Open Stack

Comments inline:


On 3/9/12 3:53 PM, "Lloyd Dewolf" <lloydostack at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org> wrote:
>>
>> Strategic Member fees:  One small clarification: the proposal calls for
>> Strategic Members to make a commitment of $500k/year for 5 years, paid
>> annually (not up front). This figure was driven primarily by the need to
>> arrive at a reasonable board size, while also raising substantial funds
>>for
>> foundation operations.
>
>What do you do if more than than 5 companies pony up? What a good
>problem to have! ;-)


On this I have to disagree a bit.  Any board wants a stable, functional
group capable of making decisions and the old "too many cooks" applies
here.
 


>
>Although 5 years align to ensure the longevity of the project, the
>project is too young to sell away 5 years at this critical time in
>strengthening the direction.
>
>It should be desirable for the young companies who's success is
>accelerating and are making an all-in strategic investment to be able
>to make the same strategic contributions with the same benefits each
>year --- natural incentives. This young blood shouldn't have to jockey
>for two thirds of the remaining seats. With the success of OpenStack,
>our foundations coffers will fill each year.
>
>Joshua's proposal, our proposal (Piston Cloud), provides OpenStack
>much more guaranteed resources as each of the say 15 members would be
>providing 2 FTE = ~30, and the same financial characteristics. This
>in-house investment formalizes the good behavior of committed
>participants and brings home the OpenStack hats.
>
>In this model seats are more easily lotteried each year among those
>that are making the strategic investment, and we eliminate the unique
>timing of the opportunity.

I think this is dangerous to some degree as well.  You want "hungry"
companies that want to participate but you also want a "hungry" though
stable board.  I'll again call out the Linux Foundation here as I think
they do a good job of making sure that they manage memberships to a degree
that keeps them functionally marching forward with regards to innovation
and community and that pretty much means that there is a very repetitive
group of platinum(strategic) members.

>
>Better yet decouple the board all together from the benefits of
>strategic membership -- why restrict full meritocracy to the
>technical.

I don't think the bigger companies will like this very much as this is not
how they operate.

>
>
>Thank you,
>--
>@lloyddewolf
>http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>