Open Stack

I'm replying on Thierry's question about the current Gold member applicant
process, where we allow prospective Gold members to engage with a
Platinum/Gold Member Committee of the Board in the initial phase to guide
them on criteria for consideration for membership.

The current criteria and high level process is laid out here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/PotentialMemberCriteria

The idea behind the initial phase where a potential Gold membership
applicant could engage with the Foundation and the Committee was to ensure
that before they applied, they would be able to get a better understanding
of the criteria, how they are applied by the Board, and any initial
feedback on strengths or weaknesses in their supporting information that
they might be able to address before they apply. This was implemented to
help *all* applicants put their best foot forward once they decided to
formally apply, because once an application has been made, it sets things
in motion with less time for them to prepare or adjust before they come
before the Board for consideration. This was not intended as a process to
diminish transparency, as the full documentation of an application and
supporting docs is available to everyone once the prospect formally
applies. But rather to avoid a situation where the applicant fails to be
approved as a member due to lack of understanding of the criteria or
inadequate preparation of supporting information on the criteria.

The current process has I think enabled potential applicants to (a) take
more time or defer their application so that they better meet the criteria
(through real steps in the community or their business), and (b) have a
much deeper understanding of the criteria and how they've been applied in
prior applications, and (c) be much happier with how they are guided
overall in the process, whether they are successful or not in gaining Gold
membership.

The Committee is very open to evolving the process and changing it,
especially if any adjustments strengthen it in aligning with the core
values of the OpenStack community including transparency. I hope this quick
background on the current process is helpful in that dialogue.

Best,
Simon



> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:01:55 +0100
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> To: foundation at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Proposed tweaks to the OpenStack
>         Foundation Transparency Policy
> Message-ID: <54F6D813.1060509 at openstack.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Esker, Robert wrote:
> > Per today?s board discussion on the topic, the following represents a
> > working draft of proposed tweaks to the existing transparency policy:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FeSSw1r3imd6B-Wf2oj5VcwekhNF-jtv5upNh1PTGDc/edit#
>
> Since we are considering changes, why are "discussions around Gold
> Member applications" considered confidential information ?
>
> It feels like a pretty important topic, and unlike the other "sensitive
> information" examples, it's not immediately obvious why that is
> sensitive or legally-restricted.
>
> Gold members are a self-selected group (new members selected by existing
> board members), and without checks and balances, self-selected groups
> often turn into an aristocracy (picking friends rather than the most
> appropriate). Having public discussions around the addition of new
> Platinum and Gold members would go a long way to reassure the rest of
> the Foundation membership that they are chosen for the right reasons,
> and give everyone insight on what the "right reasons" are.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20150309/2cc88f46/attachment.html>