Open Stack

Regardless of some minor phrasing improvements, I feel that Mark's blog contributes hugely to communication with the community and
accessibility to the board.

I would strongly encourage this communication channel to continue in a very similar fashion to the past few board. It contributes to
our goals of transparency and is always a good read :-)

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan at aptira.com]
> Sent: 26 May 2013 16:10
> To: Mark McLoughlin
> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5215 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20130526/927825c1/attachment.bin>