[OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics
doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Wed Oct 3 18:09:53 UTC 2012
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Christopher B Ferris
<chrisfer at us.ibm.com>wrote:
> We need to raise the bar on individual membership. Linux Foundation uses a
> membership fee of $99.00 USD
> which also gets you into the conference, or something. It isn't an
> unreasonable amount for any company to pay
> for it's employees to participate as members; but it will likely
> discourage silliness such as we have seen in this
> initial election.
It would also discourage individuals, students, and folks in countries
where $100 US is worth a lot more than it is in the US. It would in turn
not discourage large companies, since as you point out that's really not
all that much money, even for 1000 members from a company large enough to
have 1000 employees. I don't think a membership fee solves the problem.
> The other thing that we need to address is the carrot of the prospect for
> a Platinum or Gold member to have TWO
> board seats. This should never have been permitted, as it simply begs to
> be exploited. Maybe the solution is to
> limit any VOTING on the board such that only one vote per affiliated
> member be permitted.
> Christopher Ferris
> IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer at us.ibm.com
> Twitter: christo4ferris
> phone: +1 508 234 2986
> -----Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com><doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>wrote: -----
> To: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> <thierry at openstack.org>
> From: Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com><doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>
> Date: 10/03/2012 12:21PM
> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>wrote:
>> > We need to discuss how to
>> > raise the bar of membership entry just enough to improve that.
>> Alternatively (or additionally), we could switch to Condorcet, which is
>> an election method that specifically does not fill the proportionality
>> criteria. 30% of voters won't give you anything, especially if the other
>> 70% don't like you that much.
>> It would favor consensus candidates, which in this case (individual
>> member election) could be a good idea.
> I'm not an election system scholar, so please forgive what may be a naive
> I've looked at a couple of descriptions of Condorcet, and I don't see any
> reason not to use it but I also don't see how it helps solve the problem of
> a disproportionate number of foundation members being affiliated with a
> small number of corporate entities. Is there an example or explanation of
> using a Condorcet system to address this type of issue that you can refer
> me to, or maybe you could summarize how you see it helping briefly? Perhaps
> there is just some inherent feature of Condorcet systems that I'm not
> grokking based on the reading I've done so far.
>> AFAIK there is a lawyer question about accepted election methods for
>> corporate boards under Delaware law, but I think that's an option that
>> we should definitely explore.
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Foundation