[OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

Lloyd Dewolf lloydostack at gmail.com
Sat Mar 10 17:31:29 UTC 2012

Having more than 5 companies pony up big dollars *is* a great problem
to have. I didn't mean to suggest the solution stays the same. We need
to plan for this scenario as there is a real chance of more
participants than what has been negotiated in the back rooms.

Of course, everyone wants the greatest up-front value for their
investment. Capital is actually the least strategic type of investment
a big company can make. The biggest companies are the biggest
companies because they put their best people on strategic investments.

Having been at IBM in a group, DB2, dependent on the success of Linux
during many of the pivotal years of Linux's commercial rise
(2000-2004), IBM truly made that strategic investment. There were no

Although the Linux Foundation is an exceptional organization there is
no model for what OpenStack has achieved with the leadership of
Rackspace and others in the areas of strategic, business development,
marketing, and events in hand with the technical leadership and
achievements of the the community. If we agree that this investment is
essential to our success, and the budget that it requires, then let's
retire the possibly insulting argument that a meritocratic board is
anything but a requirement, that there is something extortive about
this, or that everyone else should be content jockeying for part of
the board, or that technical contribution is the only full domain of
participation for everyone.

Rackspace reserving long term influence for themselves and selling it
to a BIG four will forever shadow the OpenStack project.

Thank you,

More information about the Foundation mailing list