Open Stack

On Feb 23, 2015 4:16 PM, "Jesse Proudman" <jproudman at blueboxcloud.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Dave Neary <dneary at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> This general pattern of public proposal and debate, followed by a
>> private executive decision which takes that debate into consideration,
>> has proven effective at building consensus and maintaining a level of
>> participation of the membership in the workings of the foundation.
>
>
> I absolutely agree that public discussion and public recording of board
decisions is important. The intent of my email was to comment on Tristan's
concerns in the aggregate.
>

It has been clear to me that since the OpenStack board started having
private, non recorded, non accessible meetings along with private voting,
that the OpenStack board is going in a direction that does not benefit the
community.

Comments about travel costs for the board shows a very shallow view of what
running an open source community entails. OpenStack is a _very_ well funded
organization and most of the board members come from corporations that pay
significantly for their spot. The cost of travel for the corporate
delegates is minor compared to the other expenses.

The people who run for the board know what the job entails. I believe that
every one of them ran for their role to do good in the community. If a
board member is unable or unwilling to support the common good, why are
they are on the board at all?

Transparency in a organization that uses open in the name is IMHO
obligatory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20150223/aeef70a6/attachment.html>