Employees and Officers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Employees and Officers

Thierry Carrez

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Employees and Officers

Jay Pipes
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> From Jay's original email:
>> Should the foundation even have employees, or should foundation roles
>> simply be employees of donor organizations, with their salaries
>> composing some part of foundation membership dues?
>
> I'd say both options are on the table, and they don't have to be
> exclusive. Someone working full-time on Foundation-owned tasks (see
> "Scope of Foundation" thread) should be considered working on the
> Foundation.

Sure. But I'd like to see specifically what are the roles that would
be proposed to be employees of the foundation...

General Counsel?
Release Manager?
Community Manager/Advocate?
Web Developer for openstack.org domain(s)?
Infrastructure Engineer(s)?
Human Resources Generalist or Recruiter?

> In the same area, will the foundation need specific officers
> (delegations of power from the board of directors or technical board) ?
> Or can it all be run from the boards themselves ? What would be those
> roles ? I'm a big fan of letting people do the work and impose
> themselves as the natural person in charge (rather than be appointed and
> not necessarily do the work well), but in this precise case it may fall
> a bit short...

Well, see above... the alternative to having specific employee roles
designated as foundation employees is to have the foundation have X
number of full-time employees, with those employees working on their
stuff that meets their natural strengths?

-jay

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Employees and Officers

Thierry Carrez
Jay Pipes wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> From Jay's original email:
>>> Should the foundation even have employees, or should foundation roles
>>> simply be employees of donor organizations, with their salaries
>>> composing some part of foundation membership dues?
>>
>> I'd say both options are on the table, and they don't have to be
>> exclusive. Someone working full-time on Foundation-owned tasks (see
>> "Scope of Foundation" thread) should be considered working on the
>> Foundation.
>
> Sure. But I'd like to see specifically what are the roles that would
> be proposed to be employees of the foundation...
>
> General Counsel?
> Release Manager?
> Community Manager/Advocate?
> Web Developer for openstack.org domain(s)?
> Infrastructure Engineer(s)?
> Human Resources Generalist or Recruiter?

It should be the decision of the Money board to decide if a given role
is deemed so central to the Foundation that it should count as a
Foundation role (either directly employed or donated), since it
definitely affects how the Foundation money is spent. I'm not sure we
need to define those beforehand, or write them in stone in the bylaws.

>> In the same area, will the foundation need specific officers
>> (delegations of power from the board of directors or technical board) ?
>> Or can it all be run from the boards themselves ? What would be those
>> roles ? I'm a big fan of letting people do the work and impose
>> themselves as the natural person in charge (rather than be appointed and
>> not necessarily do the work well), but in this precise case it may fall
>> a bit short...
>
> Well, see above... the alternative to having specific employee roles
> designated as foundation employees is to have the foundation have X
> number of full-time employees, with those employees working on their
> stuff that meets their natural strengths?

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation