[OpenStack Foundation] Agreement on requiring board candidates to attend the meetings

Sean Roberts seanrob at yahoo-inc.com
Fri Oct 11 22:29:27 UTC 2013

If you are a board director, you should be at the board meetings. I consider it to be as important as attending my yahoo staff meetings. If you do not attend the meeting, then you can not be part of the decision making, which is the purpose of the meeting. It is hard for some companies and/or people to attend every board meeting. If you know up front that this is the case, then either reprioritize or don't join the board. This seems very boolean to me. I would certainly advise any prospective board members on this point. Let me know if I am missing something here.

Sean Roberts
Infrastructure Strategy
seanrob at yahoo-inc.com
Direct (408) 349-5234  Mobile (925) 980-4729
701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089-0703, US
Phone (408) 349-3300  Fax (408) 349-3301

On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:25 PM, Joshua McKenty <joshua at pistoncloud.com> 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> 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]
>> *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>> 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>
>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> --
>> Nick Barcet <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
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation at lists.openstack.org

Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20131011/61acd058/attachment.html>

More information about the Foundation mailing list