[OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting

Tristan Goode tristan at aptira.com
Mon May 27 00:57:50 UTC 2013


For transparency's sake I have absolutely no problem with a non-director
or third party blogging in this manner, and I think that was the whole
point of the original directive because of the legal/governance risks of
anything otherwise. Anyone is free to listen in to the meetings and tweet
and create a blog and such, but a director perhaps implies officialdom,
and also splinters the unified communication that a Board should present.

This is a personal account and any personal account is vulnerable to
inaccuracies, personal opinion and skewed interpretation. I nor any of the
Board that I'm aware of was asked about this beforehand, and that's simply
not fair to the rest of us. The document also does not disclaim itself
despite a request to do so.

I thought that it was (albeit briefly) discussed at that last meeting
about blogs being published prior to minutes, and that policy was conveyed
to the new members of the Board?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch]
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013 5:14 AM
> To: Tristan Goode; Mark McLoughlin
> Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: RE: [OpenStack Foundation] April 14th board meeting
>
>
> 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



More information about the Foundation mailing list