Mailing List Archive: OpenStack: Foundation

Nomination Process Updates

1 2 3 4 5 6

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

jonathan at openstack

Aug 1, 2012, 10:44 AM

Post #1 of 129 (519 views)
Permalink

Nomination Process Updates

Hi everyone,

We've just rolled out a couple of updates to the website to automate the nomination process, display the details of the nominations made, and provide a list of Individual Members of the Foundation (http://www.openstack.org/community/members/).

The nomination page lives at the same place (http://www.openstack.org/community/openstack-foundation-board-2012-election-candidates/), but now allows you to make your nominations automatically and directly on the page itself. If you wish to nominate new Individual Members who have not been nominated previously visit http://www.openstack.org/community/members/nominate and use the links beside their names.

Nominations will continue through next Monday, August 6th. After nominations are closed, we will confirm with each candidate who has received at least 10 nominations that they wish to stand for election. We will also post additional information concerning the candidates and the election process. The candidates will be filling out an application per the bylaws to share more information. As I mentioned in a previous email, we're still defining the questions and all input is welcome.

We have had three community members volunteer to help define and administer the election in response to the request for inspectors. If at any point you have questions concerning the nomination or election process, you can contact the inspectors at electioninspectors [at] openstack

We have received several hundred nominations across approximately 40 candidates. Thank you all for the feedback and the participation to date,

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

acs at parvuscaptus

Aug 1, 2012, 10:50 AM

Post #2 of 129 (503 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

I am personally pleased to see the process become more transparent.

Good Work!

matt at nycresistor

Aug 1, 2012, 10:56 AM

Post #3 of 129 (502 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Agreed.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Clay Shafer
<acs [at] parvuscaptus> wrote:
>
> I am personally pleased to see the process become more transparent.
>
> Good Work!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

duncan at dreamhost

Aug 1, 2012, 11:52 AM

Post #4 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Thanks, Jonathan!

For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
basic stats one membership affiliations here:
https://gist.github.com/3229457

d

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Bryce <jonathan [at] openstack> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've just rolled out a couple of updates to the website to automate the nomination process, display the details of the nominations made, and provide a list of Individual Members of the Foundation (http://www.openstack.org/community/members/).
>
> The nomination page lives at the same place (http://www.openstack.org/community/openstack-foundation-board-2012-election-candidates/), but now allows you to make your nominations automatically and directly on the page itself. If you wish to nominate new Individual Members who have not been nominated previously visit http://www.openstack.org/community/members/nominate and use the links beside their names.
>
> Nominations will continue through next Monday, August 6th. After nominations are closed, we will confirm with each candidate who has received at least 10 nominations that they wish to stand for election. We will also post additional information concerning the candidates and the election process. The candidates will be filling out an application per the bylaws to share more information. As I mentioned in a previous email, we're still defining the questions and all input is welcome.
>
> We have had three community members volunteer to help define and administer the election in response to the request for inspectors. If at any point you have questions concerning the nomination or election process, you can contact the inspectors at electioninspectors [at] openstack
>
> We have received several hundred nominations across approximately 40 candidates. Thank you all for the feedback and the participation to date,
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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

matt at nycresistor

Aug 1, 2012, 11:56 AM

Post #5 of 129 (503 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

> For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
> basic stats one membership affiliations here:
> https://gist.github.com/3229457

=/ not particularly happy with those numbers. it's about as fair and
balanced as fox news.

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

anne at openstack

Aug 1, 2012, 12:22 PM

Post #6 of 129 (499 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

In the spirit of running-the-code-so-the-rest-of-us-get-more-context,
here's the resulting output when run at 2:10 CST today 8/1/12.

[.(787, u'rackspace'),
(753, u'hp'),
(297, u'none'),
(41, u'cisco'),
(28, u'canonical'),
(24, u'dreamhost'),
(22, u'red hat'),
(22, u'nebula'),
(17, u'cloudscaling'),
(14, u'employee'),
(13, u'morphlabs'),
(13, u'emc'),
(13, u'dell'),
(10, u'suse'),
(10, u'piston cloud'),
(5, u'yahoo'),
(5, u'ibm'),
(5, u'at&t'),
(4, u'tipit'),
(4, u'opscode')]

Wanted to be sure non-Python programmers have the information that
results from running the script linked on Github.

