Mailing List Archive

No subject
> Should the foundation even have employees, or should foundation roles
> simply be employees of donor organizations, with their salaries
> composing some part of foundation membership dues?

I'd say both options are on the table, and they don't have to be
exclusive. Someone working full-time on Foundation-owned tasks (see
"Scope of Foundation" thread) should be considered working on the
Foundation.

In the same area, will the foundation need specific officers
(delegations of power from the board of directors or technical board) ?
Or can it all be run from the boards themselves ? What would be those
roles ? I'm a big fan of letting people do the work and impose
themselves as the natural person in charge (rather than be appointed and
not necessarily do the work well), but in this precise case it may fall
a bit short...

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
No subject [ In reply to ]
> What, if any, technical roles should be placed into the foundation?
> Release management? Community management? Infrastructure development
> like Jenkins and source control, list management, etc?

I think the foundation should definitely own the infrastructure
necessary to produce OpenStack core projects. Servers and manpower could
be donated by one member (and its value be deduced somehow of its
membership fee), but in the end, I think the task of keeping everything
running should be a Foundation task.

> Should openstack.org and the maintenance of that site be moved under
> control of foundation employees?

I think it would make sense. openstack.org would probably end up being
the foundation domain ?

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
No subject [ In reply to ]
> How are participating organizations going to join the foundation, and
> what dollar amounts grant the donor organization what rights? Is it a
> good idea to look at separating the (currently singular) Project
> Policy Board into at least two boards, one focused on technical
> matters and another focused on legal, copyright, and trademark issues?

As I said during the Town Hall session at the Conference, I think there
needs to be a Board of directors (where membership is linked to your
company commitment to OpenStack, including monetary) that is separate
from the Technical board (which should become a pure elected code
committer meritocracy).

This board of directors should handle how the Foundation money is spent
(including setting compensation for Foundation employees, if any),
should encourage participation and focus on legal issues. Should they
also handle (or participate to) the OpenStack scope definition ?

The board of directors could have Strategic members (that show a
multi-year monetary commitment, together with some measurable level of
strategic involvement in the project, to be defined) with one seat each.
It should also have Sustaining members: a number of seats for
representatives of the wider ecosystem of companies showing interest in
OpenStack. For example, if you have 5 strategic members and 80 ordinary
companies, you could have a total of 9 seats, with all ordinary
companies holding an election to decide who should represent them on
their 4 board seats.

The Technical board should rule on all technical matters, and should be
purely elected from the current corpus of code committers (one author /
one vote). It should be kept small for efficiency reasons (9 or 11
members ?). There could be safeguards in place to avoid that a single
company gets more than 50% of the seats. I think PTLs should run for
election like any other committer: if they don't end up being elected,
they can still participate to technical board meetings, but without a vote.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
No subject [ In reply to ]
> What, if any, technical roles should be placed into the foundation?
> Release management? Community management? Infrastructure development
> like Jenkins and source control, list management, etc?

I think the foundation should definitely own the infrastructure
necessary to produce OpenStack core projects. Servers and manpower could
be donated by one member (and its value be deduced somehow of its
membership fee), but in the end, I think the task of keeping everything
running should be a Foundation task.

> Should openstack.org and the maintenance of that site be moved under
> control of foundation employees?

I think it would make sense. openstack.org would probably end up being
the foundation domain ?

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
No subject [ In reply to ]
> Should the foundation even have employees, or should foundation roles
> simply be employees of donor organizations, with their salaries
> composing some part of foundation membership dues?

I'd say both options are on the table, and they don't have to be
exclusive. Someone working full-time on Foundation-owned tasks (see
"Scope of Foundation" thread) should be considered working on the
Foundation.

In the same area, will the foundation need specific officers
(delegations of power from the board of directors or technical board) ?
Or can it all be run from the boards themselves ? What would be those
roles ? I'm a big fan of letting people do the work and impose
themselves as the natural person in charge (rather than be appointed and
not necessarily do the work well), but in this precise case it may fall
a bit short...

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
No subject [ In reply to ]
> How are participating organizations going to join the foundation, and
> what dollar amounts grant the donor organization what rights? Is it a
> good idea to look at separating the (currently singular) Project
> Policy Board into at least two boards, one focused on technical
> matters and another focused on legal, copyright, and trademark issues?

As I said during the Town Hall session at the Conference, I think there
needs to be a Board of directors (where membership is linked to your
company commitment to OpenStack, including monetary) that is separate
from the Technical board (which should become a pure elected code
committer meritocracy).

This board of directors should handle how the Foundation money is spent
(including setting compensation for Foundation employees, if any),
should encourage participation and focus on legal issues. Should they
also handle (or participate to) the OpenStack scope definition ?

The board of directors could have Strategic members (that show a
multi-year monetary commitment, together with some measurable level of
strategic involvement in the project, to be defined) with one seat each.
It should also have Sustaining members: a number of seats for
representatives of the wider ecosystem of companies showing interest in
OpenStack. For example, if you have 5 strategic members and 80 ordinary
companies, you could have a total of 9 seats, with all ordinary
companies holding an election to decide who should represent them on
their 4 board seats.

The Technical board should rule on all technical matters, and should be
purely elected from the current corpus of code committers (one author /
one vote). It should be kept small for efficiency reasons (9 or 11
members ?). There could be safeguards in place to avoid that a single
company gets more than 50% of the seats. I think PTLs should run for
election like any other committer: if they don't end up being elected,
they can still participate to technical board meetings, but without a vote.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation