Open Stack

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> OpenStack will turn into a business consortium made up of large,
>>> well-financed companies, who will determine the course and direction
>>> of the so-called "open source projects" and unless you're able to pay
>>
>> I think you're overestimating the power of the Foundation board of
>> directors over the "open source projects". The current proposal sets up
>> a separate and independent technical committee, which I'm trying to make
>> sure is fully elected on a one contributor = one vote basis. Each
>> project is lead by a technical lead that is elected on a one author =
>> one vote basis. Those groups very much set the course and direction for
>> the projects.
>>
>> So the technical direction of OpenStack as a whole, and the technical
>> direction of each project, is very much *not* pay-to-play. It's
>> participate-to-play.
> 
> Then what does the foundation board get out of it...?

Ask them :) Here is how I see it... The foundation board is about
achieving the Foundation mission, including facilitation of development,
community building, events org, protection of trademark etc. It's fair
that the companies funding that effort get to participate in the
decisions on how the money is spent. They are also empowered to take
care of stuff the contributors generally don't like to spend time on,
like legal issues, trademark issues, etc.

> What's wrong with making the tech-cmmt the actual board, and the
> proposed foundation board simply "sponsors"?
> Or "benefactors"?

Why not. But if it's just a question of wording, I'm not opposed to use
shiny words if that makes it more attractive on first look to sponsors :)

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack