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

Doug Hellmann doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Fri Mar 16 15:56:13 UTC 2012


This is a very logical way to make sure all concerns can be addressed.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Gil Yehuda <gyehuda at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Let me make a suggestion.  There are many participants here who represent
> a variety of interests, some are in large companies, some in small, some
> academics, some purist technologists, etc.  Rackspace perceived and
> articulated the need to create a legal entity because of feedback from the
> community that OpenStack will do better if it is disconnected from one
> vendor. They listened and are in middle of the lengthy and complex process
> of doing this. We should appreciate their investment in this activity.
> The community can help. Let's focus on forward progress.  We all have
> concerns that we hope the foundation will address.  Let's articulate them
> explicitly as risks (in a list, on a wiki).  Small vendors might be
> concerned that large vendors could buy their way into influence.  Large
> users might be concerned that a block of vendors fork the project and lock
> them into a path toward closed source. Etc.  There are all sorts of risks
> that people perceive.  Some might be more reasonable than others.  But if
> we put it out there in a risk-list then we can, as a community:
> 1. weigh each risk by voting on its perceived likelihood multiplied by its
> severity.
> 2. connect each risk with some element of the foundation proposal to
> determine if the risk is being addressed.
> 3. identify those risks that the foundation does not address -- as risks
> we simply have to take in this community.
> A risk is not a problem, it is the possibility that a problem could occur.
>  So there is nothing accusative about listing a risk. So make the list long
> and inclusive. Once we have a list we can do something about it.  In this
> way, the conversation does not backtrack.  With a running risk-list we can
> then apply risk-abatement proposals to each risk and we can see which risks
> are considered likely, which severe in their potential impact, which are
> addressed by some abatement strategy, and which remain as risks that we
> accept.
> Again, it's a suggestion, you are welcome to take it and use it as you see
> fit. After all, this is not the first time people here have created such
> foundations, so we can certainly leverage processes that have worked in the
> past.
> 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 Jagielski
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:33 AM
> To: Thierry Carrez
> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An
> Alternative
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> wrote:
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> Then what does the foundation board get out of it...?
> >
> > Ask them :)
> Well hopefully *somebody* has!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120316/f0c04219/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Foundation mailing list