April 2024 - openSUSE Project - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Board statement on the Code of Conduct.
by Simon Lees 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

Let me confirm that all board members unanimously agree that the Code of Conduct applies uniformly across all openSUSE community spaces and platforms including mailing lists, forums, IRC and others. Additionally we believe it applies to all individuals contributing to or representing the community, including any instances where a member is choosing to use an @opensuse.org email address, IRC Cloak or any other mention of a relationship to openSUSE in there communication. Simon Lees (on behalf of the board) -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

6 5

Tomorrow's openSUSE Release call is cancelled
by Lubos Kocman 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

Hello openSUSE Tomorrow's openSUSE Release call is cancelled as most countries have a public holiday. Everyone is welcome to provide an update for the past week in the etherpad https://etherpad.opensuse.org/p/ReleaseEngineering-20240501 Many thanks and enjoy the sunny weather! ps. I noticed that all release call sessions in calendar-o-o were cancelled, so that should be fixed now. -- Best regards Luboš Kocman openSUSE Leap Release Manager

1 0

On the efficacy of the openSUSE Board
by Richard Brown 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

Dear Project, The latest incident on this list has me questioning the efficacy of the openSUSE Board While I am not yet at the point of joining the calls for their full re-election, I do feel the Board as a whole and as individuals need to do more to justify the trust we put in them as a Project. The entire operation of the Board can only ever work if the Project trusts its Board. I do not see how Project members with integrity can do so at the moment. This fact undermines any decision, guidance or conflict resolution action of the Board and leads to a perverse situation where the morally & ethically “right” action could well be to ignore the Board and its decisions. Before I highlight concerns regarding individual Board members, I think the biggest issue is one they need to address as a whole - how the Board communicate and defend their decisions as a Board. I strongly believe that the Board should defend its decisions as a group. Once a decision is made, I feel the Board should all, collectively, own it and defend it. I do not think Board decisions can be defended individually. The whole point of the Board is to decide on topics (eg. conflict resolution) where individual empowerment has failed and an independent body is needed to step in and chart a course, often a controversial one. Easy decisions shouldn't need the Board. It is an imperfect model - In my time on the Board I certainly hated repeatedly defending decisions I disagreed with, but it is the role the Project requires. If the Board does not wish to operate under this model, then I think the only way forward is for each individual Board member to be far more active and visible than most of them currently are. Taking this recent incident as an example. I've been able to clearly take away the following from the recent incident: Simon has continued his mindset of "tolerating intolerance" and advocating for the support and inclusion of people who breach our community standards. This is consistent with his views during the "Rainbow flag" discussions of 9 months ago. His views do not appear to have evolved over those 9 months and I feel should disqualify them from being a Board member. I expressed this view both in my vote and in my campaigning for any-other-candidate in the last election, and intend to continue to do so. Neal and Gerald have been quietly supportive of the concept of consistent moderation, but I'd characterise their engagement with the thread as 'diplomatically attempting to avoid conflict', sometimes at the expense of addressing what needs to be addressed. I cannot say that I am wholly confident that I know where either of them stand or whether they believe very strongly on this topic. Gertjan was obviously strongly supportive of the concept of consistent moderation, to the point where he has clearly resigned over his perceived lack of support from his Board colleagues on the topic. Absolutely nothing has been heard from Douglas (besides wishing Gertjan well) or Patrick. The most generous assessment of their involvement in the Board is that they are currently empty chairs. If I was to speculate, based on Gertjan's decision to resign, it would be reasonable to assume that they lean more towards the Simon-side of the debate, making Gertjan's position for strong moderation clearly untenable as a minority opinion. But we just cannot be sure, because they are effectively absent. If the Board is not going to defend its decisions collectively (and this whole debate was triggered by a Board decision, it was even minuted), then the Board must all be active as individuals. If the Board fails to step up, either as a collective or as individuals, I do not see how they can effectively serve the Project. In its current form, I do not see how Project members are expected to respect, honour, or even consider their views more seriously than any other random person in the Project. Regards, Richard -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich

23 52

Next openSUSE Board Meeting
by ddemaio openSUSE 17 Apr '24

17 Apr '24

The openSUSE board meeting next week is scheduled at a different time than normal. This is planned for April 25 at 15:00 UTC or 17:00 CET. Should you want to join, visit calendar.opensuse.org for more details. v/r Doug

1 0

Gmail and opensuse.org and suse.com mails
by Gerald Pfeifer 17 Apr '24

17 Apr '24

These last days several of us "lost" mails to opensuse.org and suse.com addresses which we ended up finding in Gmail's spam folder. I recommend you have a look there. Gerald

