Open Stack

Simon,

Glad you are sharing this feedback with me (and the list).  Throughout this process, we (and I personally) have adapted to significant community feedback and responded in a measured way.  I take my role as a neutral representative very seriously and strive to speak for many opinions that I’ve heard instead of my own position.  That includes positions that YOU have stated.  I’d happily allow someone else to lead (or co-lead) this process – it has been a substantial personal investment for which I’ve drawn negative attention and comments.

Regarding “thrash” – I do believe that is the correct term.  If the OpenStack board is to succeed, we need to have working sessions and committee discussion that actually produce real results.  DefCore had a very open dialog about these issues leading up to the Board meeting.  Unless we want to meet much more often (which I would support) then the Board members with strong positions should be active in the committees so that all sides of the issue can be heard where there is sufficient time to address them.  If any of these issues were raised before the meeting based on the detailed report I submitted then I would have withdrawn the recommendations and allowed time for other topics.

Personally, I think additional marks are reasonable.  They have been part of the stated plan from the start and we intentionally delayed them so that we nail down the smallest definition first.  If that is now considered blocking progress then let’s address the suggest marks and keep moving.

Rob

From: Simon Anderson [mailto:simon at dreamhost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Hirschfeld, Rob
Cc: Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Suggestions on trademark changes, possible meeting 10/2 or earlier

Rob, candidly, I think you are way overstating things and being disrespectful of the Board in referring to the careful discussion and debate around DefCore as "thrash".

The Board is very diverse, as it should be, and in the thick of considering an extremely important issue that will have ramifications for the health and growth of the OpenStack community in years to come. It's very important that members of the Board feel fully able to take time to consider and respond to evolving community inputs on DefCore, without being criticized for not dancing to any other stakeholders tune.

I think you are getting too personally attached to the DefCore process. You've been instrumental in leading it so far, but you should carefully think about whether you can shift to the more patient, objective and non-judgmental approach that will be needed to see it through to its conclusion.


Best,
Simon

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:36 AM, <Rob_Hirschfeld at dell.com<mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld at dell.com>> wrote:
Dell Customer Communication

> From: Simon Anderson [mailto:simon at dreamhost.com<mailto:simon at dreamhost.com>] Hi Rob, I may have
> heard a different output from the Board call - which was that the Foundation staff would work on some multi-TM proposals and share them with the DefCore committee/Board. So Jonathan, Mark and Lauren may already be working on them.

Simon, I heard a lot of different positions taken.  There was no clear guidance from the board in this regard and I believe our charter is to propose a variety of options for discussion.   One could/should be "stay the course" and others should explore "levels" like the TC are discussing.  Another path would be to accelerate the "submarks" like you've suggested as an addition to the core/base mark we've put into the process.

My issue is NOT with the changes proposed (there are several reasonable options) but with the continuous thrash in the board meeting that dilutes our effectiveness.  These issues and discussions should have been raised before the meeting so that we could adjust the agenda.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140924/f7f4a402/attachment-0001.html>