[OpenStack Foundation] is 'strategic' the right name? (was Re: Foundation Structure: An Alternative)
stefano at openstack.org
Fri Mar 9 22:45:18 UTC 2012
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 16:27 -0600, Mark Collier wrote:
> Associate Member category, [...]
> Strategic Member [...]
I wonder if calling 'Strategic' members that basically only have more
money but the same responsibilities and rights of other members is
really the best thing to do. It made sense when we had only two kinds
(corporate and individuals) and corporate members where called to put
money down to create the foundation. That was a strategic role.
Now we have two corporate citizens, startup and small companies with
large established corporations, both equally strategic to the success of
the initiative. And we have individuals, too.
Would it make sense to spend some time and think about a different name
for the levels of corporate participation to the foundation?
More information about the Foundation