[opensuse-project] Proposal for Decision Making Process for the formation of our Foundation

newer
[opensuse-project] Re: Proposal...

older
Re: [opensuse-project] Proposal...

Richard Brown

6 Jun 2019 6 Jun '19

13:11

Hi all, I'd like to propose the following approach for the Project as to handle the decisions that need to be answered before we can formally form a Foundation for the Project. There are topics like those raised in the ongoing name/logo thread, but I foresee many more in the future, regarding such as things like budgets, membership dues, etc. These discreet aspects of our Projects governance will need to be decided, and the community at large should be involved in those decisions. At the same time, I think we all want to avoid being stuck in endless loops of endless discussions and endless votes. My proposal is as follows - Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised for discussion on opensuse-project@opensuse.org - If the discussion produces a clear consensus, as interpreted by the openSUSE Board, then the Board should vote to adopt that consensus as a formal decision of the Project. This vote should require a 2/3s Majority of the Board like required under the Board Election Amendment rules [1] - The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist. - If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of openSUSE Members should be conducted - The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision of the Project - The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision. To give a real world example - the above policy would mean that the current Name/Logo discussion is on track for a membership vote, as no one in their right mind should think that the discussion has a clear consensus :) The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation. For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the openSUSE Membership. That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project. I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant topic for the Project. Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient interest from the Membership. If everyone agrees, I think the above model should let us move quickly on many aspects of the Foundation we need to approach in the coming months, while ensuring everyone has their chance to have their say. It should also ensure that we're all collectively happy both on individual aspects of the Foundation and the concept as a whole once we have a better picture of what it will look like in practice. Regards Richard Writing as an individual contributor (ie. I didn't discuss this with my Board colleagues before posting it) [1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_rules -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Show replies by date

Stasiek Michalski

6 Jun 6 Jun

13:22

On czw, cze 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM, Richard Brown wrote:

...

Hi all,

I'd like to propose the following approach for the Project as to handle the decisions that need to be answered before we can formally form a Foundation for the Project.

There are topics like those raised in the ongoing name/logo thread, but I foresee many more in the future, regarding such as things like budgets, membership dues, etc.

These discreet aspects of our Projects governance will need to be decided, and the community at large should be involved in those decisions.

At the same time, I think we all want to avoid being stuck in endless loops of endless discussions and endless votes.

My proposal is as follows

- Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised for discussion on opensuse-project@opensuse.org

There is always an alternative to revive the foundation mailing list that was closed a year ago, which would be useful for discussing stuff that isn't really related to project, but a legal side of things, but I can only imagine how small amount of people that would be interested in contents of such a mailing list would be ;) As for the rest of the email, I agree. LCP [Stasiek] https://lcp.world -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Per Jessen

18:27

Stasiek Michalski wrote:

...

On czw, cze 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM, Richard Brown wrote:

...
My proposal is as follows

- Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised for discussion on opensuse-project@opensuse.org

There is always an alternative to revive the foundation mailing list that was closed a year ago, which would be useful for discussing stuff that isn't really related to project,

A renaming of the project seems to me to be very much related to the project. We already have far too many mailing lists and fora and other miscellaneous means of communication, having more is not a solution. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

jdd＠dodin.org

14:22

Le 06/06/2019 à 15:11, Richard Brown a écrit :

...

If everyone agrees, I think the above model should let us move quickly on many aspects of the Foundation we need to approach in the coming

I also add that I think that *you* (as Board Chairman) should be allowed to produce intermediate indicative informal internet vote to make clear if there is a consensus on a marginal question. For example, "do we need to keep a low case "o" for openSUSE" could be considered as a marginal case and be the target of a web ballot, to see if aver 90% of the community agree (this is only an example, don't take it seriously) this could accelerate the process :-) jdd -- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Per Jessen

18:24

Richard Brown wrote:

...

My proposal is as follows

- Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised for discussion on opensuse-project@opensuse.org - If the discussion produces a clear consensus, as interpreted by the openSUSE Board, then the Board should vote to adopt that consensus as a formal decision of the Project. This vote should require a 2/3s Majority of the Board like required under the Board Election Amendment rules [1] - The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist. - If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of openSUSE Members should be conducted - The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision of the Project - The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I strongly disagree with the last paragraph. If 2/3s participation is required for a valid decision, and we fail to motivate 2/3s of the community to vote, the result _must_ be a 'no'. This is an immensely important decision, even if the community should fail to recognize that, I do not agree we should leave it to the board.

...

The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation.

Agree.

...

For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the openSUSE Membership. That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project.

Agree.

...

I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant topic for the Project. Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient interest from the Membership.

Agree. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (16.4°C) member, openSUSE Heroes. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Sébastien 'sogal' Poher

18:39

Hi Richard, Hi all, Le jeudi 06 juin 2019 à 03:11:48, Richard Brown a écrit : [...]

...

- Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised for discussion on opensuse-project@opensuse.org - If the discussion produces a clear consensus, as interpreted by the openSUSE Board, then the Board should vote to adopt that consensus as a formal decision of the Project. This vote should require a 2/3s Majority of the Board like required under the Board Election Amendment rules [1] - The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist. - If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of openSUSE Members should be conducted - The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision of the Project

That makes sense, I do agree with it.

...

- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I am not comfortable with the idea that the Board's vote may overcome the comminuty vote. I would rather say that if less than 2/3 of the current membership use their right of speech on a vote, then it's up to the Board to wheter vote of the topic (following the rules you mention above) or explain better the topic and reconduct the vote.

...

To give a real world example - the above policy would mean that the current Name/Logo discussion is on track for a membership vote, as no one in their right mind should think that the discussion has a clear consensus :)

The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation.

For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the openSUSE Membership. That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project. I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant topic for the Project. Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient interest from the Membership.

If everyone agrees, I think the above model should let us move quickly on many aspects of the Foundation we need to approach in the coming months, while ensuring everyone has their chance to have their say. It should also ensure that we're all collectively happy both on individual aspects of the Foundation and the concept as a whole once we have a better picture of what it will look like in practice.

Beside my disagreement on one point above, this seems like a rationnal and clear proposal to me. If everyone follows it and gets involved in a inteligent way, we will be able to proceed all these topics and issues efficiently. Best regards, -- 'When there is no more room at school, the dumb will walk the Earth.' Sébastien 'sogal' Poher -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Richard Brown

21:15

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 20:39, Sébastien 'sogal' Poher wrote:

...

...
- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I am not comfortable with the idea that the Board's vote may overcome the comminuty vote. I would rather say that if less than 2/3 of the current membership use their right of speech on a vote, then it's up to the Board to wheter vote of the topic (following the rules you mention above) or explain better the topic and reconduct the vote.

When I wrote "The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct it's own vote" the expectation is that the Board should be using their (long established) power to rewrite the Project's rules after a 2/3 vote in the Board, but doing so in a way which reflects their view on the result For example Imagine a theoretical situation where only 50% of the Membership vote on a proposal whether the Foundation should require that every Member must vote in every election in order to remain a member. But of the 50% who vote, 80% of the voters reject the idea. That is a clearly 'indicative result' which is easy for the Board to consider. With the rule, as it is written above, the expectation is that the Board would use their power to quickly resolve the issue. Any other situation could potentially deadlock the effort to make a Foundation - and this is a process that is going to take months at the best of times, any deadlock could easily kick this effort into taking YEARS. Also, any other proposal besides my own would require granting either the Membership or the Board new powers which they do not have under our current rules. Right now, we say that any rules changes in the Project need either a 2/3rd Membership vote, OR a 2/3rd Board vote. My proposal add a layer of structure to this for the purposes of forming the Foundation to give MORE engagement with the community than the current rules, which do not state when the Membership should be consulted or when the Board should exercise their power. Sure, I accept in my proposal there are theoretical situations where under 2/3rd of the Membership vote and the indicative result from the Membership vote would be less clear - imagine a 50/50 split for example. "The Brexit-like Scenario" In such a case, the chances of the Project getting a more clear outcome after a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round of voting, is unlikely..but we have a Board precisely to help with tie-breakers like that. That's why the rules were written to give the Board the power to change the rules. Of course like with any Board decision, the Board would need to explain whatever they decided. And if the Project doesn't like it - it only takes 20% of the Membership to force the entire Board to be re-elected. AND if you consider the other proposed rule where the final form of the Foundation will be put to another Member vote where the Board will NOT have the ability to tie-break, you should see how my proposals should ensure that there is no way we can end up with a Foundation that doesn't meet our Memberships satisfaction. This is why I think my above proposed rule is the best way forward - removing this proposed rule from my list will risk dramatically slowing down any decision we need to make around any aspect of the Foundation.. and we have plenty of safeguards in the Project and my other proposed rules to make sure the Board cant 'go rogue' and steer things in an unsatisfactory direction. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Simon Lees