2 1

RE: On the efficacy of the openSUSE Board
by Patrick Fitzgerald 17 Apr '24

17 Apr '24

Richard, Instead of speculating, it would wise to attend the board meetings to take part in the debate, or at least listen to what is going on. Calling 2 members of the board "empty chairs" is insulting and counter productive. If you were to attend you would be party to the decisions and how they came to be made. Oh and the dissent as well. More below though: -----Original message----- From: Richard Brown <rbrown(a)suse.de> Sent: Tuesday 16th April 2024 10:04 To: project(a)lists.opensuse.org Subject: On the efficacy of the openSUSE Board Dear Project, The latest incident on this list has me questioning the efficacy of the openSUSE Board While I am not yet at the point of joining the calls for their full re-election, I do feel the Board as a whole and as individuals need to do more to justify the trust we put in them as a Project. The entire operation of the Board can only ever work if the Project trusts its Board. I do not see how Project members with integrity can do so at the moment. This fact undermines any decision, guidance or conflict resolution action of the Board and leads to a perverse situation where the morally & ethically “right” action could well be to ignore the Board and its decisions. Before I highlight concerns regarding individual Board members, I think the biggest issue is one they need to address as a whole - how the Board communicate and defend their decisions as a Board. Wow. There is so much packed into those paragraphs. I strongly believe that the Board should defend its decisions as a group. Well I agree with that. Once a decision is made, I feel the Board should all, collectively, own it and defend it. Now I'm confused. So you want the whole board to come out, and individually defend the decisions made as a group? Or? I do not think Board decisions can be defended individually. The whole point of the Board is to decide on topics (eg. conflict resolution) where individual empowerment has failed and an independent body is needed to step in and chart a course, often a controversial one. Easy decisions shouldn't need the Board. It is an imperfect model - In my time on the Board I certainly hated repeatedly defending decisions I disagreed with, but it is the role the Project requires. I agree. If the Board does not wish to operate under this model, then I think the only way forward is for each individual Board member to be far more active and visible than most of them currently are. The assumption you make, without any proof, is that board doesn't work the way you think it should. Taking this recent incident as an example. I've been able to clearly take away the following from the recent incident: Simon has continued his mindset of "tolerating intolerance" and advocating for the support and inclusion of people who breach our community standards. This is consistent with his views during the "Rainbow flag" discussions of 9 months ago. His views do not appear to have evolved over those 9 months and I feel should disqualify them from being a Board member. Wow! Sounds like censorship to me. Just saying. I expressed this view both in my vote and in my campaigning for any-other-candidate in the last election, and intend to continue to do so. Noted. And yet Simon still won a seat. Neal and Gerald have been quietly supportive of the concept of consistent moderation, but I'd characterise their engagement with the thread as 'diplomatically attempting to avoid conflict', sometimes at the expense of addressing what needs to be addressed. I cannot say that I am wholly confident that I know where either of them stand or whether they believe very strongly on this topic. Gertjan was obviously strongly supportive of the concept of consistent moderation, to the point where he has clearly resigned over his perceived lack of support from his Board colleagues on the topic. Absolutely nothing has been heard from Douglas (besides wishing Gertjan well) or Patrick. The most generous assessment of their involvement in the Board is that they are currently empty chairs. If I was to speculate, based on Gertjan's decision to resign, it would be reasonable to assume that they lean more towards the Simon-side of the debate, making Gertjan's position for strong moderation clearly untenable as a minority opinion. I wouldn't speculate if I were you. Why don't you participate and attend a board meeting instead? But we just cannot be sure, because they are effectively absent. If the Board is not going to defend its decisions collectively (and this whole debate was triggered by a Board decision, it was even minuted), then the Board must all be active as individuals. If the Board fails to step up, either as a collective or as individuals, I do not see how they can effectively serve the Project. There you go again. Individual or collective? In its current form, I do not see how Project members are expected to respect, honour, or even consider their views more seriously than any other random person in the Project. You have every right to say all of this, however agitating for change without a single formal complaint is... weird. And don't forget, the community have voted, not just you. Personally speaking, I am proud of what I have done whilst initially advising, and later becoming, a board member. Most of that of course has revolved around the Geeko Foundation, which is now administering the TSP and attracting donations from individuals and corporates alike. That is a first for the project, and there will be a lot more news on this in the coming months. So, I really don't think I am an empty chair. Nor is any other member of the board. Best regards! Patrick Regards, Richard -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich

10 27

My resignation from the openSUSE Board
by Knurpht-openSUSE 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

Dear Community I am writing this to let you know that I have sent my letter of resignation from the openSUSE Board to the rest of the Board last week. In short I felt I could no longer be on the Board **and** stand with my fellow mods and admins. This does not mean I will drop any other activities, at least not for now. I thank you all for the confidence you showed by giving me your vote, the numerous messages, the support etc. I'm grateful for that. Wishing you well, -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team openSUSE Mods Team

8 7

RE: On the efficacy of the openSUSE Board
by Patrick Fitzgerald 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

