Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: OpenStack: Foundation

board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft

 

 

OpenStack foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


lloydostack at gmail

Jul 5, 2012, 1:35 PM

Post #1 of 10 (808 views)
Permalink
board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>
> For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having more power than
> anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In the current
> foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more than one vote.

Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?

My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
how Delaware works.

Thanks,
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


dug at us

Jul 5, 2012, 1:48 PM

Post #2 of 10 (795 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me either the vote
reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50% isn't the threshold so it fails.

There's also the interesting case where multiple people from the same
company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its because the same
company can have both platinum (or gold - can't remember which right now)
as well as individual members, and that's another sore point for me but
I'll leave that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be. Once
company, one vote is much easier.

thanks
-Doug
________________________________________________________
STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack [at] gmail>
07/05/2012 04:35 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM [at] IBMU
cc
foundation [at] lists
Subject
board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
Committee: new draft






On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>
> For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having more power than
> anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In the current
> foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more than one vote.

Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?

My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
how Delaware works.

Thanks,
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/




_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


lloydostack at gmail

Jul 9, 2012, 10:38 PM

Post #3 of 10 (783 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
> Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me either the vote
> reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50% isn't the threshold so it fails.

I've thought on this for some days.

That does sound like a more natural system.

Is the expectation that the board would elect a Chairman of the Board?
Under what conditions would the board likely take that action? Pre-
Executive Director? Is it more likely to be used if the board shrinks?
Is it a safety switch? Is the board likely to elect the Executive
Director as the Chairman of the Board to enable the "CEO" to vote on
the board?


> There's also the interesting case where multiple people from the same
> company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its because the same
> company can have both platinum (or gold - can't remember which right now)
> as well as individual members, and that's another sore point for me but
> I'll leave that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
> make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be. Once
> company, one vote is much easier.

Then would they really be Individual seats? I appreciate safeguarding
diversity by not allowing more than one individual from a company, but
I also don't like the idea of limiting who the membership can vote
for. In the context of the currently large board, and with the
possibility that most Gold member companies would not have a board
seat the current bylaws seem reasonable.


Thanks for the food for thought,
Lloyd
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


jbryce at rackspace

Jul 10, 2012, 10:31 AM

Post #4 of 10 (805 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
> Is the expectation that the board would elect a Chairman of the Board?
> Under what conditions would the board likely take that action? Pre-
> Executive Director? Is it more likely to be used if the board shrinks?
> Is it a safety switch? Is the board likely to elect the Executive
> Director as the Chairman of the Board to enable the "CEO" to vote on
> the board?

The chairperson will be elected by the Directors from among the Directors (5.6 in the Bylaws). The Executive Director could only be elected Chairperson if he or she were also a Director.

Jonathan




_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


lloydostack at gmail

Jul 10, 2012, 12:26 PM

Post #5 of 10 (782 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Bryce <jbryce [at] rackspace> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
>> Is the expectation that the board would elect a Chairman of the Board?
>> Under what conditions would the board likely take that action? Pre-
>> Executive Director? Is it more likely to be used if the board shrinks?
>> Is it a safety switch? Is the board likely to elect the Executive
>> Director as the Chairman of the Board to enable the "CEO" to vote on
>> the board?
>
> The chairperson will be elected by the Directors from among the Directors (5.6 in the Bylaws). The Executive Director could only be elected Chairperson if he or she were also a Director.

I don't think it actually says that it. It says "from among the
directors". As it is lowercase directors, it isn't clear that the
Executive *Director* would be excluded.


Cheers,
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Kurt.Garloff at telekom

Jul 11, 2012, 2:27 PM

Post #6 of 10 (789 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Hi Doug,

no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with 50% plus a tie-breaking double-count ...
I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project that I participated in.

That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an indication that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate interests rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to a problem. We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have tie-breaking rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems then ...

That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could not come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and take a decision on the same topic, then it may be used.

Just my 0.02EUR.

Best,
--
Kurt

Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation | Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228 936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff [at] telekom
(T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680 6312)

Life is for sharing.

Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn | WEEE reg. no. DE50478376


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug [at] us]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
> To: Lloyd Dewolf
> Cc: foundation [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
> -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
>
> Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me
> either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50%
> isn't the threshold so it fails.
>
> There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
> the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
> because the same company can have both platinum (or gold -
> can't remember which right now) as well as individual
> members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
> that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
> make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
> Once company, one vote is much easier.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ________________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us The more
> I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
>
>
> Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack [at] gmail>
> 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
>
> To
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM [at] IBMU
> cc
> foundation [at] lists
> Subject
> board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
> Committee: new draft
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
> >
> > For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
> more power than
> > anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In
> the current
> > foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
> than one vote.
>
> Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
>
> My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
> requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
> voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
> how Delaware works.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> @lloyddewolf
> http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


chrisfer at us

Jul 12, 2012, 7:58 AM

Post #7 of 10 (785 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Kurt,

While I fully agree with your description of the goals and the sad state of
affairs where we have dueling corporate interests that have split the
community, if the issues really are just about two equally good ideas, then
you don't need a chair making the decision, what you need then is an
effective chair who understands how to tease consensus out of a group, say
by asking thinks like "who cannot live with option X", etc

My $0.02 USD

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Kurt.Garloff [at] telekom wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
> no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with
50% plus a tie-breaking double-count ...
> I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching
consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project
that I participated in.
>
> That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up
being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in
serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an
indication that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate
interests rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to
a problem. We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have
tie-breaking rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems
then ...
>
> That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is
as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is
sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some
tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional
cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to
restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be
used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could
not come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and
take a decision on the same topic, then it may be used.
>
> Just my 0.02EUR.
>
> Best,
> --
> Kurt
>
> Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation
| Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
> Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
> B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228
936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff [at] telekom
> (T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680
6312)
>
> Life is for sharing.
>
> Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner
(Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard
Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia
Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn
| WEEE reg. no. DE50478376
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug [at] us]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
> > To: Lloyd Dewolf
> > Cc: foundation [at] lists
> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
> > -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
> >
> > Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me
> > either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50%
> > isn't the threshold so it fails.
> >
> > There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
> > the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
> > because the same company can have both platinum (or gold -
> > can't remember which right now) as well as individual
> > members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
> > that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
> > make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
> > Once company, one vote is much easier.
> >
> > thanks
> > -Doug
> > ________________________________________________________
> > STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> > (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us The more
> > I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack [at] gmail>
> > 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
> >
> > To
> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM [at] IBMU
> > cc
> > foundation [at] lists
> > Subject
> > board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
> > Committee: new draft
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
> > >
> > > For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
> > more power than
> > > anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In
> > the current
> > > foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
> > than one vote.
> >
> > Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
> >
> > My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
> > requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
> > voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
> > how Delaware works.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > @lloyddewolf
> > http://www.pistoncloud.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foundation mailing list
> > Foundation [at] lists
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


jimjag at gmail

Jul 12, 2012, 8:06 AM

Post #8 of 10 (789 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Agreed. Anytime you need someone to forcibly "break a tie", you've
created a precedent than driving consensus really isn't needed since
the chair will just decide stuff anyway.

