[OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

Jim Jagielski jimjag at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 19:15:12 UTC 2012

Foundations should exist to service the code and the
committer/developer. It should serve as a level, even playing ground
for the entire range of developer, from the weekend volunteer-coder
(with the passion in his heart for OpenStack) to the pay-for-hire
developer who couldn't care less what they are coding on as long as
he/she gets paid to the Big Company who wants to control the direction
of the projects. Instead, it appears to be a pay-for-play, and
"foundation" in name only.

Yeah, I admit I'm biased. But I'd hate to see OpenStack make a
mistake. One of the best things it did was to get out from underneath
the shackles of RackSpace, but now it seems destined to exist
underneath the shackles of The Foundation... how does this transition
really help things? Why not call it what it really is, a Consortium.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM, nearyd at gmail.com
<dave at neary-consulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> If there weren't already a set of diverse community projects, I'd agree with you, but in this case the foundation is very clearly being set up to be of service to the communities around OpenStack, including vendors, so I don'tshare your pessimism.
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> "Jim Jagielski" <jimjag at gmail.com> wrote:
>>It's simply a matter of the foundation itself being of prime
>>consideration, and the resulting code being secondary...
>>And so we'll see another potential successful open source "project"
>>drowned by the corporate demands of its governing foundation... it's
>>the tail wagging the dog.
>>Believe it or not, a foundation can be successful without lots of paid
>>staff and gobs of money...
>>On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Gil Yehuda <gyehuda at yahoo-inc.com>
>>> Instead it appears to me that the primary issue driving the creation
>>of a net-new foundation instead of using an existing one is that the
>>existing ones would not provide the marketing and branding emphasis
>>that the vendor participants are looking for in order to help fuel
>>their commercial success.  Now, I'm all for that commercial success
>>(even though the company I work for is not in the category of those
>>vendors who plan on selling stuff here).  Make money, it's Ok.  But the
>>way I see it, if that is really the need for the new organization, then
>>perhaps, the community should simply focus on that part of the need --
>>a marketing-oriented trade association that is composed of the vendors,
>>who promote conferences, business pacts, and various other promotional
>>activities.  While the rest of us create great software using a
>>well-know open source community model -- e.g. under the "Apache way",
>>or Eclipse, or the Linux Foundation -- or whatever.  Let's not try to
>>create something new, unless we can look at it and say "wow, that was
>>really better."
>>> Gil Yehuda
>>> Director of Open Source and Open Standards at Yahoo! Inc.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: foundation-bounces at lists.openstack.org
>>[mailto:foundation-bounces at lists.openstack.org] On Behalf Of Jim
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:43 AM
>>> To: Jay Pipes
>>> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure:
>>An Alternative
>>> Has it ever been considered to actually move to a *pre-existing*
>>foundation, one in which already has a proven track record and all
>>these various questions and issues solved already??
>>Foundation mailing list
>>Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

More information about the Foundation mailing list