Open Stack

? 2012?10?26? 19:01, Hui Cheng ??:
> Thanks for Ryan and Mark's comments,
> I would like to improve my humble ideas.
>
> I definitely agree that it is a issue that one single company having 
> large number of voters, and we should take somewhat actions to limit 
> it, and I do thank we can also employ additional methods to improve 
> the whole process of individual board election.
>
> The idea behind my thoughts is that it is easier to increase the 
> barrier of the minor candidates and keep it eligible meritocracy  than 
> to set higher barriers for the whole individual members, because the 
> latter involves 6000+ members.
>
> Regarding the video record, I would admit lack of thorough 
> consideration, the type of barrier maybe not suitable or practical for 
> all candidates, so I would agree it should not be required. Thanks for 
> your indication.
>
> But still, I would rather insist that a public statement should be 
> required, it's original intention is not for campaign, but sort of way 
> to make candidates show their involvement and contribution in 
> OpenStack, as well as his their understanding of OpenStack Foundation 
> and future plan to further achieve foundation's mission,  thereby 
> facilitating voter to make his own choice.
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com 
> <mailto:markmc at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 09:24 +0800, Hui Cheng wrote:
>     > Hi all:
>     >
>     > ** **
>     >
>     > Until now we already have tons of discussions regarding the
>     individual
>     > board member election, and we have some meaningful proposals
>     from the
>     > following discussions:****
>     >
>     > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/openstack/foundation/19569****
>     >
>     > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/openstack/foundation/19675****
>     >
>     > ** **
>     >
>     > From my understanding, most proposals are focusing on how to
>     increase
>     > the barrier for becoming individual members and limit one single
>     > company's undue board control.****
>     >
>     > ** **
>     >
>     > In the initial board election, everyone can be nominated by
>     everyone, it is
>     > really easy for someone to get at least 10 nominators, thus to be
>     > a candidate, and then voting began. Thus any incapable person can be
>     > elected in such kind of process.****
>
>     Thanks for posting your thoughts on this. None of your ideas or crazy
>     but, like Ryan, I'd be wary of requiring people to publish a video.
>
>     However, I think you've focused on the wrong thing. The main issue is
>     not that we had too many incapable candidates, nor that those elected
>     are incapable, but that we had large numbers of people affiliated
>     with a
>     small number of companies voting for employees of their company.
>
>     The issue isn't so much the correlation between affiliation and voting
>     pattern either IMHO, but just the sheer number of people doing so.
>
Yes, that's the main issue for the individual board 
election.Bothincrease barrierfor the candidates and public statement is 
not useful for this issue, so they can be options, not required.
>
>     Personally, I just wonder why 600+ people from an individual company
>     should have voting rights in the election. In the cases of e.g.
>     the Red
>     Hat and Cisco OpenStack teams, it was only those actively involved
>     with
>     the project who joined the Foundation and voted.
>
If the company has more than 600+ people who want to join the 
Foundation, why not joined the Platinum or Gold members first? No 
sponsored but want to have a seat is unfair for the small companies and 
other sponsors, as they have a lot of electoral resources.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Mark.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Hui Cheng - ??
>
> Community Manager of COSUG
> Technical Manager of Sina Corporation
>
> Twitter: @freedomhui <http://twitter.com/freedomhui>
> Blog: freedomhui.com <http://freedomhui.com/>
> Weibo: weibo.com/freedomhui <http://weibo.com/freedomhui>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121031/eb23dd31/attachment.html>