Believe it or not, when a community *really* feels totally empowered,
they understand that it's in everyone's interest to have collaboration
and consensus.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Christopher B Ferris
<chrisfer [at] us> wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> While I fully agree with your description of the goals and the sad state of
> affairs where we have dueling corporate interests that have split the
> community, if the issues really are just about two equally good ideas, then
> you don't need a chair making the decision, what you need then is an
> effective chair who understands how to tease consensus out of a group, say
> by asking thinks like "who cannot live with option X", etc
>
> My $0.02 USD
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Kurt.Garloff [at] telekom wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with 50%
>> plus a tie-breaking double-count ...
>> I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching
>> consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project
>> that I participated in.
>>
>> That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up
>> being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in
>> serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an indication
>> that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate interests
>> rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to a problem.
>> We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have tie-breaking
>> rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems then ...
>>
>> That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is
>> as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is
>> sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some
>> tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional
>> cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to
>> restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be
>> used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could not
>> come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and take a
>> decision on the same topic, then it may be used.
>>
>> Just my 0.02EUR.
>>
>> Best,
>> --
>> Kurt
>>
>> Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation |
>> Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
>> Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
>> B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228
>> 936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff [at] telekom
>> (T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680 6312)
>>
>> Life is for sharing.
>>
>> Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner
>> (Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard
>> Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia
>> Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn |
>> WEEE reg. no. DE50478376
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug [at] us]
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
>> > To: Lloyd Dewolf
>> > Cc: foundation [at] lists
>> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
>> > -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
>> >
>> > Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me
>> > either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50%
>> > isn't the threshold so it fails.
>> >
>> > There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
>> > the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
>> > because the same company can have both platinum (or gold -
>> > can't remember which right now) as well as individual
>> > members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
>> > that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
>> > make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
>> > Once company, one vote is much easier.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > -Doug
>> > ________________________________________________________
>> > STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
>> > (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us The more
>> > I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack [at] gmail>
>> > 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
>> >
>> > To
>> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM [at] IBMU
>> > cc
>> > foundation [at] lists
>> > Subject
>> > board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
>> > Committee: new draft
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
>> > more power than
>> > > anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In
>> > the current
>> > > foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
>> > than one vote.
>> >
>> > Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
>> >
>> > My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
>> > requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
>> > voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
>> > how Delaware works.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > @lloyddewolf
>> > http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Foundation mailing list
>> > Foundation [at] lists
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation [at] lists
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


cctrieloff at redhat

Jul 12, 2012, 10:52 AM

Post #9 of 10 (780 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

+1
Carl.

On 07/12/2012 11:06 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Agreed. Anytime you need someone to forcibly "break a tie", you've
> created a precedent than driving consensus really isn't needed since
> the chair will just decide stuff anyway.
>
> Believe it or not, when a community *really* feels totally empowered,
> they understand that it's in everyone's interest to have collaboration
> and consensus.
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Christopher B Ferris
> <chrisfer [at] us> wrote:
>> Kurt,
>>
>> While I fully agree with your description of the goals and the sad state of
>> affairs where we have dueling corporate interests that have split the
>> community, if the issues really are just about two equally good ideas, then
>> you don't need a chair making the decision, what you need then is an
>> effective chair who understands how to tease consensus out of a group, say
>> by asking thinks like "who cannot live with option X", etc
>>
>> My $0.02 USD
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Kurt.Garloff [at] telekom wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with 50%
>>> plus a tie-breaking double-count ...
>>> I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching
>>> consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project
>>> that I participated in.
>>>
>>> That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up
>>> being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in
>>> serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an indication
>>> that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate interests
>>> rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to a problem.
>>> We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have tie-breaking
>>> rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems then ...
>>>
>>> That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is
>>> as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is
>>> sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some
>>> tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional
>>> cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to
>>> restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be
>>> used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could not
>>> come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and take a
>>> decision on the same topic, then it may be used.
>>>
>>> Just my 0.02EUR.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> --
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>> Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation |
>>> Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
>>> Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
>>> B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228
>>> 936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff [at] telekom
>>> (T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680 6312)
>>>
>>> Life is for sharing.
>>>
>>> Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner
>>> (Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard
>>> Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia
>>> Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
>>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn |
>>> WEEE reg. no. DE50478376
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug [at] us]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
>>>> To: Lloyd Dewolf
>>>> Cc: foundation [at] lists
>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
>>>> -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me
>>>> either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50%
>>>> isn't the threshold so it fails.
>>>>
>>>> There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
>>>> the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
>>>> because the same company can have both platinum (or gold -
>>>> can't remember which right now) as well as individual
>>>> members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
>>>> that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
>>>> make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
>>>> Once company, one vote is much easier.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> -Doug
>>>> ________________________________________________________
>>>> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
>>>> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us The more
>>>> I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack [at] gmail>
>>>> 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM [at] IBMU
>>>> cc
>>>> foundation [at] lists
>>>> Subject
>>>> board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
>>>> Committee: new draft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>>>>> For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
>>>> more power than
>>>>> anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In
>>>> the current
>>>>> foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
>>>> than one vote.
>>>>
>>>> Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
>>>> requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
>>>> voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
>>>> how Delaware works.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --
>>>> @lloyddewolf
>>>> http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foundation mailing list
>>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation [at] lists
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


jonathan at openstack

Jul 15, 2012, 11:13 AM

Post #10 of 10 (765 views)
Permalink
Re: board chair == two votes -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. We've removed the chairperson's double vote in the final version of the Bylaws. We're posting the updates and will send a note when they're up.

Jonathan


On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:

>
> +1
> Carl.
>
> On 07/12/2012 11:06 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Agreed. Anytime you need someone to forcibly "break a tie", you've
>> created a precedent than driving consensus really isn't needed since
>> the chair will just decide stuff anyway.
>>
>> Believe it or not, when a community *really* feels totally empowered,
>> they understand that it's in everyone's interest to have collaboration
>> and consensus.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Christopher B Ferris
>> <chrisfer [at] us> wrote:
>>> Kurt,
>>>
>>> While I fully agree with your description of the goals and the sad state of
>>> affairs where we have dueling corporate interests that have split the
>>> community, if the issues really are just about two equally good ideas, then
>>> you don't need a chair making the decision, what you need then is an
>>> effective chair who understands how to tease consensus out of a group, say
>>> by asking thinks like "who cannot live with option X", etc
>>>
>>> My $0.02 USD
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Kurt.Garloff [at] telekom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Doug,
>>>>
>>>> no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with 50%
>>>> plus a tie-breaking double-count ...
>>>> I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching
>>>> consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project
>>>> that I participated in.
>>>>
>>>> That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up
>>>> being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in
>>>> serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an indication
>>>> that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate interests
>>>> rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to a problem.
>>>> We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have tie-breaking
>>>> rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems then ...
>>>>
>>>> That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is
>>>> as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is
>>>> sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some
>>>> tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional
>>>> cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to
>>>> restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be
>>>> used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could not
>>>> come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and take a
>>>> decision on the same topic, then it may be used.
>>>>
>>>> Just my 0.02EUR.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> --
>>>> Kurt
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation |
>>>> Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
>>>> Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
>>>> B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228
>>>> 936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff [at] telekom
>>>> (T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680 6312)
>>>>
>>>> Life is for sharing.
>>>>
>>>> Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner
>>>> (Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard
>>>> Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia
>>>> Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
>>>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn |
>>>> WEEE reg. no. DE50478376
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug [at] us]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
>>>>> To: Lloyd Dewolf
>>>>> Cc: foundation [at] lists
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
>>>>> -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to. To me
>>>>> either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't. 50%
>>>>> isn't the threshold so it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
>>>>> the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
>>>>> because the same company can have both platinum (or gold -
>>>>> can't remember which right now) as well as individual
>>>>> members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
>>>>> that for another day. :-) But its those kinds of rules that
>>>>> make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
>>>>> Once company, one vote is much easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> -Doug
>>>>> ________________________________________________________
>>>>> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
>>>>> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us The more
>>>>> I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack [at] gmail>
>>>>> 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> To
>>>>> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM [at] IBMU
>>>>> cc
>>>>> foundation [at] lists
>>>>> Subject
>>>>> board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
>>>>> Committee: new draft
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>>>>>> For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
>>>>> more power than
>>>>>> anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In
>>>>> the current
>>>>>> foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
>>>>> than one vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
>>>>> requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
>>>>> voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
>>>>> how Delaware works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --
>>>>> @lloyddewolf
>>>>> http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Foundation mailing list
>>>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foundation mailing list
>>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation [at] lists
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

OpenStack foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.