21:29

On 07/06/2019 06:45, Richard Brown wrote:

...

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 20:39, Sébastien 'sogal' Poher wrote:

...
...
- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I am not comfortable with the idea that the Board's vote may overcome the comminuty vote. I would rather say that if less than 2/3 of the current membership use their right of speech on a vote, then it's up to the Board to wheter vote of the topic (following the rules you mention above) or explain better the topic and reconduct the vote.

When I wrote "The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct it's own vote" the expectation is that the Board should be using their (long established) power to rewrite the Project's rules after a 2/3 vote in the Board, but doing so in a way which reflects their view on the result

For example

Imagine a theoretical situation where only 50% of the Membership vote on a proposal whether the Foundation should require that every Member must vote in every election in order to remain a member. But of the 50% who vote, 80% of the voters reject the idea. That is a clearly 'indicative result' which is easy for the Board to consider. With the rule, as it is written above, the expectation is that the Board would use their power to quickly resolve the issue. Any other situation could potentially deadlock the effort to make a Foundation - and this is a process that is going to take months at the best of times, any deadlock could easily kick this effort into taking YEARS.

Also, any other proposal besides my own would require granting either the Membership or the Board new powers which they do not have under our current rules. Right now, we say that any rules changes in the Project need either a 2/3rd Membership vote, OR a 2/3rd Board vote. My proposal add a layer of structure to this for the purposes of forming the Foundation to give MORE engagement with the community than the current rules, which do not state when the Membership should be consulted or when the Board should exercise their power.

Sure, I accept in my proposal there are theoretical situations where under 2/3rd of the Membership vote and the indicative result from the Membership vote would be less clear - imagine a 50/50 split for example. "The Brexit-like Scenario"

In such a case, the chances of the Project getting a more clear outcome after a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round of voting, is unlikely..but we have a Board precisely to help with tie-breakers like that. That's why the rules were written to give the Board the power to change the rules.

Of course like with any Board decision, the Board would need to explain whatever they decided. And if the Project doesn't like it - it only takes 20% of the Membership to force the entire Board to be re-elected. AND if you consider the other proposed rule where the final form of the Foundation will be put to another Member vote where the Board will NOT have the ability to tie-break, you should see how my proposals should ensure that there is no way we can end up with a Foundation that doesn't meet our Memberships satisfaction.

This is why I think my above proposed rule is the best way forward - removing this proposed rule from my list will risk dramatically slowing down any decision we need to make around any aspect of the Foundation.. and we have plenty of safeguards in the Project and my other proposed rules to make sure the Board cant 'go rogue' and steer things in an unsatisfactory direction.

