> How are participating organizations going to join the foundation, and
> what dollar amounts grant the donor organization what rights? Is it a
> good idea to look at separating the (currently singular) Project
> Policy Board into at least two boards, one focused on technical
> matters and another focused on legal, copyright, and trademark issues?
As I said during the Town Hall session at the Conference, I think there
needs to be a Board of directors (where membership is linked to your
company commitment to OpenStack, including monetary) that is separate
from the Technical board (which should become a pure elected code
This board of directors should handle how the Foundation money is spent
(including setting compensation for Foundation employees, if any),
should encourage participation and focus on legal issues. Should they
also handle (or participate to) the OpenStack scope definition ?
The board of directors could have Strategic members (that show a
multi-year monetary commitment, together with some measurable level of
strategic involvement in the project, to be defined) with one seat each.
It should also have Sustaining members: a number of seats for
representatives of the wider ecosystem of companies showing interest in
OpenStack. For example, if you have 5 strategic members and 80 ordinary
companies, you could have a total of 9 seats, with all ordinary
companies holding an election to decide who should represent them on
their 4 board seats.
The Technical board should rule on all technical matters, and should be
purely elected from the current corpus of code committers (one author /
one vote). It should be kept small for efficiency reasons (9 or 11
members ?). There could be safeguards in place to avoid that a single
company gets more than 50% of the seats. I think PTLs should run for
election like any other committer: if they don't end up being elected,
they can still participate to technical board meetings, but without a vote.