Thanks Jonathan and crew for all the additional info, now I know who
to thank for the support.
Anne

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Matt Joyce <matt [at] nycresistor> wrote:
>> For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
>> basic stats one membership affiliations here:
>> https://gist.github.com/3229457
>
> =/ not particularly happy with those numbers. it's about as fair and
> balanced as fox news.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

stefano at openstack

Aug 1, 2012, 12:35 PM

Post #7 of 129 (503 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

On 08/01/2012 11:56 AM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
>> basic stats one membership affiliations here:
>> https://gist.github.com/3229457
>
> =/ not particularly happy with those numbers. it's about as fair and
> balanced as fox news.

I'm sorry to hear that this is your opinion. Individual Members of
OpenStack have promised to respect the Community Code of Conduct,
they're responsible to respect the policies set in the Foundation's
bylaws. The 'affiliation' (which corporation pays for their salary) is
incidental: it has to be disclosed for transparency and to manage
conflicts of interest. Also, the OpenStack community has given ample
prove to be very very vigilant against violation of policies, norms and
rules.

If it's like Fox News it's more like in a novel where Fox News audience
is all from NPR people: thousands of eyes ready to point at mistakes and
lies :)

I'm confident that all candidates for Individual Members of the Board
have first and foremost the interest of OpenStack in mind, not of those
that pay their checks.

Regards,
stef

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

b at b3k

Aug 1, 2012, 12:37 PM

Post #8 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Jonathan,

Great to see more transparency in this process, thank you! Can folks
clarify for me why the individual seats are being put in place before
the paid seats, given this:

"In accordance with the OpenStack Foundation Bylaws, Board elections
will take place online using a cumulative voting method. No more than
two members of the Board may be affiliated with the same company,
which means the candidate receiving the next highest votes would
assume the seat if the election results in too many employees from a
single company."

Even further, why are employees of platinum and gold member companies
allows to run at all given that the point of the individual seats is
to expand representation to include those unable to pay to play?

b

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Bryce <jonathan [at] openstack> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've just rolled out a couple of updates to the website to automate the nomination process, display the details of the nominations made, and provide a list of Individual Members of the Foundation (http://www.openstack.org/community/members/).
>
> The nomination page lives at the same place (http://www.openstack.org/community/openstack-foundation-board-2012-election-candidates/), but now allows you to make your nominations automatically and directly on the page itself. If you wish to nominate new Individual Members who have not been nominated previously visit http://www.openstack.org/community/members/nominate and use the links beside their names.
>
> Nominations will continue through next Monday, August 6th. After nominations are closed, we will confirm with each candidate who has received at least 10 nominations that they wish to stand for election. We will also post additional information concerning the candidates and the election process. The candidates will be filling out an application per the bylaws to share more information. As I mentioned in a previous email, we're still defining the questions and all input is welcome.
>
> We have had three community members volunteer to help define and administer the election in response to the request for inspectors. If at any point you have questions concerning the nomination or election process, you can contact the inspectors at electioninspectors [at] openstack
>
> We have received several hundred nominations across approximately 40 candidates. Thank you all for the feedback and the participation to date,
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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

gyehuda at yahoo-inc

Aug 1, 2012, 12:37 PM

Post #9 of 129 (503 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Excellent. Let's have an email discussion about whether Fox News is fair and balanced. This will be productive :-) </troll>

Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the bylaws we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling all their employees to sign up. This is a problem that we need to expose by social shaming -- which the script below will help do for us. Thank you!! I'd love to see a graph on the website itself. It's pretty interesting to see how many companies _appear to be_ "padding" the list (Not to call out anyone by name... Rackspace, HP, etc.).

The bylaws suggest that individual members can be removed if they do not participate in at least 50% of the votes within a 24 month period. This seems to be addressing the issue of padding the group with names of people who want to help their company, not the community. Two years is a forgiving filter, but then again, non-voters don't hurt anyone. On the other hand, there are going to be companies who are very invested in the community, and it's fair to expect them to be overrepresented. Much like the US government has a house and senate (to represent based on raw population and based on votes per state). This foundation has multi-tiers -- and yet will skew toward corporate interests. I don't have a problem with this, as long as participants are actively involved in helping foster the success of the community as a whole. OpenStack is certainly skewing more corporate than other open source foundations.

