Open Stack

Josh et al:

Cloudscaling agrees that we need an open dialog about the formation of 
the foundation.  Save the one open meetup during CloudConnect in early 
February I am unaware of any other open discussions.

Please read
http://www.cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/open-communities-deserve-open-communication/

Bill Franklin
VP of Engineering
Cloudscaling


On 3/9/12 11:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we 
> were launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had 
> waited for permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd 
> still be waiting) - but since the first summit, the community has 
> grown so quickly, and become so diverse, that I have tried to leave 
> discussions of governance, foundation structure, dispute resolution, 
> and most particularly monetary corporate contributions, to others with 
> more... tact.
>
> But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.
>
> The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have 
> all had the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names 
> like IBM, AT&T, Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has 
> been tremendously positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar 
> standing as examples of this), I see things trending in a direction 
> that makes me nervous for the smaller players - for the startups who 
> will live or die on the strength of the OpenStack project. Like Piston 
> Cloud.
>
> The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class 
> of super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that 
> puts it out of reach of all but a small handful of organizations.
>
> This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
> foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued 
> against it (at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.
>
> I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable 
> board of directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have 
> too much trouble guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But 
> it's not a structure that represents or embodies the principles that 
> OpenStack was founded upon, and I think that while it may offer some 
> short-term benefits, it may be damaging to the long-term health of the 
> project because it strangles the ecosystem of contributing companies 
> we've worked so hard to create.
> The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize:
>  - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, 
> bugs and evangelism) along with cash
>  - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field
>  - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance 
> bodies (not tucked away in 'advisory' boards)
>  - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest 
> between the 'company hat' and the 'project hat'
>
> My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are 
> the following:
>  - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less)
>  - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project 
> support activities
>  - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community
>  - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack 
> users and consumers to provide input and feedback
>
> The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without 
> getting into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd 
> like to brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better 
> reflects our goals for an open and democratic community. How's this 
> for a proposal:
>
>  - One class of corporate member
>  - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) 
> working on OpenStack in some capacity
>  - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid 
> annually
>  - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a 
> corporate member
>
> My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests 
> and level of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack 
> ecosystem, is that we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies 
> involved to meet these requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000.
>
> It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't 
> change the structure or composition of the technical committee, and it 
> doesn't limit the ability of the foundation to raise money in other 
> ways (sell sponsorships for events, charge admission for conferences, 
> even license the use of the trademark for training or certification).
>
> If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market 
> economics and enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple 
> "meritocracy", then we can expect the most skilled and dedicated to 
> rise to the top, provided we're extremely careful about how we measure 
> skill and dedication. If we blend the two, I'm deeply concerned that 
> we'll see the worst of both systems play out over time - the 
> selfishness of market-driven economics dominating our decisions with 
> the petulant moralism of the meritocracy. Hoping for any other outcome 
> is, in my opinion, foolish optimism.
>
> At the core of OpenStack is the idea that a single project could 
> address the needs of ALL of our organizations - large, small, 
> producers, consumers, non-profits and tool makers. We need to guard 
> that vision, and protect it from our best intentions. No one in the 
> community, whether individual contributor or corporate sponsor, can 
> claim to speak for (or even understand the perspective of) the 
> majority of us. We're simply too numerous, and too diverse. If you 
> believe, as I do, that *your* company should have a stake in 
> OpenStack's future, then now is the time to speak up in favor of the 
> level playing field we originally set out to create.
>
> With (attempted) diplomacy,
>
> Joshua
>
> --
> Joshua McKenty
> Co-Founder, OpenStack
> CEO, Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> w: (650) 24-CLOUD
> m: (650) 283-6846
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>
> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120309/e5cb5ee6/attachment.html>