On 21/01/2011 00:11, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

Am 20.01.11, 14:02 +0100 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 20/01/2011 13:36, Kai-Uwe Behrmann a écrit :

...

Gnokii was not just a member who was removed, he is a nominated candidate for the board election [2].

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Nominations:

as far as I know, he was only nominated by Nelson (and I didn't see this on any official mailing list) and during the discussion Nelson never reported this (although the discussion was so long I may have missed the fact), and we have no evidence gnokii was a candidate. However, Nelson was (is).

Here are references: http://karl-tux-stadt.de/ktuxs/?p=2971 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2011-01/msg00013.html

...

I don't want to start again the discussion on the other aspects of this problem.

Sorry, if I just repeated things.

Well, from where I sit all conditions for nomination to be a candidate in the current election for the Board have been met. The person, S Kemter (aka Gnokii), was nominated and as per the requirements: Nominations: The election committee will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election committee will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they are willing to stand for election. These nominations are private until accepted by the nominated people. was approached by Thomas Schmidt by e-mail to which S Kempter responded that he had accepted the nomination and gave the URL of his blog where he states that he will be atanding for the Board. All very much above board and done according to Hoyle. (But what happened after this is has a certain aroma of a dead cat about it from the comments posted about this situation.....) BC -- "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Confucius -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 21/01/2011 16:31, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

Am 21.01.11, 15:46 +1100 schrieb Basil Chupin:

...

On 21/01/2011 00:11, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

...

Am 20.01.11, 14:02 +0100 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 20/01/2011 13:36, Kai-Uwe Behrmann a écrit :

...

Gnokii was not just a member who was removed, he is a nominated candidate for the board election [2].

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Nominations:

as far as I know, he was only nominated by Nelson (and I didn't see this on any official mailing list) and during the discussion Nelson never reported this (although the discussion was so long I may have missed the fact), and we have no evidence gnokii was a candidate. However, Nelson was (is).

Here are references: http://karl-tux-stadt.de/ktuxs/?p=2971 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2011-01/msg00013.html

...

I don't want to start again the discussion on the other aspects of this problem.

Sorry, if I just repeated things.

Well, from where I sit all conditions for nomination to be a candidate in the current election for the Board have been met.

The person, S Kemter (aka Gnokii), was nominated and as per the requirements:

Nominations:

The election committee will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election committee will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they are willing to stand for election. These nominations are private until accepted by the nominated people.

was approached by Thomas Schmidt by e-mail to which S Kempter responded that he had accepted the nomination and gave the URL of his blog where he states that he will be atanding for the Board.

The obvious thing is, S Kempter announced his confirment on 3th Januar on this very list and was removed on 4th January by the board.

Unfortunately, and regrettably, I overlooked that message and have also cleared my deleted messages so I have to take your word for this (unless you care to post a copy in this list for not only myself but others to see if they also overlooked it or I go looking in the archives....).

It would be good to get a transparent information, who in the board voted for the candidates membership removal and who not.

Why did the election commite not protest upon its competence violation?

Don't ask me - the members of the current Board and the election committee would need to answer this.

All very much above board and done according to Hoyle.

I personally do not know Hoyle. Otherwise I agree.

:-) Have a look in the Wikipedia for "Edmond Hoyle".

...

(But what happened after this is has a certain aroma of a dead cat about it from the comments posted about this situation.....)

BC

kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann

BC -- "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Confucius -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 21/01/2011 17:42, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

Am 21.01.11, 17:14 +1100 schrieb Basil Chupin:

...

On 21/01/2011 16:31, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

...

Am 21.01.11, 15:46 +1100 schrieb Basil Chupin:

...

On 21/01/2011 00:11, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

...

Am 20.01.11, 14:02 +0100 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 20/01/2011 13:36, Kai-Uwe Behrmann a écrit :

> Gnokii was not just a member who was removed, he is a nominated > candidate for the board election [2].

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Nominations:

as far as I know, he was only nominated by Nelson (and I didn't see this on any official mailing list) and during the discussion Nelson never reported this (although the discussion was so long I may have missed the fact), and we have no evidence gnokii was a candidate. However, Nelson was (is).

Here are references: http://karl-tux-stadt.de/ktuxs/?p=2971 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2011-01/msg00013.html

...

I don't want to start again the discussion on the other aspects of this problem.

