I fully agree - it was not made clear in the last board meeting that unless the board specifically requested a decision, the decision would be made by the foundation team. To find that a decision has been made and plans put in motion is disturbing. This is a significant change for OpenStack and should not be pushed through as a fait accompli. Best Regards Mark Baker On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote: > > While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a > quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might > not all be able to make the larger discussion event ( > https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478) > > I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad. > > Tim > > > > > On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote: > > >On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > >> > >> Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk > for > >> the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the > >> summit/design summit. > >> > >> When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future > locations ? > > > >My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that > >there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being > >handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20160420/c7bddb5b/attachment.html>