Open Stack

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.

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