Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
While I like the simplicity and elegance of the newly proposed
structure, I don’t see how it does away with the evils of the
pay-to-play model…. Which is what you purport we are striving to
achieve. What you, Josh, proposed is a simplified pay-to-play that
arguably
How about as many companies that want to contribute annually $100K to running
the foundation separate from marketing and sponsorship, can do so. Each
company or a self-affiliated block of companies can put forward their board
candidate. The companies that contributed to the board can then vote
In much the same way we’re struggling with creating a reasonably sized board
that’s a fair representation of both the diversity of the (producer and
consumer) community, and the investments of its sponsors, it feels like we’re
also struggling to identify the key stakeholders in actually forming
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:50 -0800, Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
In my view the price tag for the sponsorship and the ultimate means
for raising the money is not what drives OpenStack’s vendor
independence principles. What matters the most is the degree of
decoupling between the front-end,
We will make ourselves available. I am offering up a Yahoo meeting space in SF,
Santa Clara, or Sunnyvale. Teleconference may be available on short notice.
~sean
On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Joshua McKenty
jos...@pistoncloud.commailto:jos...@pistoncloud.com wrote:
This is great!
Jonathan, do
Having more than 5 companies pony up big dollars *is* a great problem
to have. I didn't mean to suggest the solution stays the same. We need
to plan for this scenario as there is a real chance of more
participants than what has been negotiated in the back rooms.
Of course, everyone wants the
On 03/09/2012 02:38 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
I don't believe ANY open source project has ever had this much
commercial involvement, and certainly not this early in its evolution.
I suspect Linus might disagree with the first part.
--
Robbie Williamson rob...@ubuntu.com
Really? Linux was postcard-ware for the first... what, two years?
--
Joshua McKenty, 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.
On Friday, March 9,
On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Thor Wolpert wrote:
I thought a Foundation that paid for legal, marketing and core
services; along with a hosted set of projects whose membership was
based upon meritocracy was the model.
That is and always has been the plan and can be seen in the
] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
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
openstack@lists.launchpad.net,
foundat...@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
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
(mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org)
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
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
This is great!
Jonathan, do you think a completely-elected board is something that the larger
corporations would go along with? Ben's suggestion to that effect certainly
seems to be the simplest model, since we can scale the membership, deliver
specific value for cash contributions, and
: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
This is great!
Jonathan, do you think a completely-elected board is something that the larger
corporations would go along with? Ben's suggestion to that effect certainly
seems to be the simplest model, since we can scale
14 matches
Mail list logo