In my case, I have encouraged the members of my company who are *directly* working on Open Stack related projects to join -- since it is their personal and professional passion. We'll probably have about a dozen individuals give or take, maybe some more over time. These will be people who will actually invest their time and energy to the betterment of the OpenStack community on a regular and ongoing basis.

I suggest that other companies encourage employee participation in a similar manner. Astroturfing, shilling, and hiring a claque to push corporate agendas is going to have to be shamed and shunned.

gil yehuda
director of open source and standards, Yahoo! Inc.
gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc | (408) 336-4857

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Joyce [mailto:matt [at] nycresistor]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Duncan McGreggor
Cc: foundation [at] lists
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates

> For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
> basic stats one membership affiliations here:
> https://gist.github.com/3229457

=/ not particularly happy with those numbers. it's about as fair and balanced as fox news.

_______________________________________________
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

frans at meruvian

Aug 1, 2012, 12:40 PM

Post #10 of 129 (500 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

i am seeking information a non profit organization and personal membership
in OpenStack Foundation.

can share the url?

got several personal listed here http://www.openstack.org/community/members/

b at b3k

Aug 1, 2012, 12:40 PM

Post #11 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano [at] openstack> wrote:
...
> I'm confident that all candidates for Individual Members of the Board
> have first and foremost the interest of OpenStack in mind, not of those
> that pay their checks.
>
...

I am unaware of any major standards body in which this is true.
Rather than debate that, however, I suggest that we look to the
_intent_ of the individual seats, which is community participation
beyond the companies able to pay for seats. In that spirit, I hope to
see platinum and gold member company employees disqualified for
individual seats.

b

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

chrisfer at us

Aug 1, 2012, 12:42 PM

Post #12 of 129 (500 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Thanks, Anne!

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer [at] us
Twitter: christo4ferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

-----Anne Gentle <anne [at] openstack> wrote: -----

>To: Matt Joyce <matt [at] nycresistor>
>From: Anne Gentle <anne [at] openstack>
>Date: 08/01/2012 03:23PM
>Cc: foundation [at] lists
>Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates
>
>In the spirit of running-the-code-so-the-rest-of-us-get-more-context,
>here's the resulting output when run at 2:10 CST today 8/1/12.
>
>[(787, u'rackspace'),
> (753, u'hp'),
> (297, u'none'),
> (41, u'cisco'),
> (28, u'canonical'),
> (24, u'dreamhost'),
> (22, u'red hat'),
> (22, u'nebula'),
> (17, u'cloudscaling'),
> (14, u'employee'),
> (13, u'morphlabs'),
> (13, u'emc'),
> (13, u'dell'),
> (10, u'suse'),
> (10, u'piston cloud'),
> (5, u'yahoo'),
> (5, u'ibm'),
> (5, u'at&t'),
> (4, u'tipit'),
> (4, u'opscode')]
>
>Wanted to be sure non-Python programmers have the information that
>results from running the script linked on Github.
>
>Thanks Jonathan and crew for all the additional info, now I know who
>to thank for the support.
>Anne
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Matt Joyce <matt [at] nycresistor>
>wrote:
>>> For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
>>> basic stats one membership affiliations here:
>>> https://gist.github.com/3229457
>>
>> =/ not particularly happy with those numbers. it's about as fair
>and
>> balanced as fox news.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

dug at us

Aug 1, 2012, 1:00 PM

Post #13 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

> This is a problem that we need to expose by social shaming

I'm confused. What's the problem that needs to be exposed? My
understanding is that ALL members of the openstack community are supposed
to join as individual members regardless of whether they work for a
platinum, gold, ... company. If this is not supposed to be true then the
by-laws need to change to indicate this. But if the by-laws are correct
as they stand today then the "gaming" you're talking about is built
directly into the system on purpose - for better or worse. Now, if people
want to make it so its more like "one company/individual == one vote" then
the by-laws would need to change.

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.

Gil Yehuda <gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc> wrote on 08/01/2012 03:37:10 PM:

> Excellent. Let's have an email discussion about whether Fox News is
> fair and balanced. This will be productive :-) </troll>
>
> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the
> bylaws we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling
> all their employees to sign up. This is a problem that we need to
> expose by social shaming -- which the script below will help do for
> us. Thank you!! I'd love to see a graph on the website itself. It's
> pretty interesting to see how many companies _appear to be_
> "padding" the list (Not to call out anyone by name... Rackspace, HP,
etc.).
>
> The bylaws suggest that individual members can be removed if they do
> not participate in at least 50% of the votes within a 24 month
> period. This seems to be addressing the issue of padding the group
> with names of people who want to help their company, not the
> community. Two years is a forgiving filter, but then again, non-
> voters don't hurt anyone. On the other hand, there are going to be
> companies who are very invested in the community, and it's fair to
> expect them to be overrepresented. Much like the US government has
> a house and senate (to represent based on raw population and based
> on votes per state). This foundation has multi-tiers -- and yet will
> skew toward corporate interests. I don't have a problem with this,
> as long as participants are actively involved in helping foster the
> success of the community as a whole. OpenStack is certainly skewing
> more corporate than other open source foundations.
>
> In my case, I have encouraged the members of my company who are
> *directly* working on Open Stack related projects to join -- since
> it is their personal and professional passion. We'll probably have
> about a dozen individuals give or take, maybe some more over time.
> These will be people who will actually invest their time and energy
> to the betterment of the OpenStack community on a regular and ongoing
basis.
>
> I suggest that other companies encourage employee participation in a
> similar manner. Astroturfing, shilling, and hiring a claque to push
> corporate agendas is going to have to be shamed and shunned.
>
> gil yehuda
> director of open source and standards, Yahoo! Inc.
> gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc | (408) 336-4857
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Joyce [mailto:matt [at] nycresistor]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:57 AM
> To: Duncan McGreggor
> Cc: foundation [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates
>
> > For those who are curious, I've pushed up an ugly hack to get some
> > basic stats one membership affiliations here:
> > https://gist.github.com/3229457
>
> =/ not particularly happy with those numbers. it's about as fair
> and balanced as fox news.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Aug 1, 2012, 1:02 PM

Post #14 of 129 (500 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Gil Yehuda wrote:
[snip]
>
>In my case, I have encouraged the members of my company who are
>*directly* working on Open Stack related projects to join -- since it
>is their personal and professional passion. We'll probably have
>about a dozen individuals give or take, maybe some more over time.
>These will be people who will actually invest their time and energy
>to the betterment of the OpenStack community on a regular and ongoing
>basis.
>
>I suggest that other companies encourage employee participation in a
>similar manner. Astroturfing, shilling, and hiring a claque to push
>corporate agendas is going to have to be shamed and shunned.

+1
I'm a bit dismayed at the distribution. I also agree with Benjamin who noted that the motivation behind the individual membership class as giving a voice to those who could not afford a significant sponsorship.
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer [at] us
Twitter: christo4ferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

stefano at openstack

Aug 1, 2012, 1:05 PM

Post #15 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

On 08/01/2012 12:37 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the
> bylaws we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling
> all their employees to sign up.

Maybe, but the way the rules for composition of the board make it
impossible for a company to have more than two people sitting on the
board. Out of 24 Board Members, what's the worst that can happen?

> This is a problem that we need to
> expose by social shaming -- which the script below will help do for
> us. Thank you!! I'd love to see a graph on the website itself.

I don't think there is nothing to be ashamed of if HP and Rackspace
employees are flocking to join as individual members. Speaking for what
I know at Rackspace, the company is investing deeply in OpenStack and I
have no doubt that this sort of support from corporate leadership is
permeating down the lines of employees.

I'd really like to investigate better the worst case scenario here,
considering the sort of systems put in place in the bylaws to have a
balanced board.

/stef

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

dug at us

Aug 1, 2012, 1:07 PM

Post #16 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Benjamin Black wrote on 08/01/2012 03:40:31 PM:
> In that spirit, I hope to
> see platinum and gold member company employees disqualified for
> individual seats.

Unless the by-laws say so I don't see why this needs to happen.

(Note, I'm not saying I like (or dislike) the by-laws as they stand but
they are what they are - if people want them changed then speak up)

-Doug

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

b at b3k

Aug 1, 2012, 1:17 PM

Post #17 of 129 (499 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano [at] openstack> wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 12:37 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
>> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the
>> bylaws we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling
>> all their employees to sign up.
>
> Maybe, but the way the rules for composition of the board make it
> impossible for a company to have more than two people sitting on the
> board. Out of 24 Board Members, what's the worst that can happen?
>

