[OpenStack Foundation] Board discussing how to improve the Individual Director election process, community input wanted

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Sun Nov 18 16:42:06 UTC 2012

Hi Tim,

On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 14:47 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
> Mark,
> The proposals for actions to be taken for the 2013 individual elections were
> prepared by Tristan, Hui and myself.  We are individual board members but do
> not have any affiliation with companies who have platinum or gold member
> seats (which is where the concern has been expressed).

That's fair.

> This is as Johnathan communicated on November 2nd
> (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001237.html)
> - "Discussed options for updates to the election process. Tim Bell, Hui
> Cheng and Tristan Goode are pulling together some recommendations that they
> will be sharing with the mailing list for feedback before the election
> period opens with nominations on November 26."

Ah, apologies. I missed the significance of this.

> Given that the board meeting to propose the sub-committee was only agreed on
> Nov 2nd, we were pleased to get the letter published on the 13th for the
> board meeting on the 16th.  The time zone differences between Europe and
> Australia didn't make it easy to do it faster.

It's a reasonable turnaround from Nov 2nd, yes.

> Rob, Toby and Troy were also involved in the brainstorming prior to that to
> cover possibilities for both (as shown in the etherpad  at
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2012-VotingProposals). Many of these
> proposals were  extracted from ideas on the mailing list. The 4
> possibilities proposed for the 2013 elections were those where the bylaws
> permitted us to change within the timescales available. The other options
> can be debated during 2013 and proposals can then be prepared to be voted on
> according to the bylaws.

I'm disappointed by the fact that bylaws changes were ruled out, but I
get it. I also think you guys did a good job of capturing the ideas that
were discussed on the mailing list. The result isn't the issue, it's the

In retrospect what I really find odd is the way we have a bunch of
engaged, constructive and interested people actively discussing ideas on
the mailing list. Then a completely different group goes off and
discusses ideas privately and, a month later, comes back with a
conclusion giving the original group mere days to give feedback.

I guess from the perspective of members of the board, you've seen the
issue taken seriously and actively worked to a conclusion. From the
perspective of not being on the board, I see little engagement from the
board in the original discussion, silence and then a big reveal. It's
not the kind of open, collaborative process I'd hope for.

Then again, no-one else seems to be taking issue with the process so
it'd be fair to count me as one of the "No matter what we do, there will
be people who object" crowd :)


More information about the Foundation mailing list