Open Stack

>>> On 9/11/2014 at 03:51 PM, "Alan Clark" <aclark at suse.com> wrote: 
> I had it on the agenda as part of the DefCore discussion, but have moved it 
> to a separate topic, post DefCore.  Moving to a separate topic will, as you 
> point out, help with the confusion.

Eileen is going to gather, coordinate and lead the discussion on this topic for the Board meeting.
AlanClark

> 
> AlanClark
> 
>>>> On 9/11/2014 at 11:28 AM, Joshua McKenty <joshua at pistoncloud.com> wrote: 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee