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@suse.de>
Sent: Tuesday 16th April 2024 10:04
To: project@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