Open Stack

I agree with Joshua and I support the approval process that has been in place.


On 26/05/2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:20 -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> A beautiful summary, and appreciated - however; as much as I hate to
> be "that guy", I believe the purpose of the board approval for
> Jonathan's "unofficial recap" was to have a single, semi-official
> record of the meeting prior to any blogging free-for-all. I believe
> board policy is still to forego any commentary on the meeting until
> either Jonathan's notes, or the official board minutes, are published.

Jonathan did ask me to go ahead with mine since we were long overdue
however, in retrospect, he also asked me to explicitly note that in my
summary and I didn't quite do that. Sorry for that.

> As a more serious note - we should refrain from ANY description of
> what was discussed during executive session - whether it was restated
> afterwards or not.

This is what you're taking issue with?

As part of the voting process, some directors chose to publicly
restate their concerns with the applications that had been discussed
during the executive session.

It would have been better to leave it ambiguous as to whether these
concerns were stated in the executive session or whether they were
raised for the first time after the executive session?

The way I saw it, the whole point of those statements after the
executive session was to *restate* concerns publicly for the record ...
not to have a whole new conversation.

Cheers,
Mark.


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation