Well said, Pierre.
Thanks!
I've been silent on this thread, but have been following along - have been hesitant to comment because I know some see me as an instigator because I asked questions about what happened as a result of being concerned that two members of the board departed the board in quick succession.
And you have all the right to be concerned. If not I would not have called for no-confidence vote.
I honestly don't know if I'd vote for removal of the board, but the question on my mind is this: If we have a process whereby the board could be removed by the membership (as we do), but some predict the demise of the project over the potential use of that option - then why did we put the option in place?
I don't think it's been put in place "by an optimist" that made false assumptions about how the community will develop as was stated by Stasiek. Guessing here I'd say it was put in place because of good reasons and involved a lot of careful consideration beforehand. And some other thought: maybe it is even the wrong question. Maybe we should rather ask, why should such a rule lead to the demise of a whole. Is that claim really true or rather fearmongering to keep the community calm and make them refrain from executing their rights to protect the own position or the position of those that are making decision in favor of the own opinion. But, please keep in mind that is a lot of speculation and i would like to rather reduce speculations instead spreading even more of them. We should really focus on a solution and the process and less on blaming who has done something right or is responsible for the current situation as too much things are kept secret here. Don't get me wrong here, I am fine with protecting members and not dragging them through the mud. But in case it's true what I think, then the community has lost confidence in the current board as it stands and then we should take action.
I think the vote itself is a useful tool to measure the temperature of the membership and understand where their heads are at in this situation.
Good words. I second that thought!
I do admit that I find it troubling that being a member, in some peoples' minds, isn't sufficient to raise questions - that you have to be willing to "do more" - to sit on the board, in particular - in order to be "qualified" to be able to expect some accountability. Not everyone seems to think this is necessary, but some apparently do. I understand that this project (and OSS in general) is a "do-ocracy" - that those who want things do them.
This is something I have recognized outside openSUSE, too. Like in politics where politicians are making decisions not in the line with the voters interests and then defending those decisions with either "you as a voter don't know what I know and you have to believe me that I made the best decision in your interest" - what isn't true most of the time, I am sure. Or the defense strategy is "if you know better, don't intervene but take over and take responsibility only then you are able to interfere in the process" though there is a reason voters do have rights like suggesting no-confidence votes or other things. Free speech is a very important rule here and everywhere for a good reason as well as the right to use the rules to intervene in a reasonable manner and according to the rules if something is developing into the wrong direction. As I already pointed out: I am absolutely fine when - according to our rules - there are no 20% of the community backing my intentions of a re-election. In such case community confirms the board in office and that is almost as good as a re-election for me.
I have been asked in the past to run for the board - I have never felt that I could contribute the time to do the job justice. I've spent about 10 years as a member of the forums staff (most of that time as one of three non-technical admins), and have been focused on our Facebook group and page presence as well.
Those are contributions. I am perfectly fine with any contribution. Everyone who is a member has earned to be it and therefore owns the same rights as others.
But somehow, in some peoples' minds, that's not enough to be "qualified" to ask critical questions about the project governance. Recognizing that one cannot commit the time to be directly involved in that governance would seem to me to be a valuable recognition. (I further recognize that were I to offer to step up now, as divisive as some people seem to think I am - well, that would be bad for the project as a whole - so I emphatically would *not* stand for a board position, nor would I take it if someone nominated me - I don't think it would be healthy for the project, and I fully expect some might even look to undermine my involvement *because* they see my involvement as a bad thing).
The community is voting for the board positions. So I see it that way: If you are nominated, there is at least one other member seeing you as a member with the skill-set needed for that position. As soon as the community votes you into that position at least the needed majority of the members confirm that view.
Just a few things to think about.
Thanks for bringing them to the table. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org