Having spoken to Richard who is off to bed then wisely is off away for the weekend, he has slightly misinterpreted the existing rules and missed the participating in "2/3 or more of the openSUSE members participating in the vote approve it." as such is happy to drop the requiring 2/3rds of members being required to vote and is happy with my amendments which should clean up most of the concerns in this thread hopefully so lets proceed from there. Cheers -- 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

jdd＠dodin.org

7 Jun 7 Jun

07:52

Le 06/06/2019 à 23:29, Simon Lees a écrit :

...

missed the participating in "2/3 or more of the openSUSE members participating in the vote approve it."

yes, I myself read this (erroneously) as 2/3 of the voting members, not members... as such is happy to drop the

...

requiring 2/3rds of members being required to vote and is happy with my amendments which should clean up most of the concerns in this thread hopefully so lets proceed from there.

thanks jdd -- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Simon Lees

6 Jun 6 Jun

21:14

On 06/06/2019 22:41, Richard Brown wrote:

...

- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I agree with everything but this part, 66% is an insanely high quorum by any voting system standards, even us who do a good job of cleaning up inactive membership. Generally the purpose of having a Quorum (minimal number of voting members for a vote to be binding) is to prevent cases where a small group of members (say 10) get together call a snap vote then win with a majority because they were the only people involved. Thinking beyond the topic of name which a number of people have a strong opinion of its likely that in many cases people will not care enough to vote and this should be ok, but combined with people who are "inactive" but still keep there membership I fear that in many cases we maybe well under 66%. So I'd prefer the following statement. - 25% of the membership must vote in a ballot before it is considered binding, any vote under 25% shall be treated as the membership not having a strong opinion and it shall be upto the board to determine the best resolution for the issue. - 2 weeks notice must be given prior to a vote on all the projects primary communications channels[1] and the voting period shall be no less then 5 days. - All new membership requests received within the first week of a vote being called must be processed before the vote may commence. With these 3 clauses I feel that we are giving every member more then adequate chance to voice there opinion should they want to and its not leaving the board in an awkward position to deal with alot of issues that might not reach 66% of turnout (does anyone have stats on the turnouts of board elections), i'm sure that they are regularly under 66% Cheers 1. Currently the openSUSE project mailing list and i guess news.opensuse.org but i'm not explicitly listing them because they may change over time. -- 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Simon Lees

21:30

On 07/06/2019 06:44, Simon Lees wrote:

...

- 25% of the membership must vote in a ballot before it is considered binding, any vote under 25% shall be treated as the membership not having a strong opinion and it shall be upto the board to determine the best resolution for the issue.

Upon further thought i'm going to change the 25% to 20% to bring it in line with the number of members required to replace the board Cheers -- 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Robert Schweikert

8 Jun 8 Jun

12:34

On 6/6/19 5:14 PM, Simon Lees wrote:

...

On 06/06/2019 22:41, Richard Brown wrote:

...
- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I agree with everything but this part, 66% is an insanely high quorum by any voting system standards, even us who do a good job of cleaning up inactive membership.

Generally the purpose of having a Quorum (minimal number of voting members for a vote to be binding) is to prevent cases where a small group of members (say 10) get together call a snap vote then win with a majority because they were the only people involved.

Thinking beyond the topic of name which a number of people have a strong opinion of its likely that in many cases people will not care enough to vote and this should be ok, but combined with people who are "inactive" but still keep there membership I fear that in many cases we maybe well under 66%. So I'd prefer the following statement.

- 25% of the membership must vote in a ballot before it is considered binding, any vote under 25% shall be treated as the membership not having a strong opinion and it shall be upto the board to determine the best resolution for the issue.

Well, this sounds like that those who did vote would be ignored. I doubt that is your intention, thus a bit of rewording along the lines of the original proposal as to how the board would take into consideration the votes that were cast would be great. Later, Robert

...

- 2 weeks notice must be given prior to a vote on all the projects primary communications channels[1] and the voting period shall be no less then 5 days.

- All new membership requests received within the first week of a vote being called must be processed before the vote may commence.

With these 3 clauses I feel that we are giving every member more then adequate chance to voice there opinion should they want to and its not leaving the board in an awkward position to deal with alot of issues that might not reach 66% of turnout (does anyone have stats on the turnouts of board elections), i'm sure that they are regularly under 66%

Cheers

1. Currently the openSUSE project mailing list and i guess news.opensuse.org but i'm not explicitly listing them because they may change over time.