Sorry, if I just repeated things.

Well, from where I sit all conditions for nomination to be a candidate in the current election for the Board have been met.

The person, S Kemter (aka Gnokii), was nominated and as per the requirements:

Nominations:

The election committee will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election committee will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they are willing to stand for election. These nominations are private until accepted by the nominated people.

was approached by Thomas Schmidt by e-mail to which S Kempter responded that he had accepted the nomination and gave the URL of his blog where he states that he will be atanding for the Board.

The obvious thing is, S Kempter announced his confirment on 3th Januar on this very list and was removed on 4th January by the board.

Unfortunately, and regrettably, I overlooked that message and have also cleared my deleted messages so I have to take your word for this (unless you care to post a copy in this list for not only myself but others to see if they also overlooked it or I go looking in the archives....).

For your convenience the candidates confirming email: From: "S.Kemter" Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 23:22:10 +0100

...

Hi,

Am Donnerstag 16 Dezember 2010, 11:35:00 schrieb Thomas Schmidt:

Hi Sirko!

You have been nominated by Nelson Marques to run for a position in the openSUSE board. [1] The board has 2 seats to be elected in january 2011. [2]

This is your chance to have a major word in leading the openSUSE project. It would be great if you step up for candidacy!

I already have thaught about it.

To do so, please announce your candidacy until January 4th. [3]

and published my candidacy already in my personal blog.

http://karl-tux-stadt.de/ktuxs/?p=2971

If you have any questions, please contact the election committee at: election-officials@xxxxxxxxxxxx and we will gladly help you.

Greetings

[1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board [2] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2010 [3] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2010#Phase_0:_Notification_ of_Intent_to_Run

Greetings

br gnokii --

Disclaimer: quotation is by hand from internet.

Aaaargh! :-[ Mea culpa.... I didn't look closely enough at the reference which you provided earlier and in which you quoted the response from Gnokii to the e-mail from Schmidt (in http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2011-01/msg00013.html).

...

...

Why did the election commite not protest upon its competence violation?

Don't ask me - the members of the current Board and the election committee would need to answer this. It would be good to get a transparent information, who in the board voted for the candidates membership removal and who not.

kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann

BC -- "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Confucius -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 21.01.2011 06:31, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

Am 21.01.11, 15:46 +1100 schrieb Basil Chupin:

...

On 21/01/2011 00:11, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

...

Am 20.01.11, 14:02 +0100 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 20/01/2011 13:36, Kai-Uwe Behrmann a écrit :

...

Gnokii was not just a member who was removed, he is a nominated candidate for the board election [2].

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Nominations:

as far as I know, he was only nominated by Nelson (and I didn't see this on any official mailing list) and during the discussion Nelson never reported this (although the discussion was so long I may have missed the fact), and we have no evidence gnokii was a candidate. However, Nelson was (is).

Here are references: http://karl-tux-stadt.de/ktuxs/?p=2971 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2011-01/msg00013.html

...

I don't want to start again the discussion on the other aspects of this problem.

Sorry, if I just repeated things.

Well, from where I sit all conditions for nomination to be a candidate in the current election for the Board have been met.

The person, S Kemter (aka Gnokii), was nominated and as per the requirements:

Nominations:

The election committee will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election committee will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they are willing to stand for election. These nominations are private until accepted by the nominated people.

was approached by Thomas Schmidt by e-mail to which S Kempter responded that he had accepted the nomination and gave the URL of his blog where he states that he will be atanding for the Board.

The obvious thing is, S Kempter announced his confirment on 3th Januar on this very list and was removed on 4th January by the board.

It would be good to get a transparent information, who in the board voted for the candidates membership removal and who not.

Why did the election commite not protest upon its competence violation?

We did not protest, because we share the opinion that the board acted correctly. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Hi Kai-Uwe, I won't bother to respond, had the mail been from some others who are interested in only finding faulting with others and whining, and not doing a single useful bit for the community. But I don't remember any trolling from you previously and so believe your intention is real-care. So, I would like to clarify few things to you (and to some helpful contributors like jdd). Please note that I am not talking on behalf of the board members.

into the look files. Gnokii was banned and kicked out of IRC without immediate reasoning. In my eyes thats down bulling on the side of the administrator. Shurely not the only case in the net. But I never saw such before and it took me time to realise what happened.

To give this bizarre situation some shape: Imagine Mr Bush blaming Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton for espionage and jail them with saying there are national security reasons to do so. Bush: We can not reveal. Trust us. The justice answeres: ok, we trust you, national security is the perfect reason. Not nice, but here we go.

Something very similiar happend in this election. Justice and one party in one role. The controlers, as such I understand the work of the election comitee, steps back in this question.

I hope some can understand my concerns now better. At least I saw a sign in Satoru Matsumoto email that this should be corrected in the rules to not repeat in the future. For now its not better.

A person is not banned overnight in a single IRC meeting. The IRC meeting which you refer to (where he was banned) is just the top of the iceberg, moment-of-announcement. But the span of problems age back long before that. Don't think everything was decided in that one IRC meeting alone. There were complaints from multiple people about a person on multiple occasions. He was given enough warnings and some people tried to make things work back again. It is not like, Mr. Bush jailed Mr. Obama overnight in a meeting without giving any chance for explanation. Nobody has any second thoughts about the competence of the removed person. We all respect him for his calibre and skills. We miss his contributions to the project and they are sizeable. I may even contract him for any personal work if I could. But we cannot allow a person to repeatedly cause problems to other members of the community. Your freedom ends where another person's nose begins. I for one, can confirm that people tried to talk to the said person to get things comfortable for everyone. But this has repeatedly ended in failures. I have worked in the affected subteams, and have witnessed some of the problems getting repeated again. Some members of the election commitee also have worked in some of these subteams and were in the IRC channels and witnessed the same. So I suggest you trust the board in this matter and believe that the removal is done without any evil intentions or personal vengeance. I agree that it is highly unfortunate that this has to be done during the time of election. If next time something like this happens (I hope it wont), we have to make sure that the timing of the announcement does not look suspicious in any way. This is the lesson to learn and that's it. Also, Board is not just one person. It has multiple people who are elected by the community. If there was something fishy, atleast one of our elected members would've sensed it and would not have let this decision be made at all. even hypothetically, All of them won't have enmity towards this person. If you still want more data to continue your contributions to the project, you are free to ask the board in private for more information. You will be shared whatever could be shared without affecting anyone's privacy. However, prolonging this public discussion (which has already attracted totally useless Trollers) will only bring the mood of the project down, without any use for anyone. Should we let our curiosity bring down the whole mood ? I guess not. -- Sankar P http://psankar.blogspot.com P.S:If you people insist on carrying on this discussion, beware that, We will see more developers and real contributors who dont like noise, unsubscribing from the list. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Hello Satoru Matsumoto and Sankar, thanks for your replies. I want to answere to Satoru Matsumoto mosly as a election comitee member. ... Am 22.01.11, 04:47 +0900 schrieb Satoru Matsumoto:

Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

...

After rereading the thread, I found the statement of Satoru Matsumoto. Now I realise, he is in the election comitee and stated probably the comitees opinion early. But that was not clear of at all. However for a election to work properly the old board can not justice over a candidate. Thats clearly a no no. The election comitee moved its native responsibility in the arms of the enemy of the candidate. The downbulling of the candidate showed clearly, there is a conflict with more than one person in the board. I have looked into the look files. xxxxxx was banned and kicked out of IRC without immediate reasoning. In my eyes thats down bulling on the side of the administrator. Shurely not the only case in the net. But I never saw such before and it took me time to realise what happened.

Did you call me? :-)

Please remember, I'm both a part of election committee and a Member. When I stated something as a part of election committee, I started with the phrase "as one of the election committee members, I ...". The rest

Ah good, these distinction in roles where not yet clear to me.

of the time, please consider my words as my personal opinions. And the answer from the election committee to your question has been posted by Thomas. As one of the election committee members, I don't have anything to add.

The election comitee acts as a formal control over the old board and the potential new one. The election comitees task is as well to protect the fairness of the election. We have seen a clear conflict between old board members and a candidate. The election comitee decided to abandon one candidate to the old board, where it had the chance to protect this candidate in front of the old board.

...

I hope some can understand my concerns now better. At least I saw a sign in Satoru Matsumoto email that this should be corrected in the rules to not repeat in the future. For now its not better.

So, please read the followings as my personal opinion.

As I wrote in another post, there's no one who became happy in this matter. If you really think this mustn't be repeated in the future, please give assistance to developing efficient way and rules, not to get rid of persons, but to get rid of trollish and poisonous behaviors.

The most disappointing thing for me is, we couldn't change The Person's behavior before this worst ending. Not only Board, but also everyone who could have a chance to change The Person's behavior should take responsibility for this matter. We have to promise this will never happen again.

I tried in my later emails at least to outline, how to preserve the fairness of the election. kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann -- developing for colour management www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:

On Friday 21 January 2011 05:46:03 Basil Chupin wrote:

...

On 21/01/2011 00:11, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

...

Am 20.01.11, 14:02 +0100 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 20/01/2011 13:36, Kai-Uwe Behrmann a écrit :

...

Gnokii was not just a member who was removed, he is a nominated candidate for the board election [2].

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Nominations:

as far as I know, he was only nominated by Nelson (and I didn't see this on any official mailing list) and during the discussion Nelson never reported this (although the discussion was so long I may have missed the fact), and we have no evidence gnokii was a candidate. However, Nelson was (is).

Here are references: http://karl-tux-stadt.de/ktuxs/?p=2971 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2011-01/msg00013.html

...

I don't want to start again the discussion on the other aspects of this problem.

Sorry, if I just repeated things.

Well, from where I sit all conditions for nomination to be a candidate in the current election for the Board have been met.

*sigh*

Why don't you read? Seriously, it's completely silly that I have to write the below again as anyone with eyes and a brain will know it has been said about 10 times by now...

0. you have to be a member to run for the board 1. he isn't a member so can't run for the board anymore 2. the process to remove him from the board was started about 2 months ago 3. the only reason there was one day overlap between the kick-out and the candidacy is because the holidays (and the board wanting to do this properly and not hastily) 4. we communicated this to the election commitee. Surely they were critical, rightly so, it's an unfortunate situation. But in the end, a non-member can't run for the board, so that's it.

Again, read before you post please. Everyone on this list is done with this discussion (and probably sick of it) especially because it is going around and around due to, among others, you. Just let it go or bring it up by the board if you want to hear all these things again and again in other wordings. I'm sure they have written a script by now that re-arranges the paragraphs of their initial statement in a different order to automatically answer such mails.

Jees, you read english, don't you, or do you only WRITE it?

...

The person, S Kemter (aka Gnokii), was nominated and as per the requirements:

Nominations:

The election committee will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election committee will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they are willing to stand for election. These nominations are private until accepted by the nominated people.

was approached by Thomas Schmidt by e-mail to which S Kempter responded that he had accepted the nomination and gave the URL of his blog where he states that he will be atanding for the Board.

All very much above board and done according to Hoyle.

(But what happened after this is has a certain aroma of a dead cat about it from the comments posted about this situation.....)

BC

Basil, Please get all the facts, stop trying to troll everyone. There was a lot more going on. Please let it go. I support what the board did. A lot of people do too. Jos. +1 -- I am dyslexic, but I take the time to read all. Basil, why not stop talking and stirring the pot and contribute to the project. Take all that energy and focus it in a positive matter. You must love openSUSE that you are on the list. So why not put up or Shut. Sending e-mails to the "Off-Topic" list is not contribute. Become an ambassador, help with one of the many projects we have going one. Please for the love of God, just let this go. It over, many people have move on. Sitting there and fire e-mails a thousand e-mail with out read all the details isn't painting a very good picture of you. Again, step up and contribute to the project, or please just shut up. Enough is enough!\ Pup -- ----------------------------------------- Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux. ----------------------------------------- openSUSE -- en.opensuse.org/User:Terrorpup openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein Register Linux Userid: 155363 Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD,  an app you want to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE Studio a try. www.susestudio.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

I would like to be positive on this subject, not to have such a situation again. present structure of the openSUSE community is: * board * members * ambassadors * community active people in the mid way, there are "teams" or "sub-groups" (for example the membership select group). Don't you think we could enhance the system, giving the members some more importantce. After all there are less than 500 members, a manageable group. We could, for example, open retro to all the members and make the number of +1 necessary to become a member grow to 10? and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members. If such a list have existed, we could have discussed the present case completely, without the risk for anybody to have the net unvail the names and the facts. The board could have explained all the situation. I would feel rather more comfortable jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:36:06 +0200 Kostas Koudaras wrote:

...

Don't you think we could enhance the system, giving the members some more importantce. After all there are less than 500 members, a manageable group.

We could, for example, open retro to all the members and make the number of +1 necessary to become a member grow to 10?

and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members.

Hi I like this suggestion as well.

-- Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890) SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.32.27-0.2-default up 3 days 0:12, 4 users, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.04 GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 260.19.29 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 01/21/2011 03:56 PM, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:

Am 21.01.11, 08:56 -0600 schrieb Malcolm:

...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:36:06 +0200 Kostas Koudaras wrote:

...

2011/1/21 jdd :

...

Don't you think we could enhance the system, giving the members some more importantce. After all there are less than 500 members, a manageable group.

We could, for example, open retro to all the members and make the number of +1 necessary to become a member grow to 10?

and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members.

Hi I like this suggestion as well.

Agreed, reads quite positive.

great suggestion Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

2011/1/21 Administrator :

...

...

and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members.

If such a list have existed, we could have discussed the present case completely, without the risk for anybody to have the net unvail the names and the facts. The board could have explained all the situation.

I totally agree with the idea of a members only list,that way we can make discussions and to be sure that the one answering the question or participate in a conversation truly and proven wants the same as everyone else,the evolution of the openSUSE Community.

I think you're just trying to substitute one version of secrecy for another.

To be honest with you at first I wrote you that you are wrong about it but in second reading of my answer I see your point. I don't mean that only members care about openSUSE or anything like that. I am just saying that there are some points, like elections or rules about membership that there is strictly membership matters and it is maybe pointless for everybody in the community to participate and especially some people whose only work here is to creating meaningless fights.(I am not talking about you)

You are, at least, acknowledging that some things require confidentiality / secrecy.  The question is then what things and who will be admitted to "the secret".  You are requesting that you be in the inside group and creating a much larger group of secrets.  Neither is necessary.  There is a board to whom we have delegated all these messy and difficult decisions (and I'm sure it was both messy and difficult).  You trust the board or you don't.  If you don't, elect a new board and stand for election yourself.

I think that you confuse things here and maybe you are not the only. In my opinion it's another thing to trust the board and another thing to be able to talk about some subjects. Also trusting and respecting does not mean necessary that you also agree with their decisions. In a state of partnership you can express your objections to the board and talk about it all together or in private,this is up to you. I support that more secrecy is one thing we don't want. We need transparency but to be transparent to whom? Everyone? A list like that I think it would help in transparency inside the community. I believe that openSUSE community is a democratic community, if nowadays this is not perfectly clear to some people it is maybe (under my opinion,always)because we don't make a proper use of our rights. The greatness of Democracy is not in doing what most people say,it is in respecting what fewer people say.

David

p.s. I'm not a member as I can't guarantee to devote enough of my time to OS to justify my membership of this select group. Such a request would downvalue the people who can and do.  Membership is a privilege and an acknowledgement of status from your peers.

I really hope that you understand what I mean Kostas Koudaras -- http://opensuse.gr http://amb.opensuse.gr http://own.opensuse.gr http://warlordfff.tk me I am not me ------- Time travel is possible, you just need to know the right aliens -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Le 22/01/2011 03:05, Pascal Bleser a écrit :

Jean-Daniel, basically, you're saying that you don't trust any of the people who are on the current openSUSE board nor the few other persons who signed the OP on the thread.

If you trust at least a few of the people who's names were at the bottom of that mail, then this discussion is moot. Everything else can be read in that mail.

I can't desagree more. Do you trust your government? I hope so. even the laws, rules and judgements are mostly public.

...

I think you're just trying to substitute one version of secrecy for another.

family problems don't have to be discussed publicly (only the result of the discussion have to be known by everybody). When it's about membership, I beg the members are directly concerned.

Spot on. It is mind-boggling that the same people who want transparency on an issue that requires respecting people's privacy are now rooting for a private mailing-list (that includes them).

as many noted, privacy don't mean secrecy. It means only long threads like this one don't have to be at large exposed to the public. Don't you see that now most of the readers wont read from the beginning to the end, but only one post or an other, so having a biased view of the discussion. The simple lenght of the discussion is discouraging on a wide open list.

