Open Stack

On that note: I noticed a few of you will be at CloudCamp
Austin<http://cloudcamp.org/austin>tomorrow (@sxsw) We could meet face
2 face in our own breakout session

Dave

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Raja Srinivasan <
Raja.Srinivasan at riverbed.com> wrote:

>  One of the options we can consider is to meet during the OpenStack
> Conference in San Francisco. Since it is in San Francisco, I can host it at
> Riverbed's corporate facilities in San Francisco or Sunnyvale. Just let me
> know how many people and how long.  If need be, I can also order some
> pizzas or sandwiches.
>
>  Thanks & Regards
> Raja Srinivasan
>
>   From: Sean Roberts <seanrob at yahoo-inc.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:55:31 -0800
> To: Joshua McKenty <joshua at pistoncloud.com>
> Cc: "<foundation at lists.openstack.org>" <foundation at lists.openstack.org>,
> OpenStack <openstack at lists.launchpad.net>, Jonathan Bryce <
> jbryce at rackspace.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
>
>   We will make ourselves available. I am offering up a Yahoo meeting
> space in SF, Santa Clara, or Sunnyvale. Teleconference may be available on
> short notice.
>
> ~sean
>
> On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:41 PM, "Joshua McKenty" <joshua at pistoncloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>   This is great!
>
>  Jonathan, do you think a completely-elected board is something that the
> larger corporations would go along with? Ben's suggestion to that effect
> certainly seems to be the simplest model, since we can scale the
> membership, deliver specific value for cash contributions, and still manage
> the size of the board.
>
>  Regarding the "Individual Member" seats - I would like to echo Devin's
> concerns about stacking by strategic members. If these are truly
> independent, meaning that they're not employees of the corporate members,
> then I think it's a great benefit to have them be part of the board! I'm
> imagining folks like Tim Bell (CERN), Peter Mell (NIST) or Vint Cerf on
> there.
>
>  Boris, I completely agree with decoupling of the "business side" of
> OpenStack from the technical side, and I think managing two separate
> organizations would be one way to achieve this. My concerns are solely on
> the business side right now. I've spent a lot of time chatting with the
> PTLs today, and I have confidence that they can hold the technical
> community to a meritocratic standard. I think the proposal to vote for
> seats on the foundation board is more about managing board size, than any
> crossover of technical community management.
>
>  Having said that, I'm still concerned with the idea that we would "let
> the bigger guys pay more and get a bigger logo on the homepage". If we're
> going to "sell" OpenStack privileges, I think we need to do it ala-cart,
> and explicitly.
>
>  Some examples (echoing Ben Cherian's comments) might be:
>  - Use of the trademark (for products, training, or certification)
>  - Sponsorship of openstack events
>  - Priority registration for summits and conferences (not necessarily in
> favor of this one...)
>
>  While I was drafting this up, I saw Sean Robert's email suggesting that
> we meet face-to-face and work through some of this together - it seems like
> a fantastic plan to me, and I'll bump everything else from my schedule to
> make it happen if others are interested. What do you guys think?
>
>
>   --
>  Joshua McKenty, CEO
>  Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> w: (650) 24-CLOUD
>  m: (650) 283-6846
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>
>  "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>
>  On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>
>   On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
>
> The one thing I would do away with is the “elected board members” in favor
> of more associate member seats. This almost feels like a way to compensate
> the technology side for giving the marketing side leverage over the former.
> If we feel that this is necessary, it is a symptom of presence of
> technology-commercial coupling and we need to fix something else. All
> technical members should be elected based on merit. All board members –
> appointed based on monetary/evangelism contribution. Decoupling between
> technology direction and purchasing power should be rock solid.
>
>
>  Thanks for the thoughts, Boris. One point I'd make: the Individual
> Member seats are not just about compensating the technology side. It gives
> an opportunity for the entire community to elect representatives. These
> could be some of the "luminaries" Josh spoke of or others unaffiliated with
> any corporate member. Individual Membership is not limited solely to
> developers who are contributing code, but would include users, deployers,
> translators, marketers and people with all sorts of involvement in the
> community. Individual Membership is free and a great place for participants
> academic institutions, non-profits, etc. to participate with no price tag.
>
>  Jonathan.
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20120310/e1b3b00d/attachment-0003.html>