"Maybe" in this case includes the CEO of Rackspace sending email out
to all employees telling them to join, so it is perhaps not so
speculative? The worst that can happen: all platinum and gold company
leadership does the same, packs the election with their own employees
as voters and candidates, shuts out the individuals from the community
for which those seats are explicitly intended. Why would there be any
other expectation?

b

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

matt at nycresistor

Aug 1, 2012, 1:22 PM

Post #18 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

Pretty much my thoughts.
On Aug 1, 2012 1:19 PM, "Benjamin Black" wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano [at] openstack>
> wrote:
> > On 08/01/2012 12:37 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> >> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the
> >> bylaws we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling
> >> all their employees to sign up.
> >
> > Maybe, but the way the rules for composition of the board make it
> > impossible for a company to have more than two people sitting on the
> > board. Out of 24 Board Members, what's the worst that can happen?
> >
>
> "Maybe" in this case includes the CEO of Rackspace sending email out
> to all employees telling them to join, so it is perhaps not so
> speculative? The worst that can happen: all platinum and gold company
> leadership does the same, packs the election with their own employees
> as voters and candidates, shuts out the individuals from the community
> for which those seats are explicitly intended. Why would there be any
> other expectation?
>
>
> b
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

b at b3k

Aug 1, 2012, 1:30 PM

Post #19 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
> Benjamin Black wrote on 08/01/2012 03:40:31 PM:
>> In that spirit, I hope to
>> see platinum and gold member company employees disqualified for
>> individual seats.
>
> Unless the by-laws say so I don't see why this needs to happen.
>
> (Note, I'm not saying I like (or dislike) the by-laws as they stand but
> they are what they are - if people want them changed then speak up)
>
> -Doug
>

I am speaking up. Allowing member companies to field candidates for
individual seats calls into question why they are called "individual".
If companies want to have multiple seats, they should pay for them.
The current structure almost guarantees the sort of manipulation
already being seen.

b

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

gyehuda at yahoo-inc

Aug 1, 2012, 1:32 PM

Post #20 of 129 (502 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

The optics are bad. If I was at Rackspace I would have strongly advised 700 of those people not to join, or at least not join yet. I'm waiting for the blog posts to be written that call this out.

Sure, if all you need are two people to sit on a board, then you don't need to have 750 members than anyone else. This is not a critique of commitment to the project (which Rackspace clearly has demonstrated above everyone else), or of practical skew of votes (as you suggest, you only get two seats anyway), but of the message sent to the community (and the critics).

Remember, Rackspace elected to create a foundation since the feedback it got from the community was that people perceive they are being over controlling. Now, it is probably the case that Rackspace *was not* being as over-controlling as people were accusing them of, but the charge was damaging enough to the long-term health of this community for Rackspace to say -- "Ok, we'll create a foundation and let it live outside of our control." This was very clever and widely applauded as a great idea. But this graph erodes that message, and invites further speculation that the accusation was valid and is still a concern. It looks like someone was not thinking of the implications.

The foundation exists so that people see this community as "ours" not "yours" -- and Rackspace ought to be clever about this. If indeed it does not have a material impact on the outcome of the board, all the more reason to tell Rackspace (and HP) employees to hold off and not fuel this backlash at this delicate time. The worst case scenario? Bad press, people perceive the obvious, and leave. I invite some damage control.

gil yehuda
director of open source and standards, Yahoo! Inc.
gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc | (408) 336-4857

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stefano [at] openstack]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:06 PM
To: foundation [at] lists
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates

On 08/01/2012 12:37 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the bylaws
> we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling all their
> employees to sign up.

Maybe, but the way the rules for composition of the board make it impossible for a company to have more than two people sitting on the board. Out of 24 Board Members, what's the worst that can happen?

> This is a problem that we need to
> expose by social shaming -- which the script below will help do for
> us. Thank you!! I'd love to see a graph on the website itself.

I don't think there is nothing to be ashamed of if HP and Rackspace employees are flocking to join as individual members. Speaking for what I know at Rackspace, the company is investing deeply in OpenStack and I have no doubt that this sort of support from corporate leadership is permeating down the lines of employees.

I'd really like to investigate better the worst case scenario here, considering the sort of systems put in place in the bylaws to have a balanced board.

/stef

_______________________________________________
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

kmestery at cisco

Aug 1, 2012, 1:44 PM

Post #21 of 129 (500 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

I think Gil brings up good points below. Regardless of intent, the graphic represented below will be fodder for blog posts and criticism about how "open" OpenStack really is. This could easily get out of hand and require damage control, as Gil indicates. Perhaps heading it off is better than waiting.

Kyle

On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:

> The optics are bad. If I was at Rackspace I would have strongly advised 700 of those people not to join, or at least not join yet. I'm waiting for the blog posts to be written that call this out.
>
> Sure, if all you need are two people to sit on a board, then you don't need to have 750 members than anyone else. This is not a critique of commitment to the project (which Rackspace clearly has demonstrated above everyone else), or of practical skew of votes (as you suggest, you only get two seats anyway), but of the message sent to the community (and the critics).
>
> Remember, Rackspace elected to create a foundation since the feedback it got from the community was that people perceive they are being over controlling. Now, it is probably the case that Rackspace *was not* being as over-controlling as people were accusing them of, but the charge was damaging enough to the long-term health of this community for Rackspace to say -- "Ok, we'll create a foundation and let it live outside of our control." This was very clever and widely applauded as a great idea. But this graph erodes that message, and invites further speculation that the accusation was valid and is still a concern. It looks like someone was not thinking of the implications.
>
> The foundation exists so that people see this community as "ours" not "yours" -- and Rackspace ought to be clever about this. If indeed it does not have a material impact on the outcome of the board, all the more reason to tell Rackspace (and HP) employees to hold off and not fuel this backlash at this delicate time. The worst case scenario? Bad press, people perceive the obvious, and leave. I invite some damage control.
>
>
> gil yehuda
> director of open source and standards, Yahoo! Inc.
> gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc | (408) 336-4857
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stefano [at] openstack]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:06 PM
> To: foundation [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates
>
> On 08/01/2012 12:37 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
>> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the bylaws
>> we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling all their
>> employees to sign up.
>
> Maybe, but the way the rules for composition of the board make it impossible for a company to have more than two people sitting on the board. Out of 24 Board Members, what's the worst that can happen?
>
>> This is a problem that we need to
>> expose by social shaming -- which the script below will help do for
>> us. Thank you!! I'd love to see a graph on the website itself.
>
> I don't think there is nothing to be ashamed of if HP and Rackspace employees are flocking to join as individual members. Speaking for what I know at Rackspace, the company is investing deeply in OpenStack and I have no doubt that this sort of support from corporate leadership is permeating down the lines of employees.
>
> I'd really like to investigate better the worst case scenario here, considering the sort of systems put in place in the bylaws to have a balanced board.
>
> /stef
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

dug at us

Aug 1, 2012, 1:45 PM

Post #22 of 129 (500 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

>... or at least not join yet...
>... to hold off...

Asking for people to adhere to unwritten rules out of the goodness of
their heart is a nice wish but I wouldn't count on it.
If folks are unhappy with people adhering to the current rules then
perhaps the rules need to be changed - sooner rather than later.

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.

Gil Yehuda <gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc>
08/01/2012 04:32 PM

To
Stefano Maffulli <stefano [at] openstack>, "foundation [at] lists"
<foundation [at] lists>
cc

Subject
Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates

The optics are bad. If I was at Rackspace I would have strongly advised
700 of those people not to join, or at least not join yet. I'm waiting for
the blog posts to be written that call this out.

Sure, if all you need are two people to sit on a board, then you don't
need to have 750 members than anyone else. This is not a critique of
commitment to the project (which Rackspace clearly has demonstrated above
everyone else), or of practical skew of votes (as you suggest, you only
get two seats anyway), but of the message sent to the community (and the
critics).

Remember, Rackspace elected to create a foundation since the feedback it
got from the community was that people perceive they are being over
controlling. Now, it is probably the case that Rackspace *was not* being
as over-controlling as people were accusing them of, but the charge was
damaging enough to the long-term health of this community for Rackspace to
say -- "Ok, we'll create a foundation and let it live outside of our
control." This was very clever and widely applauded as a great idea. But
this graph erodes that message, and invites further speculation that the
accusation was valid and is still a concern. It looks like someone was not
thinking of the implications.

