Open Stack

Firstly, I declare wholeheartedly that Lauren and Mark are outstanding representatives of OpenStack, clearly the very best, and I am certain that Lloyd's motive is not personal or malicious and nor is my reason for chiming in here.
 
Given the large number of Rackspace employees in the membership it is reasonable to assume the electorate may view with suspicion _any_ very recent Rackspace employee's election success, so perhaps all successful candidates should be placed under the same scrutiny that Monty, Rob and Troy are.
 
Possibly, this also highlights a potentially exploitable inadequacy in the bylaws. Why is the same rule not applied to employees of a company that their company affiliation of the last 12 months not be declared but a contractor needs to declare that?
 
Referring to the bylaw in question, Section 4.17.
 
(b) For the purposes of the Director Diversity Requirement, the term "Affiliated" or "Affiliation" in the Bylaws is defined as follows:
 
(i) relationships between Members who are business entities and Members who are individuals (whether Individual Members, Gold Members or Platinum Members), the individual is a (i) board member, officer or employee of the business entity or its Affiliated Group (as defined in Section 2.5) or (ii) an independent contractor to the business entity or its Affiliated Group who has earned more than $60,000 in the most recent twelve month period; or
 
Perhaps it should be more along the lines of:
 
(b) For the purposes of the Director Diversity Requirement, the term "Affiliated" or "Affiliation" in the Bylaws is defined as follows:
 
(i) relationships between Members who are business entities and Members who are individuals (whether Individual Members, Gold Members or Platinum Members), the individual is a
            (a) board member, officer or employee of the business entity or its Affiliated Group (as defined in Section 2.5); or
 
            (b) an independent contractor to the business entity or its Affiliated Group who has earned more than $60,000;
 
in the most recent twelve month period; or
 
 
Aside from the current clause's poor formatting and numbering (the (i) within (i)'s) this clause should possibly not just declare contractors but anyone's employment in the last 12 months as an affiliation. The current wording allows that someone can be an employee, officer or board member up to the day before nomination, then quit on that day and the day after they are no longer affiliated.
 
 
 
From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch] 
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 6:30 AM
To: Lloyd Dewolf
Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013)
 
 
I strongly object to the assertion that employment history should be considered in the way you propose. Having worked with Lauren closely in the past year, I am surprised at the implication behind your statement.
 
I worked for IBM for 15 years and found this an excellent experience, I've moved on to other activities, have good relationships with former colleagues and fond memories but I was elected to represent the individuals of the foundation.
 
I am sure that all other individual directors feel the same.
 
Tim
 
From: Lloyd Dewolf [mailto:lloydostack at gmail.com] 
Sent: 08 February 2013 20:37
To: Mark McLoughlin
Cc: Vincent Untz; foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Election Statistics (January 2013)
 
 
I'm surprised Lauren Sell's results were not also run against Rackspace -- I'm hopeful that would show the diversity of her base.

I'm thankful that Mark Collier agreed to drop out of the race right before voting began as two Foundation executives on the board in "Individual" spots would have been a huge distraction to the success of the Foundation in 2013.
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20130210/ca7d45f1/attachment-0001.html>