[OpenStack Foundation] Board Meeting - October 15th

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Thu Oct 11 12:35:43 UTC 2012

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:24 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that either (2) or (3) effectively address
> the concerns. I'd be opposed to a membership committee making such
> decisions. 

To be clear, the "membership committee" idea is just one way of raising
the barrier to membership. I'm raising it as an idea because I've seen
it work in GNOME. It can be done very inclusively, openly and
transparently. I probably shouldn't have included it in the summary as
it just confuses the issue. My bad.

I think there's actually more agreement behind around the idea of
members making a public statement of their interest in OpenStack. There
would be no vetting of this statement, but the fact that it is published
would give pause to any potential members who have no real involvement
in OpenStack.

> I'd like to see OpenStack Foundation adopt a policy it should have
> adopted at the outset. Limit Board representation to a single
> individual from an affiliated entity, period.

That's certainly one view. My view is that the foundation board would
benefit from the input of affiliated directors who are explicitly
representing the individual members rather than their employer.

In an perfect world, I'd like to see no limit to affiliated individual
directors and trust the individual members to choose directors they can
trust to act on their behalf. The limit is there to prevent the
appearance of a company dominating the board, not because affiliated
directors can't be trusted to represent the individual members rather
than their employer.


More information about the Foundation mailing list