Open Stack

Thanks for getting onto this Sean.

It's a shame that the July meeting of the board did not get to the report of the then transparency committee because badly needed actions might have started sooner and this situation might have been altogether avoided. I've posted this report below for everyone's reference, it's pretty scathing and I hope we can come back from this.

https://docs.google.com/a/aptira.com/file/d/0B_TaAmPCg4-wWVlqcElKeFQtT2s/edit?usp=docslist_api

In the meantime, I agree that the choosing of a location for a board meeting does not seem to be confidential, therefore I hope to see that future discussions around selecting board meeting locations be made in the open.

I also feel that given the discussions and process around selecting the July board meeting appear to breach the transparency policy, then that probably should be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman. The desired outcome should be that an open discussion be undertaken and an open decision be reached that supersedes any previous decision.

Cheers
Tristan

On 24 Feb 2015, at 1:01 pm, sean roberts <seanroberts66 at gmail.com> wrote:

As one of the new transparancy committee members, it is one of my responsibilities to report on the board transparency.

The transparancy policy as adopted by the board and posted here http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/ generally states that information not falling under the heading confidential information, will be made public through the foundation mailing list. This is not explicit however. The selection of the board meeting locations does not seem to be confidential. I am open to discussing how it could be considered so. 

In the spirit of being a community that works together in the open, I would like to see the future discussions around selecting board meeting locations be made in the open like most everything else we do. I think an agreement to do this on the ML would be enough to move forward and past this specific issue. 

If this is a problem that cannot be solved here and needs formal resolution, I would recommend that the process to file a complaint with Jonathan outlined in section 5 of the transparency policy be followed. 


> On Monday, February 23, 2015, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 


-- 
~sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20150224/7bea4756/attachment-0001.html>