Open Stack

I like that idea, but there does seem to be an over emphasis on the board
*meetings*. The role of the board isn't limited to participating in
meetings.

We need to cultivate future potential board members by providing them with
opportunities to volunteer to gain experience (so they learn the
responsibilities) and exposure (so the community can recognize their
contributions). We have a system in place for technical contributors to
increase their responsibilities by going from contributor to core reviewer
to PTL or the technical committee, but we don't have any (obvious) parallel
path for non-technical contributors.

Opening the board subcommittees to more volunteers from the foundation
would be one way to achieve that, and would be more productive than just
asking them to attend board meetings.

Doug


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Joshua McKenty <joshua at pistoncloud.com>wrote:

> 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
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> 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/20131011/43e11642/attachment-0001.html>