Open Stack

On 10/08/2013 10:04 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com
> <mailto:mordred at inaugust.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     What matters is that Cummulative Voting is designed EXPLICITLY to
>     support and bolster the idea that people with more money get more voice.
>     That's its benefit, and it does its job very well.
> 
>     We, on the other hand, would not like to express that worldview or
>     organizational design in our community.
> 
> 
> I find that statement troubling... just the idea that a basic tenet of
> governance is something that people would not "like" the *community* to
> know is somehow uncomfortable to me. What happened to the idea of open
> and transparent governance?

What? I'm talking EXACTLY about open and transparent governance.

Let me be slightly more clear in my wording.

I, as a member of the community, do not want the governance of my
community to be beholden to the ability to purchase governance seats. I
do not value that, and I do not think that most of the people in our
community value that.

With that in mind, I would like for our structure to reflect that at
every level possible.

Cummulatiave voting, as I've said time and again, is designed explicitly
to support a structural design which is completely and fundamentally
opposite from the values on which we have built OpenStack.

As such, it is a bug, and it should be fixed.

>     We are, as with many things,
>     trying to do something new, not just in our software, but in the way we
>     run things.
> 
> 
> It's not all that new or unique and, imo, it would benefit OpenStack to
> learn from others, or at least listen to those who have done stuff like
> this before. Otherwise, it's very easy to justify all decisions, whether
> good or bad, based on "no one has ever tried this before".

We should absolutely learn from people before us. There are, however, a
few things where we are MASSIVELY different than our esteemed
predecessors. Notably, most projects that start as a multi-company
endeavor with no originating grass-roots community do not tend to a) be
successful at all (hi vendor consortium) or b) grow a community. We have
managed to do both. Additionally, our adherance to individual leaderless
consensus-based open governance, while not new per-se, is a bit new on
this scale and with this level of corporate involvement.