everyone. We've removed the chairperson's double vote in the final version of the Bylaws. We're posting the updates and will send a note when they're up.

Jonathan


On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:

> 
> +1
> Carl.
> 
> On 07/12/2012 11:06 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Agreed. Anytime you need someone to forcibly "break a tie", you've
>> created a precedent than driving consensus really isn't needed since
>> the chair will just decide stuff anyway.
>> 
>> Believe it or not, when a community *really* feels totally empowered,
>> they understand that it's in everyone's interest to have collaboration
>> and consensus.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Christopher B Ferris
>> <chrisfer at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Kurt,
>>> 
>>> While I fully agree with your description of the goals and the sad state of
>>> affairs where we have dueling corporate interests that have split the
>>> community, if the issues really are just about two equally good ideas, then
>>> you don't need a chair making the decision, what you need then is an
>>> effective chair who understands how to tease consensus out of a group, say
>>> by asking thinks like "who cannot live with option X", etc
>>> 
>>> My $0.02 USD
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Kurt.Garloff at telekom.de wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Doug,
>>>> 
>>>> no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with 50%
>>>> plus a tie-breaking  double-count ...
>>>> I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching
>>>> consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project
>>>> that I participated in.
>>>> 
>>>> That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up
>>>> being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in
>>>> serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an indication
>>>> that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate interests
>>>> rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to a problem.
>>>> We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have tie-breaking
>>>> rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems then ...
>>>> 
>>>> That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is
>>>> as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is
>>>> sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some
>>>> tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional
>>>> cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to
>>>> restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be
>>>> used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could not
>>>> come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and take a
>>>> decision on the same topic, then it may be used.
>>>> 
>>>> Just my 0.02EUR.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> --
>>>> Kurt
>>>> 
>>>> Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation |
>>>> Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
>>>> Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
>>>> B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228
>>>> 936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff at telekom.de
>>>> (T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680 6312)
>>>> 
>>>> Life is for sharing.
>>>> 
>>>> Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner
>>>> (Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard
>>>> Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia
>>>> Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
>>>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn |
>>>> WEEE reg. no. DE50478376
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug at us.ibm.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
>>>>> To: Lloyd Dewolf
>>>>> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
>>>>> -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to.  To me
>>>>> either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't.  50%
>>>>> isn't the threshold so it fails.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
>>>>> the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
>>>>> because the same company can have  both platinum (or gold -
>>>>> can't remember which right now) as well as individual
>>>>> members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
>>>>> that for another day.  :-)  But its those kinds of rules that
>>>>> make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
>>>>> Once company, one vote is much easier.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack at gmail.com>
>>>>> 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
>>>>> 
>>>>> To
>>>>> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
>>>>> cc
>>>>> foundation at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> Subject
>>>>> board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
>>>>> Committee: new draft
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
>>>>> more power than
>>>>>> anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair.  In
>>>>> the current
>>>>>> foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
>>>>> than one vote.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
>>>>> 
>>>>> My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
>>>>> requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
>>>>> voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
>>>>> how Delaware works.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --
>>>>> @lloyddewolf
>>>>> http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation