Open Stack

Well said - and I agree.

On 02/11/2013 02:02 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
> I've been largely silent on this issue, despite my earlier loudness in
> the last election.  I think, that the issue we have today, is that
> there are a great many members of the foundation who may or may not be
> inadvertent astroturfing.  ( I prefer to believe no one would
> intentionally astroturf us. )
> 
> In short, we may have members who are not really invested or even
> interested in the success of OpenStack who are voting in large
> numbers.  This poses a problem.  Our signal to noise ratio on the
> voice of the community could be too heavy on noise, and the signal may
> be impacted negatively.
> 
> The concern is equal parts unquantifiable and unprovable.  But, the
> numbers we see during voting, are alarming enough that we voice
> concerns in spite of the lack of clarity on the issue.
> 
> I think ultimately, we want to remain open to membership, but at the
> same time we need a barrier of entry that will reduce the possibility
> of astroturfing in our community to acceptable levels.  More signal,
> less noise.
> 
> We've discussed this before and there were many possibilities laid
> out.  I think the discussion we should be having lies along those
> lines.  How do we cut back on the noise so that the signal can be
> heard better?
> 
> -Matt Joyce
> 
> Astroturfing def:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
> 
>>> Under analysis here is how the membership votes, and the successfulness
>>> of measures to encourage the membership to vote not based on their
>>> affiliations. The bylaws' -- possibly only because of delaware legalize
>>> -- diversity rules have some language around "in the most recent twelve
>>> month period", though it is specific to /$60,000+ /contractors.
>>> Although, my preference would be for affiliation to be strictly based on
>>> current relationship, contractor or employee, I'd still find as a
>>> confident, data-interested community candidates recent employment by a
>>> large-membership affiliate is essential data to understand the success
>>> of the measures already taken and more generally to all the processes
>>> and mechanisms used.
>>
>> Totally agree - although I still think we're focusing a bit too much on
>> corporate affiliation and not enough on the voting mechanism and the
>> make up of the foundation membership itself.
>>
>>> Making the OpenStack Foundation approachable and accessible for
>>> membership, industrial partnership, and industrial and media analysis
>>> requires more balance and diversity.
>>
>> Yup. Agree.
>>
>> I'm guessing that if we get voting mechanism fixed, we'll see several
>> improvements.
>