[OpenStack Foundation] Openness and the OpenStack Foundation

Vincent Untz vuntz at suse.com
Sat Oct 20 12:34:59 UTC 2012

Le vendredi 19 octobre 2012, à 13:24 -0700, Stefano Maffulli a écrit :
> Thanks for spotting it: this level of attention is what will help
> the Foundation avoid mistakes.
> On 10/15/2012 05:17 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
> >Can someone explain how this change fits with the Foundations
> >statements on Openness?
> Openness is a balancing act. The myth of the 'fully transparent
> organization' much like the 'glass man' that the Nazis liked so much
> (the man that is fully transparent because he has nothing to hide)
> is a dangerous myth. The details of some discussions, like the
> selection of people to hire, should IMHO never be made public (only
> the results of that selection should). I wouldn't want to have the
> reasoning of a failure to get a job to be put online forever
> archived in the never forgetting web. Same goes for discussions
> about new members, IMHO: only private conversation will allow the
> board to express all of their concerns, including the ones that may
> damage them if made public. The right to privacy is a good thing for
> democracy.

Right, but I don't think someone applying to a job and some org applying
to the Foundation is the same. In the first case, I don't expect to even
know that someone who failed to get the job applied to the job. And
that's good for the privacy of that person.

In the second case, we already know that the org is applying. And we
will know if it won't get accepted. So I think it's fair to also know
why it wasn't accepted (or why it was accepted, although that's usually
less of an issue). I'm not saying I should know all the details, but
it's a topic that is public, with the decision that is also public in
all cases; so it's fair to ask for a summary of the reasons for that

I wonder if the issue is the fact that anybody can call in to listen to
board meetings. That might pressure some board members to only give
their opinion in the private executive session. I think I'd prefer the
option of not being able to listen to the board meetings and have
minutes with good information, instead of being able to listen to the
meeting but not have the information for some important topics.



Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.

More information about the Foundation mailing list