[Advisors] Updates and Next Steps
David.Nalley at citrix.com
Tue Dec 18 18:48:43 UTC 2012
My apologies for slow feedback. Even this is incomplete, but I needed to get something out rather than let it dwindle as a draft.
So a couple of side comments - Apache and Eclipse are very different open source orgs (as is oVirt). I understand some of the attraction to the Eclipse model, but the mixing and matching causes some concern. Each of those foundations has been successful in its own right, can you tell us why not copy one or the other?
So this is somewhat confusing to me. So plenty of assumptions here on my part - it appears that we are setting the stage for the Gluster Software Foundation - there will be multiple projects within the 'GSF'. What isn't clear is how membership is handled across those groups, there is talk about different standards being set within the group once a project is large enough. So I guess a point of clarification - are you a member of the 'Gluster Project' - or are you a member of Gluster sub-projects? or??
So there is plenty of talk about the responsibilities, and making the board more active. But there doesn't seem to be much about the authority of the board. Where does authority end and begin?
There are no officers defined - not necessarily a problem, but…..
So not to call out the 800lb Gorilla in the room - but there is zero mention in the governance document or this email of the relationship to Red Hat.
Is the project completely free from RHT strings? Is it truly independent? Is there to be a legal entity holding various pieces of IP and providing some framework?
Assuming the answer to this is 'no'. What is the relationship to Red Hat, what are the limits on project (and board) authority?
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:17 PM, John Mark Walker wrote:
> <governance doc final draft.odt>
More information about the Advisors