I'm on the look-out for emergent points of consensus, and I think I see one - Sean, you highlighted a 12-member board as being a target, and Dallas mentioned a concern about keeping the board a manageable size as well. Setting aside for a moment the composition (user seats, dev seats, tiered corporate seats vs. all elected, etc) - is a 12-seat board the target?
A second question - how would you define a self-affiliated block of companies? I can imagine throwing my vote behind a shared candidate, but would I have the right to pull support during their term, or would I need to wait for the next election? Can we have a vote of no-confidence for such a representative? (I suppose we could always draft a side letter, but I'm hoping for a general-purpose solution). Heidi's name is dirty enough as it is. -- Joshua McKenty, CEO Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. w: (650) 24-CLOUD m: (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." On Monday, March 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sean Roberts wrote: > How about as many companies that want to contribute annually $100K to running > the foundation separate from marketing and sponsorship, can do so. Each > company or a self-affiliated block of companies can put forward their board > candidate. The companies that contributed to the board can then vote on 2/3 > of the overall board membership. The 8 candidates with the largest number of > votes are board members for one year. The user community would still have 1/3 > of the board seats to elect 4 people of note. The board membership would be > limited to 12 people. This way, all the committees and boards will be elected. > A board membership code of conduct will be very important in this situation, > as to protect the community from some companies up to mischief. > > BTW, I see no reason to dirty the good name of Heidi Klum by dragging her > into this. > sean > roberts > > infrastructure strategy > > sean...@yahoo-inc.com > (applewebdata://2E35986A-DC2A-436F-BB4A-C451982006C2/sean...@yahoo-inc.com) > direct 408-349-5234 mobile 925-980-4729 > > 701 first avenue, sunnyvale, ca, 94089-0703, us > phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 > > > > On 3/12/12 11:06 AM, "Dallas Kashuba" <dal...@dreamhost.com > (mailto:dal...@dreamhost.com)> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > > > Boris Renski Jr. wrote: > > > > While I like the simplicity and elegance of the newly proposed > > > > structure, I don’t see how it does away with the evils of the > > > > pay-to-play model…. Which is what you purport we are striving to > > > > achieve. What you, Josh, proposed is a simplified pay-to-play that > > > > arguably embraces the evils for the “market driven selfishness” in an > > > > even more obvious way than the model before it. In your case, all the > > > > seats are simply purchased for a fixed price of $200K. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, any pay-to-play model will create a threshold effect, and Josh's > > > proposal is just lowering the price to pay to get a reserved board seat > > > to something that a company like Piston Cloud can pay. Since a lot of > > > the 156 companies "supporting" OpenStack can afford such a price tag, > > > you end up with a board containing too many directors. > > > > > > > > > This is something I was wondering about myself. Would there be a limit on > > the number of directors under Josh's proposal? > > > > > > > > Once we accept this, the question of structuring the board really > > > > becomes the question of how does one raise the maximum amount of money > > > > to continue to have a centralized body with a mission to evangelize the > > > > project. You can structure it by tiers to let the bigger guys pay more > > > > and get a bigger logo on the homepage. You can do a flat structure like > > > > Josh proposed. You can auction off the board seats etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see four models for this: > > > > > > All individual seats: All board seats are elected, you get one vote for > > > every foundation member. Sponsoring is done separately. This is likely > > > to raise the smallest amount of money, and the problem remains at > > > another level: "what is a foundation member ?". > > > > > > > > > I agree that this model is likely to raise the smallest amount of money. > > > > > Tiered structure: this is the current proposal, which is well balanced. > > > The only issue is that the board grows by 3 people when (if) a strategic > > > member is added. > > > > > > > > > This is another thing I was wondering about. Will there be a limit on the > > number of strategic members? I don't see the foundation wanting to turn > > away someone waving money around, but then you have to deal with board > > growth. > > > > > > > Single-price: this is Josh's proposal, but I think it will result in a > > > board that is too big and unable to function. > > > > > > > > > > Pay-to-vote: you have two classes: corporate seats and individual seats. > > > Individual members elect the individual seats (which represent 25-33% of > > > the total). Corporate seats are also all elected and corporations get a > > > vote for every ?$ they put in. One drawback is that large corporations > > > which are no longer guaranteed of getting a board seat will probably pay > > > less under this model. > > > > > > > > > Also agreed that large corporations will likely pay less without a > > guaranteed board seat. > > > > > > We've been watching this conversation with much interest over the last > > couple of days at DreamHost. Its great to see so many smart people who > > clearly care a great deal about this project and the foundation! > > > > I've been personally wrestling with this balance of fundraising vs the best > > leadership for the foundation. I think ultimately the best leadership > > would be the meritocratic approach insulated from the money side of things, > > but I also see a lot of value in the financial stability provided by larger > > companies committing to a significant amount of funding over the longer > > term. > > > > > > One additional question I've been pondering relates to both the > > "Single-price" and "Tiered structure" models as Thierry referred to them > > here. If you do put limits on total board seats (and thus total foundation > > membership), what do you do if there are more companies interested in > > membership than you have spots available? Do companies get turned away and > > if they do, what process is used to figure out who is in and who is out (in > > the voice of Heidi Klum). > > > > > > > Personally, I tend to prefer models that effectively prevent the board > > > from growing uncontrollably. > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > - Dallas > > > > -- > > Co-Founder, DreamHost > > dal...@dreamhost.com (mailto:dal...@dreamhost.com) > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Foundation mailing list > > foundat...@lists.openstack.org (mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org) > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation > > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation mailing list > foundat...@lists.openstack.org (mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org) > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
