Open Stack

Rob and Jonathan, thank you both for the clarifications. I see where we got wires crossed.

My only further concern is to make sure that, despite the convenience, each potential Bylaws change is structured as a separate redline, and voted on individually - both by the board, and by the membership. Specifically:

1. DefCore-related changes that clarify the meaning of core, and the difference between integrated release and project.
2. ATC-related changes that should be considered an amendment to the TC processes.
3. Legal Affairs committee changes.
4. Election reform (if we end up coming back to this one).
5. CLA reform (again, if it comes back in).

Since I’ve seen scope creep on #2 and #3, I start to get worried about 4 and 5 - which would certainly nuke our chances of getting 1 through this window.

I believe the clarification of all of this is one of the things that got sacrificed at the last board meeting due to poor schedule management. Alan, can you make sure we have at least 30 minutes on the agenda for the next board meeting to talk about Bylaws amendments *if* there’s a goal of driving these forward? That would be on the general topic of making bylaws amendments, not any of the specific redlines that could be in the hopper.


--

Joshua McKenty
Chief Technology Officer
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
+1 (650) 242-5683
+1 (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 Sep 11, 2014, at 9:36 AM, <Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> <Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> wrote:

>> From: Jonathan Bryce [mailto:jonathan at openstack.org] 
>> From Rob's earlier post it sounds like the DefCore process appendix is an absolute pre-requisite before
>> further review of Bylaws changes, even if that pushes the Bylaws changes out past 2015 Individual Member elections. Is that correct?
> 
> Yes, this has been requested as a pre-requisite several times (including at the Board meeting).  I can't see how it would help at this point, but I'm happy to provide numerous references to this ordering going back to before ATL.
> 
> There is no need to risk the timelines.  The purpose of a focus on the appendix (which was drafted in June: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreLighthouse.F2F ) was to make the bylaws changes very minimal.  
> 
> Consequently:
> 1) the bylaws changes should be minimal and not require substantial review/discussion
> 2) the appendix does not require NOT community voting for future changes so the stakes are lower.  We can make adjustments as a Board if needed.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140911/4af66311/attachment.html>