I hope a few people can take a (mental) step back and see the irony here.

don't you see you are building a precedent? if this is accepted, any board may remove any people saying it's in regard to the principle, but in fact with no control. It's easy to see in the history problems arising with such action. I don't "blindly trust" any body (specially people I don't yet know - think of the near future).

...

You are, at least, acknowledging that some things require confidentiality / secrecy. The question is then what things and who will be admitted to "the secret". You are requesting that you be in the inside group and creating a much larger group of secrets.

I was asked to be in the group that give advice about membership (notation of the candidacy). I dislike this (beeing coopted for that), but can understand it's necessary on the beginning. That's why I suggested two things (curious, nobody quoted the first): having the new members coopted by *all* the members (just have to adapt the notation), and then the members having a private conversation path. nothing can be totally transparent, and nothing have to be completely closed. In the french national assembly, the assembly discussions are public, but not the commissions work. If you think secrecy is partly necessary, you should understand that there should be some levels of infos necessary. not all is white or black. You could have kept some infos secret for the board eyes and give some more to the members (after all, they may have to know what they don't have do do practically not to be fired..."respecting the guiding principle" don't mean anything without example of what is the contrary).

...

you don't. If you don't, elect a new board and stand for election yourself.

Couldn't agree more, thank you for a bit of common sense in this mess.

sorry, the "remove secretly a member" was not on the board roadmap. jdd by the way, you said "ask the board privately". I sent you a private mail asking two days ago, with no answer. May be you missed it, I can send it again if necessary. -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday, January 22, 2011 02:45:01 am Per Jessen wrote:

According to the current guiding principles, the Board is not empowered to do that.

Not explicitly stated, but whoever gives you membership, the same body can take your membership status away, and if it is not written explicitly, then it is on their discretion. Board established category member, which, according to the cited document, is not explicitly stated as their competence, but it is within "Facilitate decision making processes where needed". The idea was accepted by majority and now it is de facto their competence and they have to deal with issues related to membership. The only thing that I see as necessary is to write down current defacto rules, or to define new as community wants. Also, as Greg mentioned in separate thread, we need few words about how openSUSE community can ask board to react on events in a formal way, which should prevent action on a single event, or lack of action for many events. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:52:24 am Per Jessen wrote: ...

I think the Board/someone delegated that authority to

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Membership_officials

De facto status of Membership Officials is that they resolve membership applications, not cancellations. They are group that is formed to speed up application resolution. The Board is the only authority in case of members dismissal and their decision is final. In other words, as is, Board can exclude anyone with or without giving a reason for decision. "We don't like you" is equally valid as long story trying to explain history and Board concerns. Fact that they gave one is sign of a good will, not showcase of the power they actually have. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Friday, January 21, 2011 02:52:08 PM jdd wrote:

I would like to be positive on this subject, not to have such a situation again.

+1

present structure of the openSUSE community is:

* board * members * ambassadors * community active people

in the mid way, there are "teams" or "sub-groups" (for example the membership select group).

Don't you think we could enhance the system, giving the members some more importantce. After all there are less than 500 members, a manageable group.

It would be quite positive. After all members signed the Guidance Lines Principles. So they show at the beginning how much they love to enhance the openSUSE Project and Community a little beyond their contributions, right ?

We could, for example, open retro to all the members and make the number of +1 necessary to become a member grow to 10?

and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members.

Some information should keep inside this members group for a while as everybody needs some spaces to move around before make a statement. That is the purpose of access level and that is not always a bad stuff

If such a list have existed, we could have discussed the present case completely, without the risk for anybody to have the net unvail the names and the facts. The board could have explained all the situation.

This is healthy and wise. I completely support these ideas. There is too much pointless noise and ego around.

I would feel rather more comfortable

And at least me too.

jdd

Best wishes, -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador Testing version 11.4 Milestone 5, KDE 4.6 Beta 2, Mesa-Nouveau 3D -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

...

If such a list have existed, we could have discussed the present case completely, without the risk for anybody to have the net unvail the names and the facts. The board could have explained all the situation.

at least prevented this from resulting in articles by the press.

You couldn't have prevented it. With 500 members, someone would have copied the list messages to the directly affected person and someone in the media. At the least the open discussion ensures that people who care can read both sides of the discussion rather than relying on edited excerpts. David -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 21/01/11 17:55, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:

@Everyone who stated +1 for this proposal I ask you to read throughout this thread carefully once again. "Why many people don't support Guiding Principles ?" http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2009-05/msg00137.html

In addition, please read this blog. "Are you building a community or a club?" http://opensource.com/business/10/9/are-you-building-a-community-or-a-club

I'm wondering if giving additional perquisites to Members would really help our comminity. That may build a wall between Members and Non-Members.

And we have to remember, being a Member doesn't offer assurances that the person IS responsible. If someone is a Member, that just means (s)he is a person who ONCE 'brought a continued and substantial contribution to the openSUSE project', because we don't have any the structure for verifying whether a Member IS STILL contributing or not.

I think those who are given a certain amount of right should assume a certain amount of obligation as well. At least, we have to review and revise our current membership system before creating a new closed Member-Only mailing list.

I have to agree with these points very strongly. If you start giving additional functions to members that splits the community. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, some people have to take more responsibility than others, but it is something to think about - is it really necessary? And if members are going to be expected to discuss issues privately, the current membership criteria is not going to work - there are plenty of people who have left/lost interest in the project who are still members - they would be potential leak paths. Regards, Tejas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members.

-1

open != open lists + secret board communications + secret member communications

Yep, I have to agree here. Not to mention, a private list with 500+ members is a contradiction in terms. (i.e. it isn't the least bit private).

If the board wants the members to know something it doesn't want the world to know, they have our email addresses. Just use them. And hopefully as bcc, so no one can reply.

Perhaps a one-way list for communications such as those only concerning the members. A bit far fetched though.

I would not object to a mailinglist that only opensuse-members could post to, but anyone could read.

+1

That provides the openness I think appropriate, but keeps the traffic down to only those that contribute. In fact, I would not complain if -project were converted to a members only list from a posting perspective.

We might want to discuss that suggestion a bit more, but it's not bad. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (0.0°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

and on the hot subject, could we have a *private* opensuse-members list? private, that is with closed posting and archives only available for members.

-1

open != open lists + secret board communications + secret member communications

I have been on boards and know that not everything they do can be open, but there is very little reason for the members at large to have secret communications.

If the board wants the members to know something it doesn't want the world to know, they have our email addresses.  Just use them.  And hopefully as bcc, so no one can reply.

I would not object to a mailinglist that only opensuse-members could post to, but anyone could read.  That provides the openness I think appropriate, but keeps the traffic down to only those that contribute.  In fact, I would not complain if -project were converted to a members only list from a posting perspective.

May be we can just make opensuse-project writeable by only members, but readable for the whole world, atleast during times of noisy threads ? -- Sankar P http://psankar.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:48:10 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:20:56 -0500 Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

I would not object to a mailinglist that only opensuse-members could post to, but anyone could read. That provides the openness I think appropriate, but keeps the traffic down to only those that contribute. In fact, I would not complain if -project were converted to a members only list from a posting perspective.

Greg

Hi This sounds like a better proposal :)

I agree. The discussion should be open to anyone to read, but only members allowed to participate. That way we start with a known set of ground rules (ie, the guiding principles, agreement to which is a condition of becoming a member IIRC). As I've watched this discussion unfold, fold, refold, and be multilated multiple times, it's occurred to me on more than one occasion that the guiding principles are something that many people seem to agree to in order to become a member, but they don't actually follow them. One of the decisions that I think the current members and the board need to consider is whether or not that requirement (assuming I'm remembering correctly) makes sense, and if it does, then following them does become a criteria for whether or not someone remains a member. If someone who is a member constantly violates the guiding principles, then that says to me that the only reason they agreed to them was to become a member, and not because they actually think there's any meaning. But if there's no meaning to agreeing to those principles, then why have them? My own opinion is that those principles are part of our identity and (while tweaks may be necessary) that fundamentally, those who are members have agreed to uphold those principles, so that should be a criteria for continued membership. An appropriate place to discuss this idea would be a list where the current membership/board participated (but anyone could watch). Just my $0.02. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:37:56 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:

...

But if there's no meaning to agreeing to those principles, then why have them?

To indicate intent and direction.

I agree this discussion is overall for another time and place. But as food for thought for when that conversation does take place, consider that if someone isn't following that guidance, they're probably not (in some way) following that intent/direction, which would seem to me to be problematic. As I said, food for thought and at this stage, probably best left for in- depth discussion at another time. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org