-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Architect LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Simon Lees

9 Jun 9 Jun

04:08

On 08/06/2019 22:04, Robert Schweikert wrote:

...

On 6/6/19 5:14 PM, Simon Lees wrote:

...
On 06/06/2019 22:41, Richard Brown wrote:

...
- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

I agree with everything but this part, 66% is an insanely high quorum by any voting system standards, even us who do a good job of cleaning up inactive membership.

Generally the purpose of having a Quorum (minimal number of voting members for a vote to be binding) is to prevent cases where a small group of members (say 10) get together call a snap vote then win with a majority because they were the only people involved.

Thinking beyond the topic of name which a number of people have a strong opinion of its likely that in many cases people will not care enough to vote and this should be ok, but combined with people who are "inactive" but still keep there membership I fear that in many cases we maybe well under 66%. So I'd prefer the following statement.

- 25% of the membership must vote in a ballot before it is considered binding, any vote under 25% shall be treated as the membership not having a strong opinion and it shall be upto the board to determine the best resolution for the issue.

Well, this sounds like that those who did vote would be ignored. I doubt that is your intention, thus a bit of rewording along the lines of the original proposal as to how the board would take into consideration the votes that were cast would be great.

Later, Robert

Yeah I agree it could be worded better, I just didn't get to that yet. -- 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Robert Schweikert

8 Jun 8 Jun

12:23

On 6/6/19 9:11 AM, Richard Brown wrote:

...

Hi all,

I'd like to propose the following approach for the Project as to handle the decisions that need to be answered before we can formally form a Foundation for the Project.

There are topics like those raised in the ongoing name/logo thread, but I foresee many more in the future, regarding such as things like budgets, membership dues, etc.

These discreet aspects of our Projects governance will need to be decided, and the community at large should be involved in those decisions.

At the same time, I think we all want to avoid being stuck in endless loops of endless discussions and endless votes.

My proposal is as follows

- Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised for discussion on opensuse-project@opensuse.org - If the discussion produces a clear consensus, as interpreted by the openSUSE Board, then the Board should vote to adopt that consensus as a formal decision of the Project. This vote should require a 2/3s Majority of the Board like required under the Board Election Amendment rules [1] - The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist. - If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of openSUSE Members should be conducted - The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision of the Project - The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered indicative. - The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a 2/3s majority for any decision.

To give a real world example - the above policy would mean that the current Name/Logo discussion is on track for a membership vote, as no one in their right mind should think that the discussion has a clear consensus :)

The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation.

For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the openSUSE Membership. That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project. I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant topic for the Project. Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient interest from the Membership.

If everyone agrees, I think the above model should let us move quickly on many aspects of the Foundation we need to approach in the coming months, while ensuring everyone has their chance to have their say. It should also ensure that we're all collectively happy both on individual aspects of the Foundation and the concept as a whole once we have a better picture of what it will look like in practice.

Regards

Thanks, well formulated, IMHO. For what it's worth +1 from me on this approach. Later, Robert

...

Richard Writing as an individual contributor (ie. I didn't discuss this with my Board colleagues before posting it)

[1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_rules

Christian Boltz

19:41

Hello, Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2019, 15:11:48 CEST schrieb Richard Brown:

...

- The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist.

I'm afraid we'll introduce a superfluous delay by doing so. I can imagine we might end up with discussing what the consensus is in one meeting (and maybe work on the exact wording), then send out a "formal" mail saying so (which is basically a pre-decision), and then vote about it in the next board meeting two weeks later (typically confirming what we discussed two weeks before). IMHO we can drop the "in advance" part to speed things up, and replace it with "the board will instantly send a mail after such decisions (independent of the board meeting minutes)". Of course the decision will still be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist, and in worst case the board will have to revert its decision and let the community vote. In the end, we'll have exactly what Richard's proposed rule does, but without the two weeks delay.

...

- If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of openSUSE Members should be conducted - The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision of the Project

If I get the follow-up discussion right, we'll reduce this to 20% participation - which is way more sane for votes about single "detail questions".

...

The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation.

For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the openSUSE Membership. That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project. I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant topic for the Project. Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient interest from the Membership.

With that rule, we can stop talking about a foundation _now_. Call me a pessimist, but I seriously doubt that 2/3 of our members will vote [1]. For comparison: The last board election had 52% participation. In the year before, the percentage was slightly higher (59%), but only because we had less members back then - the absolute number of voters didn't change much. Setting up a foundation is a big and important change for openSUSE, and I hope that our members are interested enough in it to vote. Nevertheless, more than 2/3 participation would surprise me, and I'd hate to kill the foundation setup with such a barrier. I agree that we should have a minimum participation, but not 2/3 please. I'd go for 40 or 50% - that's more realistic, and still means lots of our members have to vote.

...

Richard Writing as an individual contributor (ie. I didn't discuss this with my Board colleagues before posting it)

That was a good idea - it speeds things up and makes the discussion (including my evil comments ;-) more transparent. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] I'd be happy to be proven wrong ;-) --

...

[vim] Um einem Editor-War vorzubeugen: mit Emacs, Kate, nedit und mcedit kann man auch HTML-Dateien erstellen. Und auch mit allen anderen Editoren, die ich an dieser Stelle nicht genannt habe ;-) Du wirst ja immer unfreundlicher ;-))) Womit sollen wir uns denn das lange Wochenende vergnuegen. So ein richtig schoener flame-war, das waere doch wieder einmal was :-) [> Christian Boltz und Heinz W. Pahlke in suse-linux]

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Simon Lees

9 Jun 9 Jun

04:07

On 09/06/2019 05:11, Christian Boltz wrote:

...

Hello,

Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2019, 15:11:48 CEST schrieb Richard Brown:

...
- The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist.

I'm afraid we'll introduce a superfluous delay by doing so. I can imagine we might end up with discussing what the consensus is in one meeting (and maybe work on the exact wording), then send out a "formal" mail saying so (which is basically a pre-decision), and then vote about it in the next board meeting two weeks later (typically confirming what we discussed two weeks before).

IMHO we can drop the "in advance" part to speed things up, and replace it with "the board will instantly send a mail after such decisions (independent of the board meeting minutes)".

Of course the decision will still be open to challenge on the opensuse-project mailinglist, and in worst case the board will have to revert its decision and let the community vote. In the end, we'll have exactly what Richard's proposed rule does, but without the two weeks delay.

...
- If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of openSUSE Members should be conducted - The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision of the Project

If I get the follow-up discussion right, we'll reduce this to 20% participation - which is way more sane for votes about single "detail questions".

...
The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation.

For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the openSUSE Membership. That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project. I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant topic for the Project. Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient interest from the Membership.

With that rule, we can stop talking about a foundation _now_.

Call me a pessimist, but I seriously doubt that 2/3 of our members will vote [1]. For comparison: The last board election had 52% participation. In the year before, the percentage was slightly higher (59%), but only because we had less members back then - the absolute number of voters didn't change much.

Setting up a foundation is a big and important change for openSUSE, and I hope that our members are interested enough in it to vote. Nevertheless, more than 2/3 participation would surprise me, and I'd hate to kill the foundation setup with such a barrier.

I agree that we should have a minimum participation, but not 2/3 please. I'd go for 40 or 50% - that's more realistic, and still means lots of our members have to vote.

This was Richard miss reading the existing rules as 2/3rds rather then 2/3rds of participants, so we are now going with a minimum of 20% of members which is enough to protect against a small group trying to rush things through. -- 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

1826

Age (days ago)

1829

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

15 comments

8 participants

participants (8)

Christian Boltz
jdd＠dodin.org
Per Jessen
Richard Brown
Robert Schweikert
Simon Lees
Stasiek Michalski
Sébastien 'sogal' Poher

[opensuse-project] Proposal for Decision Making Process for the formation of our Foundation

tags

participants (8)