Richard: So wrong. Even in disagreement, it's typically expected that board members present a unified front. (If they haven't, it is a matter for the board to deal with, by the way). Publicising dissent can undermine the collective authority of the board - and encouraging board members for personal opinions is not productive. Preserving the effectiveness of the board is paramount, and I suggest you make a formal complaint so that we can deal with it, as a board, at the next meeting, but not live and real time. Thanks - Patrick -----Original message----- From: Richard Brown <rbrown(a)suse.de> Sent: Tuesday 16th April 2024 11:55 To: project(a)lists.opensuse.org Subject: Re: On the efficacy of the openSUSE Board On 2024-04-16 11:49, Douglas DeMaio wrote: >> Absolutely nothing has been heard from Douglas (besides wishing >> Gertjan >> well) or Patrick. >> >> The most generous assessment of their involvement in the Board is that >> they are currently empty chairs. >> If I was to speculate, based on Gertjan's decision to resign, it would >> be reasonable to assume that they lean more towards the Simon-side of >> the debate, making Gertjan's position for strong moderation clearly >> untenable as a minority opinion. > > Then don't start a thread based on speculation and resort to > belittlement and name calling. I shared my views with those I felt > needed to hear it. The fact you didn't think the community needed to hear your views underlines my greater concern. If the Board isn't operating as a cohesive group (and currently it is not) then the community deserves, and requires, to always hear your views as an individual. As I clearly state, I believe the better operating model would be one where the Board works as group, makes tough decisions, and supports them without every decision becoming a melee where individual Board members repeatedly undermine and muddy the waters of what the group decided. But in the absence of that, currently, I think your silence is inexcusable. Speculation is the only option we voting members have as a result.

1 0

Some Clarifications on My Actions Last week.
by Simon Lees 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

Hi All, To help move forward I think its worth sending an email to clarify a few things following up from last week. Firstly I strongly believe that the CoC should apply in all our communication channels, events and spaces. While this is an email from myself rather then an official statement from the board, from our discussions in the last week I know that the rest of the board feels the same way. One thing that some people may not be aware of is that I have been long term moderator of our main #opensuse irc channel for many years. For historical reasons and partly due to the move away from freenode #opensuse-chat hasn't had moderators active until recently. It also hadn't had anyone explicitly making the people in that channel aware that the CoC should be followed in this space. Recently the board was made aware that there was some issues on IRC and that maybe it needed more moderation. As a part of that process given that I am A an IRC moderator and B a board member I offered to watch #opensuse closely and report back, then sometime later #opensuse-chat was mentioned as also having issues so I started watching there as well. The mail thread that started this issue was a response to a board meeting minutes where as a followup to these previous reported issues I hadn't seen anything. A side note to this is that I do some development on the IRC Client I use, this means occasionally I am disconnected or loose some messages. Generally this should be ok as it happens most often while I am sleeping and we should have enough moderator coverage to cover all timezones. Unfortunately I was later made aware that I did miss some instances both firstly when my client was down and secondly before I was asked to join #opensuse-chat. As soon as I was made aware of these instances I immediately took action in my capacity as an IRC moderator (rather then as a board member). Having said that given this issue was generating significant attention I also informed the board in case they felt further or alternative action should be taken. One of the reasons for working this way is that as a IRC Moderator I can act immediately where as due to timezone differences it may take up to 24 hrs for us to reach a consensus. Further to that the process that IRC moderators tend to follow is generally far more ad hoc then some other moderation platforms and has traditionally escalated to the board rather then anywhere else in difficult cases. A significant part of this is probably due to the fact that IRC moderators weren't included in some of the other moderation unification that has happened over recent years. As a result my actions may have had the appearance to some as the board acting over the top of moderators which was not the case. Finally the openSUSE Community is one of many diverse views and I have many of my own that I am glad I feel comfortable sharing and discuss at times on the project mailing list, with the aim of making the project stronger. At the end of the day regardless of what my personal opinion is when I am acting as a moderator I will do my best to act in the way that I believe the broader community would expect me to. Also on the odd occasion that I am acting on behalf of the board I will always only do so once I have the board's consensus and I will make it clear to everyone that I am acting on behalf of the board. PS. As a general rule of thumb every email that you see to an openSUSE list from a board member should be treated as an email from that board member and as such is their opinion not the opinion of the board unless it is clearly marked as a statement on behalf of the board. In the interest of openness and for the best decision making sometimes the board will have discussions on the project mailing list to get a greater range of views opinions and feedback. Which is why just as in meetings we may sometimes disagree with each other on mailing lists this may happen as well. PPS. I am traveling this week and may not be able to reply to this email as promptly as I would like. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

2 1

Resigning my membership
by Jan Ritzerfeld 15 Apr '24

15 Apr '24

To the openSUSE community, Almost 20 years ago, I subscribed to the project's German mailing list. Unfortunately, in recent years, I've witnessed numerous discussions here ending poorly. While each incident could be attributed to misunderstandings or assumptions, the repeated assumption of bad faith and the subsequent aggressive enforcement of the Code of Conduct, including personal attacks, harassment, or violent language, contradicts the guiding principle of "working together in an open, transparent and friendly manner". So I've decided to resign my membership today, fondly recalling all the positive moments shared within the community. I've already unsubscribed from all of the project's mailing lists, with the obvious exception of this one. Have a lot of fun... Jan

4 3