Open Stack

Just to compare, here are some other foundations

mozilla.org - 5 directors (currently)
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/moco.html
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/legal/bylaws.html
(bylaws state that they need between 2 and 7 directors)

apache.org - 9 directors
http://apache.org/foundation/board/
http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html

eclipse.org - 16 directors
http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/directors.php
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20BYLAWS%202011_08_15%20Final.pdf

-- dims

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-06 at 12:24 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> At the TC meeting Tuesday, members agreed on the need to change the TC
>> membership model, but diverged on the ideal solution. Three models were
>> mentioned in various preference orders. It was suggested to set up a
>> Condorcet poll to help select the model which was the most consensual
>> and the most likely to reach the threshold of two-thirds of members (10
>> "yes") necessary to pass a TC charter modification ("special motion").
>>
>> The Condorcet winner of this poll[1] is the "All-directly-elected"
>> model: Direct election of TC members over the whole ATC membership using
>> a staggered election every 6 months resulting in one-year seats. Total
>> members would be 11 or 13.
>>
>> Now we need to further discuss and refine the details of this model to
>> come to a clear motion which will be voted on at a future TC meeting.
>>
>> One of the details we need to discuss is the exact number of members. 11
>> or 13 ? In the 11 case, we'd renew 5 members every Fall and 6 every
>> Spring. In the 13 case, we'd renew 6 every Fall and 7 every Spring. A
>> minimum of 6 members would be necessary to hold a meeting in the 11
>> case, and a minimum of 7 members would be necessary in the 13 case.
>> Special motions would take 8 "YES" in a 11-member TC, while they would
>> require 9 "YES" in a 13-member TC. Personally I don't care that much
>> either way, I think both would work.
>
> Slight preference for 13, since it might give us more diversity. Don't
> see a big downside to having 2 more people.
>
>> Another detail is how to encourage diversity while keeping the
>> simplicity of the model. One way to do that might be to use the
>> experimental "proportional" algorithm from CIVS[2]. As markwash
>> suggested, I think we could run the first election(s) as pure Condorcet
>> but save the (anonymized) ballots and check what the results would have
>> been with the "proportional" option enabled. If they seem to still
>> result in natural Condorcet winners but give us additional protection
>> against block voting, we'd consider enabling that option for future
>> elections.
>
> Sounds good.
>
>> Final detail would be how to run the transition from the current TC. We
>> currently have 2 people recently-elected to a one-year term and 13
>> people elected for a six-month term[3]. As a transition, the idea would
>> be to elect in the Fall 2013 election 9 people (5 one-year member and 4
>> six-month members) in the case of a 11-member committee, or 11 people (6
>> one-year member and 5 six-month members) in the case of a 13-member
>> committee. The next election in Spring would then see the normal renewal
>> of 6 (over 11) or 7 (over 13) members.
>
> Again, sounds good.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com