The foundation exists so that people see this community as "ours" not
"yours" -- and Rackspace ought to be clever about this. If indeed it does
not have a material impact on the outcome of the board, all the more
reason to tell Rackspace (and HP) employees to hold off and not fuel this
backlash at this delicate time. The worst case scenario? Bad press, people
perceive the obvious, and leave. I invite some damage control.

gil yehuda
director of open source and standards, Yahoo! Inc.
gyehuda [at] yahoo-inc | (408) 336-4857

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stefano [at] openstack]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:06 PM
To: foundation [at] lists
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Nomination Process Updates

On 08/01/2012 12:37 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> Seriously, when reviewing the Individual Membership part of the bylaws
> we noticed that companies could "game" the system by telling all their
> employees to sign up.

Maybe, but the way the rules for composition of the board make it
impossible for a company to have more than two people sitting on the
board. Out of 24 Board Members, what's the worst that can happen?

> This is a problem that we need to
> expose by social shaming -- which the script below will help do for
> us. Thank you!! I'd love to see a graph on the website itself.

I don't think there is nothing to be ashamed of if HP and Rackspace
employees are flocking to join as individual members. Speaking for what I
know at Rackspace, the company is investing deeply in OpenStack and I have
no doubt that this sort of support from corporate leadership is permeating
down the lines of employees.

I'd really like to investigate better the worst case scenario here,
considering the sort of systems put in place in the bylaws to have a
balanced board.

/stef

_______________________________________________
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

soren at linux2go

Aug 1, 2012, 1:48 PM

Post #23 of 129 (502 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

2012/8/1 Benjamin Black :
> Even further, why are employees of platinum and gold member companies
> allows to run at all given that the point of the individual seats is
> to expand representation to include those unable to pay to play?

Just like my ramblings on the Internet are a manifestation of my own
views and not those of my employer, the inverse holds true as well:
Cisco does not represent me. I've worked for no less than three
companies during my involvement with OpenStack. I have much more history
with OpenStack than I do with Cisco. Why on Earth should I not be
allowed to run for the board of directors?

--
Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

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

b at b3k

Aug 1, 2012, 1:58 PM

Post #24 of 129 (502 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

In general, that is true. In this case we are discussing
representation by individuals on a board for an industry project which
your employer has chosen to join. They have a commercial interest in
the activities of the board, now, and as an employee, so do you. This
creates a clear conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not
mean you _would_ represent your employer via an individual seat, it
means the incentives are present both for you and Cisco to do so.
That is true for all other member companies and their employees, as
well. This is one reason I strongly support excluding member
companies from fielding candidates for individual seats.

b

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Soren Hansen <soren [at] linux2go> wrote:
> 2012/8/1 Benjamin Black :
>> Even further, why are employees of platinum and gold member companies
>> allows to run at all given that the point of the individual seats is
>> to expand representation to include those unable to pay to play?
>
> Just like my ramblings on the Internet are a manifestation of my own
> views and not those of my employer, the inverse holds true as well:
> Cisco does not represent me. I've worked for no less than three
> companies during my involvement with OpenStack. I have much more history
> with OpenStack than I do with Cisco. Why on Earth should I not be
> allowed to run for the board of directors?
>
> --
> Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
> Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
> Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
> OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

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

mordred at inaugust

Aug 1, 2012, 2:04 PM

Post #25 of 129 (501 views)
Permalink

Re: Nomination Process Updates [In reply to]

On 08/01/2012 03:48 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2012/8/1 Benjamin Black :
>> Even further, why are employees of platinum and gold member companies
>> allows to run at all given that the point of the individual seats is
>> to expand representation to include those unable to pay to play?
>
> Just like my ramblings on the Internet are a manifestation of my own
> views and not those of my employer, the inverse holds true as well:
> Cisco does not represent me. I've worked for no less than three
> companies during my involvement with OpenStack. I have much more history
> with OpenStack than I do with Cisco. Why on Earth should I not be
> allowed to run for the board of directors?

I could not possibly agree more with Soren on this - and I think anyone
who knows either of us will attest that, from the moment we both started
working on helping set up this project we have both consistently acted
with the interests of the project in mind. I have regularly told both
Rackspace and HP that they are wrong in choices they have made, and I
have fought for what I personally believe is right for OpenStack as a
project. If I am elected to the board I can promise you that my actions
will have not be those of a puppet sat there to do as his employer tells
him - and I will expect that if I move companies again, I will not only
retain my seat, but I will retain my ability to be re-elected.

If anything, any Platinum member for whom I might be employed is getting
the short end of the stick, because without me as an employee, they
might be more able to put people on the board with more of a mind to
represent their business interests.

Monty

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

1 2 3 4 5 6

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads