Open Stack

Totally agree. We have bylaws in place to allocate time to the TC and user
committee in BoD meetings; maybe we should have an open floor portion of
each motion as well?
 On Oct 11, 2013 2:32 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

> We may want to investigate ways in which attendees who are not board
> members can participate. For core members, you can actually just start
> reviewing code before anyone makes any decisions about you. Similarly,
> with TC meetings, if you can figure out how to be on IRC, you can join
> the meeting, fully voiced, and you can be a complete and active part of
> the conversation.
>
> So I kinda think I hear both sides of this, and agree with both. I think
> we should find a way to demonstrate that the business of the board is an
> activity that you both are willing and able to do. But on the other
> side, other than lurking on the phone because you're convinced it's
> going to be a while before minutes come out, there is very little
> mechanism for you to be an active participant in the board meetings
> themselves.
>
> (That said, it's not exactly like every board meeting is going to have
> an actual active role available even for every board member)
>
> Quandry.
>
> On 10/11/2013 05:23 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> > This may be the first time I've ever disagreed with Tim, but I certainly
> > do today.
> >
> > We require new Gold Member applicants to demonstrate the activity that
> > they plan on engaging in.
> >
> > We expect new core team members to demonstrate a history of reviewing
> code.
> >
> > The only case in which we don't expect candidates to demonstrate their
> > willingness and ability to undertake the primary activity of the office,
> > is for the board of directors.
> >
> > Attendance at at least 50% of the board meetings is already mandatory
> > for directors (see the bylaws), I simply suggested applying that
> > criteria to candidates as well.
> >
> > I heartily agree that we need to adjust TZ and locale (you may recall my
> > argument with John Igoe on that topic at an earlier board meeting) - but
> > that's entirely beside the point.
> >
> > Most folks have more important things to do than attend board meetings -
> > which is exactly why they don't belong on the board!
> >
> > If that's true when they're a candidate, why would it be false after
> > they were elected?
> >
> > On Oct 11, 2013 10:18 AM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com
> > <mailto:mordred at inaugust.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 10/11/2013 12:50 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > As one of the people who does not have their OpenStack activities
> >     within
> >     > their job role and who lives in a timezone which until today
> Jrequired
> >     > out-of-working-hours conferences, I think it is asking too much for
> >     > mandatory participation in board meetings as a bar for entry.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > There are many other criteria that we can apply such as membership
> >     of a
> >     > user group, participation in mailing lists, blogging their
> experiences
> >     > or attendance at summits which is a more significant contribution
> than
> >     > dialing in for a 6 hour call ending at 2 a.m. in the morning.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > In choosing to stand for election, the candidate accepts the
> >     activities
> >     > that come with it. However, to require people to do their
> ‘articles’
> >     > before consideration for board membership does not seem the most
> >     > effective use of some excellent community contributors.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Let’s find some other criteria.
> >
> >     As always a voice of reason. Thanks Tim.
> >
> >
> >     > *From:*Nick Barcet [mailto:nick at enovance.com
> >     <mailto:nick at enovance.com>]
> >     > *Sent:* 11 October 2013 17:34
> >     > *To:* Foundation Mailing List
> >     > *Subject:* Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Agreement on requiring board
> >     > candidates to attend the meetings, and, why didn't this dogpile
> dial
> >     > into the last meeting?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > My 2c on this is that making participation mandatory is ok, as
> long as
> >     > we also accept valid excuses for exceptional reasons, which can
> cover:
> >     > time compatibility, prior engagements, etc...  I've missed two
> board
> >     > meeting this year, one which was scheduled in the middle of my
> night,
> >     > the other because I had to give a presentation on the role of a
> board
> >     > member which was scheduled at the same time. In both case I tried
> to
> >     > catch up immediately after (thanks for Alan´s help).
> >     >
> >     > I do think these cases (and there are certainly others) are valid
> >     reason
> >     > to be exceptionally excused and would be consider a mandatory/no
> >     excuse
> >     > rule be completely counter productive to our objectives.
> >     >
> >     > Nick
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Richard Fontana
> >     <rfontana at redhat.com <mailto:rfontana at redhat.com>
> >     > <mailto:rfontana at redhat.com <mailto:rfontana at redhat.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:56:35PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin
> wrote:
> >     >     > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 14:42 +0000, Atwood, Mark wrote:
> >     >     >
> >     >     > > And finally, for many parts of the OpenStack community,
> >     this is our
> >     >     > > *job*.  We get paid to do this.  Dialing into a Board
> >     meeting and
> >     >     > > listening in should be as important in attending as the
> >     various
> >     >     > > meetings and con calls and all-hands and stand-ups that we
> do
> >     >     for our
> >     >     > > employers.  Where were all the PTLs, the TC members, the
> >     couple of
> >     >     > > dozen other community engagement folks?
> >     >     >
> >     >     > If I wasn't on the board, and if there was a detailed
> >     summary of the
> >     >     > topics published after the meeting, then I'd read that
> >     rather than
> >     >     > dialling in just to listen.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > I do think it would be worthwhile for people to attend
> in-person
> >     >     for an
> >     >     > hour or two if they happen to be convenient to the venue,
> >     but that's
> >     >     > more from a "look these are real people, people who care
> about
> >     >     > OpenStack" perspective.
> >     >
> >     >     I've attended part or all of a couple of the board meetings by
> >     phone.
> >     >
> >     >     One thing I have found rather puzzling is the orientation
> >     towards use
> >     >     of webex, though I realize there is a backup traditional
> dialin. I
> >     >     have wondered whether this might have some subtle effect in
> >     >     discouraging some to attend the meetings virtually, since the
> >     natural
> >     >     assumption is that webex is going to provide some fuller
> >     experience
> >     >     (as otherwise I am not sure why it would be used at all).
> >     >
> >     >     In the case of one meeting, I struggled without success in
> >     trying to
> >     >     use webex via two devices I had available and the annoyance of
> >     that
> >     >     experience almost led me to decide not to then dial in. I
> dunno,
> >     >     perhaps my experience is atypical. What precisely does webex
> >     provide
> >     >     that a traditional conference call service would not, for
> >     purposes of
> >     >     OpenStack Foundation board meetings?
> >     >
> >     >     In the case of one of the in-person board meetings I attended
> by
> >     >     dialing in, it was possible to hear at best 40% or so of what
> was
> >     >     said.
> >     >
> >     >     - RF
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     _______________________________________________
> >     >     Foundation mailing list
> >     >     Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> >     <mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
> >     <mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> >     <mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>>
> >     >     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Nick Barcet <nick at enovance.com <mailto:nick at enovance.com>
> >     <mailto:nick at enovance.com <mailto:nick at enovance.com>>>
> >     > VP Products - eNovance
> >     > a.k.a. nicolas, nijaba
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > Foundation mailing list
> >     > Foundation at lists.openstack.org <mailto:
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
> >     > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Foundation mailing list
> >     Foundation at lists.openstack.org <mailto:
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
> >     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20131011/c62383ab/attachment-0001.html>