[opensuse-project] Public statement from the Board on the removal of a member
Hi all Sorry, very long mail ahead... (As privacy is pretty sensitive on this matter, please contact the board directly (board@opensuse.org) if you have further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public.) As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure. As Community participants are admitted to membership, they agree to abide by the Guiding Principles of the openSUSE Project. One of the responsibilities of the elected members of the Board is to be the guardian of those principles; fostering a positive and pleasant environment for all members of the Community. From time to time the board is obligated to take actions to uphold those principles on behalf of the membership. In doing so, the board acts in a manner to mindfully protect the privacy of all effected parties, including both the offender and those affected by the offensive actions. The privacy of those who were personally affected must also be taken into consideration. After receiving a series of complaints from numerous members of the Community regarding violations of the Guiding Principles by that person over a prolonged period, the board began working to uphold its obligation to the membership by attempting to resolve the conflicts through discussions and mediation with all involved parties and ultimately issuing a warning of possible expulsion. In December, complaints were renewed and the Board felt that despite repeated warnings and discussions, the Board could no longer abide by actions that violated the principles which our Community is built upon. Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles). 5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from the project altogether ? First of all, the Board never had to deal with a situation like this one before, where many attempts of mediation and dialogue didn't result in the person who violated the Guiding Principles understanding the concerns and going back into behavior that is socially acceptable (because that's, in essence, what the Guiding Principles are about). Hence we, as a Community, didn't have any precedence to look for, nor any mistakes we did in the past to improve the process upon. 1) So, yes, indeed, neither the Guiding Principles nor the Board statuses *explicitly* state that the Board may remove someone's membership upon repeated violation of the Guiding Principles nor how it must be dealt with regarding a public record of action (or not). But, as stated in the Guiding Principles, one of the primary missions of the board is to mediate and try to resolve conflicts. When people approach board members and ask us to take action, it is the role of the Board to do so and, unfortunately, if all the constructive attempts to resolve the issue through dialogue fail, the Board have to take the final and non-revocable action of removing that person from the project. We added that point to the members page on the wiki after-the-fact for the purpose of clarification, and if people feel that it is controversial and needs discussion for similar situations in the future, let's have that discussion -- ideally when the new board is in place, after the elections. 2) We, the Board members, hope you trust us as well as the other Community members who have been involved sufficiently to believe us when we say the board would never take such measures without having exercised all the "better ways" to deal with it. The Board always tries to mediate first. And not only once but a lot of times in various forms. If that doesn't help the offender is given a fair warning of the intent to escalate this further and only then, if an offender does not change his behaviour, the Board has to take such extreme measures. 3) The timing, indeed, may seem suspicious. We (Board members) were very aware of that but decided to finalize what we started nevertheless. As said above, the Board had to work on a lot of details like deciding whether a public announcement should be made, draft up an email, let it circulate on the internal board mailing-list to let all the board members have a say, vote, and/or make amendments and so on on the fly. But you have to understand that the Board work by consensus, pretty much in a democratic way: the Board members aren't the borg, they all have their individual opinions, and especially in a matter as important as this one, the Board members obviously wanted everyone on the team to have a chance to agree or disagree. Of course, the Christmas holidays didn't help accelerate the process either. So in the end the Board was obviously unable to draft an earlier letter to inform the Election Committee as well as the openSUSE Community at large of his change of status. We regret the timing but the whole matter had lasted all to long already, especially with regards to the people who have been the repeated victims of that person's behaviour over a very long period of time. 4) Matters such as these can only be handled in private, behind closed doors, only involving the people who are directly concerned. As the Board members want to protect the privacy of the person in question, as well as the privacy of the people who have been the victims of his behaviour, it would have been inappropriate to do so publicly. If you don't think so, just imagine that we make all that in public and an employer or potential future employer googling it up. Not nice. We do not want to harm anyone, and do not want public crucifixions either. Some argued that it could have been done by anonymizing the person's name, as we are doing right now (for the very reasons stated above), but that simply wouldn't have worked over an extensive period of time and with more details than what we're including in this email. Please note that the Board attempted to avoid making a public statement for those exact same reasons, but evidently it is needed at this point, to our deepest regret to the victims involved (again, for the reasons above). 5) The primary tool to prevent individual Board members to take abusive actions is the inherent democratic way the Board functions. Yes, the actions and decisions of the Board are often, if not always, very slow, but that is the price to pay for a democratic approach, where decisions are taken by consensus, with every Board member having a chance to vote and voice her opinion. Attempts of abuse by an individual will be outweighed and prevented by the opinions and votes of the 5 others. The tool to prevent a majority of the Board or even the whole Board from taking abusive actions are the elections. The Election Committee is there to do their best to prevent abuse in the election process itself, and they have -- rightfully so -- voiced their concerns on the timing (as explained above), which we have hopefully cleared up in an email thread with the members of the current Election Committee. The Board is the only elected body of the Community, so for those of you who are openSUSE Members, do exercise your right carefully. You elect the people you trust to do the best for the project and the Community. 6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue. Finally, we all respect and are thankful for what that person did for the project, and deeply regret that it had to come to this, but it was really the only option left. Thanks for reading so far. With regards, and in no particular order ;), Rupert Horstkötter, Henne Vogelsang, Pavol Rusnak, Alan Clark, Andreas Jaeger (*), Jos Poortvliet (*), Michael Löffler (*), Pascal Bleser. (**) (*) who have also been involved in mediation attempts (**) Bryen decided to abstain from taking part in the whole proceedings on the matter, as he was too directly involved
Pascal Bleser wrote: [...]
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
[...] Thanks for your well summarized and solicitous commentary. I also deeply regret this unhappy ending and that I (we) couldn't come up with the idea to change things for the better. I have to accept and support this decision, but to be honest, I felt very sad when I saw a person who has contributed a lot was being banned on IRC channels. To prevent further tragedies like this, I think we need to review and discuss the rules on our community and membership after the election, not just for dealing with similar situations in the future, but for not making it happen again and keeping our community peaceful and constructive. Best, -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday January 14 2011 05:39:45 Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...]
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
[...]
Thanks for your well summarized and solicitous commentary.
I also deeply regret this unhappy ending and that I (we) couldn't come up with the idea to change things for the better. I have to accept and support this decision, but to be honest, I felt very sad when I saw a person who has contributed a lot was being banned on IRC channels.
To prevent further tragedies like this, I think we need to review and discuss the rules on our community and membership after the election, not just for dealing with similar situations in the future, but for not making it happen again and keeping our community peaceful and constructive.
Well, perhaps enlighten the rest of the world what the problem was before starting any "what should be prevented in the future" discussion. As in what did $someone do and why was it a $problem to $anyone? (I don't care about $someone but some definition of $problem surely wont harm) Or provide some examples or at least some context since that currently just hangs somehow in the air. regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Stephan Kleine
On Friday January 14 2011 05:39:45 Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...]
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
[...]
Thanks for your well summarized and solicitous commentary.
I also deeply regret this unhappy ending and that I (we) couldn't come up with the idea to change things for the better. I have to accept and support this decision, but to be honest, I felt very sad when I saw a person who has contributed a lot was being banned on IRC channels.
To prevent further tragedies like this, I think we need to review and discuss the rules on our community and membership after the election, not just for dealing with similar situations in the future, but for not making it happen again and keeping our community peaceful and constructive.
Well, perhaps enlighten the rest of the world what the problem was before starting any "what should be prevented in the future" discussion.
As in what did $someone do and why was it a $problem to $anyone? (I don't care about $someone but some definition of $problem surely wont harm)
Or provide some examples or at least some context since that currently just hangs somehow in the air.
Explaining the problem further may lead to the above mentioned privacy getting lost. I would say it is better to have trust in the board and leave the matter at it. If someone is still personally interested in knowing the problem and verifying it, I believe a better way will be to ask the concerned person directly or the senders of the mail, in private during a beer, instead of a Google searcheable public mailing list. My 2 Cents. -- 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
Le 14/01/2011 06:18, Sankar P a écrit :
Explaining the problem further may lead to the above mentioned privacy getting lost. I would say it is better to have trust in the board and leave the matter at it.
sory, I desagree. Justice have to be public as the offense seemed to have been (not to say all the discussion have to be public, but a summary of the problem and the names - at least avatars - of the people related). Asa member of the team that choose who can be member, I challenge what I should have done better to prevent this to happen again. also what mean "remove from the project"? I could build a new internet identity in a matter of minutes. Tht's not to say I don't trust the board, but justice is also a matter of education, so need information. jdd NB: Thanks you, Pascal for the very nice post! -- 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, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:16 AM, jdd
Le 14/01/2011 06:18, Sankar P a écrit :
Explaining the problem further may lead to the above mentioned privacy getting lost. I would say it is better to have trust in the board and leave the matter at it.
sory, I desagree.
Justice have to be public as the offense seemed to have been (not to say all the discussion have to be public, but a summary of the problem and the names - at least avatars - of the people related).
Asa member of the team that choose who can be member, I challenge what I should have done better to prevent this to happen again.
also what mean "remove from the project"? I could build a new internet identity in a matter of minutes.
Tht's not to say I don't trust the board, but justice is also a matter of education, so need information.
You have all the rights to get this information, if you feel it will be helpful for your community contribution. I have no arguments against it. However a mail in the project is not the best route to get that information. You can ask it to the concerned person or the senders of the previous mail in private. Why should you insist on getting that information in public ? "Protection of victims' privacy" and "Not causing harm to the expelled person's future employment opportunities" are two most important reasons why the problems should not be mentioned in public. The importance of these matters outweigh your right to information, imho. -- 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
Le 14/01/2011 08:04, Sankar P a écrit :
"Protection of victims' privacy" and "Not causing harm to the expelled person's future employment opportunities" are two most important reasons why the problems should not be mentioned in public. The importance of these matters outweigh your right to information, imho.
it's not *my* right of information, but simple justice, or do you think any democratic state is wrong in it's justice management? if the offence was *private*, so well, I can admit the privacy of the sanction. If ther offence was public I don't. victims are offended publicly, the result publicity is they way to defend themselves./ How can they say they are right if all this remains private. seems obvious for me. 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, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM, jdd
Le 14/01/2011 08:04, Sankar P a écrit :
"Protection of victims' privacy" and "Not causing harm to the expelled person's future employment opportunities" are two most important reasons why the problems should not be mentioned in public. The importance of these matters outweigh your right to information, imho.
it's not *my* right of information, but simple justice, or do you think any democratic state is wrong in it's justice management?
Even in democratic states, "Victim Privacy" is important. http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/your-rights-when-victim-crime.html The judicial system or the police cannot share the details of the victim or about the said event, either to the press or to anyone else, if any of the concerned parties don't like it. Some countries are considering even "Anonymous Pleading" to protect victims.
if the offence was *private*, so well, I can admit the privacy of the sanction. If ther offence was public I don't.
victims are offended publicly, the result publicity is they way to defend themselves./ How can they say they are right if all this remains private. seems obvious for me.
No, Even if the offense was in public, it doesn't give any rights to discuss about it in opensuse-project. The statement that "some person was violating the guidelines repeatedly and so is expelled" should be enough as a public statement. If you don't agree to the board's decision or want more information, you have all the rights to mail board@opensuse.org and ask all you want (and you will be told whatever is shareable), but trying to discuss things here (watched by google, media etc.) shows lack of empathy towards expelled person's future career, victims, imo. My last mail on this subject. Thanks. -- 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
Le 14/01/2011 10:00, Sankar P a écrit :
No, Even if the offense was in public, it doesn't give any rights to discuss about it in opensuse-project. The statement that "some person was violating the guidelines repeatedly and so is expelled" should be enough as a public statement.
I didn't say this have to be discussed on -project. But for sure on the same medium the offence was done. I don't want to know by myself if I was not a testimony of the offence (that is if I was not subscribed to the list or forum the problem was on), but else I want to, but who knows even where it happened? Don't you think this lead to suspition? I know of several people quite rude on some lists. Are they the problem? if this don't have to be discussed, I beg the offending posts have been removed from our archives? all of them? from all archives? so people will have partial point of view, through partial information? not good.
discuss things here (watched by google, media etc.) shows lack of empathy towards expelled person's future career, victims, imo.
I have enpathy for the victims (and they names don't have to be cited if not visible elsewhere), but none for the guilty/expelled person. One have to mesure his words as publishing on the net, and if this is bad for him it's good for others... 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, 2011-01-14 at 10:47 +0100, jdd wrote:
No, Even if the offense was in public, it doesn't give any rights to discuss about it in opensuse-project. The statement that "some person was violating the guidelines repeatedly and so is expelled" should be enough as a public statement. I didn't say this have to be discussed on -project. But for sure on
Le 14/01/2011 10:00, Sankar P a écrit : the same medium the offence was done. I don't want to know by myself if I was not a testimony of the offence (that is if I was not subscribed to the list or forum the problem was on), but else I want to, but who knows even where it happened? Don't you think this lead to suspition?
No, I don't. I have no suspicions [or knowledge]. An inappropriate and unfortunate situation occurred [as I've seen happen in a variety of forums/projects over the years], and it was dealt with responsibly.
if this don't have to be discussed, I beg the offending posts have been removed from our archives? all of them? from all archives? so people will have partial point of view, through partial information? not good.
Speaking entirely personally - I'd advise people digging around for such things to find a more useful use of their time. Now back to coding... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday January 14 2011 06:18:07 Sankar P wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Stephan Kleine
wrote: On Friday January 14 2011 05:39:45 Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...]
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
[...]
Thanks for your well summarized and solicitous commentary.
I also deeply regret this unhappy ending and that I (we) couldn't come up with the idea to change things for the better. I have to accept and support this decision, but to be honest, I felt very sad when I saw a person who has contributed a lot was being banned on IRC channels.
To prevent further tragedies like this, I think we need to review and discuss the rules on our community and membership after the election, not just for dealing with similar situations in the future, but for not making it happen again and keeping our community peaceful and constructive.
Well, perhaps enlighten the rest of the world what the problem was before starting any "what should be prevented in the future" discussion.
As in what did $someone do and why was it a $problem to $anyone? (I don't care about $someone but some definition of $problem surely wont harm)
Or provide some examples or at least some context since that currently just hangs somehow in the air.
Explaining the problem further may lead to the above mentioned privacy getting lost. I would say it is better to have trust in the board and leave the matter at it.
If someone is still personally interested in knowing the problem and verifying it, I believe a better way will be to ask the concerned person directly or the senders of the mail, in private during a beer, instead of a Google searcheable public mailing list.
It is simply about what the problem is. I don't care about any names but I certainly would be interested to hear what the actual problem is before starting some public discussion on how to avoid that unknown problem since that is somehow missing the point be definition.
My 2 Cents.
Mine added. PS: please don't cc me but simply mail it to the list so the "reply to list" button works. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
It is simply about what the problem is. I don't care about any names but I certainly would be interested to hear what the actual problem is before starting some public discussion on how to avoid that unknown problem since that is somehow missing the point be definition.
My 2 Cents.
Mine added.
This is all very well, but again, people's privacy needs to be respected: the suggestion of mentioning avatars is absurd as we all use both user name/avatar and real name - there is little anonymity in openSUSE (transparency, remember?) - and is it really necessary to detail the events of a series of interpersonal conflicts on an open list? Do you really need to know every detail? Why? Also bear in mind how much the media loves to jump on an issue and turn it into a representation of the project as a whole. I think we need to show a bit of trust in our board members here. Part of the success of a free software project is that it needs to be fun. We choose to be here. If it's not fun, we can simply walk away and do something else. When difficult personalities make the evironment unpleasant, we lose people. So yes, for the good of the whole project, at some point you have to say 'enough' As for avoiding the problem in the future, this doesn't require a dissection of past events. It isn't difficult to treat others with respect and courtesy. We are only human, and can forgive each other's transgressions, too. So let's move forward. regards, Helen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday January 14 2011 07:05:37 Helen wrote:
It is simply about what the problem is. I don't care about any names but I certainly would be interested to hear what the actual problem is before starting some public discussion on how to avoid that unknown problem since that is somehow missing the point be definition.
My 2 Cents.
Mine added.
This is all very well, but again, people's privacy needs to be respected: the suggestion of mentioning avatars is absurd as we all use both user name/avatar and real name - there is little anonymity in openSUSE (transparency, remember?) - and is it really necessary to detail the events of a series of interpersonal conflicts on an open list? Do you really need to know every detail? Why?
Also bear in mind how much the media loves to jump on an issue and turn it into a representation of the project as a whole.
I think we need to show a bit of trust in our board members here.
Part of the success of a free software project is that it needs to be fun. We choose to be here. If it's not fun, we can simply walk away and do something else. When difficult personalities make the evironment unpleasant, we lose people. So yes, for the good of the whole project, at some point you have to say 'enough'
As for avoiding the problem in the future, this doesn't require a dissection of past events.
It isn't difficult to treat others with respect and courtesy. We are only human, and can forgive each other's transgressions, too. So let's move forward.
So what? Neither explains that a single bit nor do I agree with you that stuff like that should be handled that way (not about someone getting kicked out but some strange mail with no questions allowed). All I merely want to know is WTF all that fuzz is about. Surely some privacy should be protected but also one - IMHO - agrees to a certain standard when joining which also includes being fine with getting called out on "misbehaving". That gets even more interesting if one gets "expelled" from "community" and IMHO it is quite fair to ask why that happened. Last but not least it is not about "not trusting the board" but simply about handling stuff in the open (which again should be fine if one agreed beforehand to join the project so it isn't a privacy problem). If that is too much to ask for then please kick me out as well since I don't want to be a part of this. regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 14/01/2011 07:25, Stephan Kleine a écrit :
So what? Neither explains that a single bit nor do I agree with you that stuff like that should be handled that way (not about someone getting kicked out but some strange mail with no questions allowed).
If I correctly understand the problem (not sure, I have no particular information), there was a public (mailing list) problem. If so the result - decision could be commented on the very list where the problem arise, as anybody there is already informed partially. 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
Stephan Kleine wrote:
If that is too much to ask for then please kick me out as well since I don't want to be a part of this.
(As privacy is pretty sensitive on this matter, please contact the board directly (board@opensuse.org) if you have further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public.) you can ask board directly what was the problem actually. As far as I understand, both Sankar and Helen (and also board) are just thinking
Please be easy and have another cup of tea. ;-) I can understand what you mean to say. But as Pascal mentioned in the top post of this thread, that it isn't good to reveal things in detail on *google searchable public* place. Once you will ask board directly, you'll be explained why they think that shouldn't be mentioned in public. And please note, there's no one who became happy in this matter. I want to ask you to be sensible, so that no one (including you ;-)) will be hurt anymore. Best, -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2011-01-14T16:08:06, Satoru Matsumoto
Stephan Kleine wrote:
If that is too much to ask for then please kick me out as well since I don't want to be a part of this.
Please be easy and have another cup of tea. ;-)
(As privacy is pretty sensitive on this matter, please contact the board directly (board@opensuse.org) if you have further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public.) you can ask board directly what was the problem actually. As far as I understand, both Sankar and Helen (and also board) are just thinking
I can understand what you mean to say. But as Pascal mentioned in the top post of this thread, that it isn't good to reveal things in detail on *google searchable public* place. Once you will ask board directly, you'll be explained why they think that shouldn't be mentioned in public.
Sorry, I disagree as well. I did not follow the incident, and here we are asked to support and understand a rather far reaching decision of the openSUSE board: the first eviction of a member due to a guiding principle violation. In my opinion, the seriousness of the situation warrants a summary description of what actually happened. I don't want names or a recounting of history, but assuming it is public, referencing the offensive thread may be easiest. At the very least, which guiding principles were violated, and how was that violation determined? And, sorry, you're telling us a "member" has been evicted. Are we supposed to enumerate all to find out whom? Victim's privacy is all well, but we have a right to know who has been banned. Regards, Lars -- Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
I am afraid I am with Stephan on this one... This impact on an open source community and the problem should be made public... of course erase the names. Maybe the problem is wider spread then thought and victims do not complain about because simple do not know that the board can handle something like this. Privacy seems used in this case like a censorship matter... That open from the name of the project should mean always open... not open when it suits. Stating the problem may solve the issue of partials truths that may appear sooner or later from the parts. regards, Alin On Friday 14 January 2011 06:50:40 Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Friday January 14 2011 06:18:07 Sankar P wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Stephan Kleine
wrote:
On Friday January 14 2011 05:39:45 Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...]
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
[...]
Thanks for your well summarized and solicitous commentary.
I also deeply regret this unhappy ending and that I (we) couldn't come up with the idea to change things for the better. I have to accept and support this decision, but to be honest, I felt very sad when I saw a person who has contributed a lot was being banned on IRC channels.
To prevent further tragedies like this, I think we need to review and discuss the rules on our community and membership after the election, not just for dealing with similar situations in the future, but for not making it happen again and keeping our community peaceful and constructive.
Well, perhaps enlighten the rest of the world what the problem was before starting any "what should be prevented in the future" discussion.
As in what did $someone do and why was it a $problem to $anyone? (I don't care about $someone but some definition of $problem surely wont harm)
Or provide some examples or at least some context since that currently just hangs somehow in the air.
Explaining the problem further may lead to the above mentioned privacy getting lost. I would say it is better to have trust in the board and leave the matter at it.
If someone is still personally interested in knowing the problem and verifying it, I believe a better way will be to ask the concerned person directly or the senders of the mail, in private during a beer, instead of a Google searcheable public mailing list.
It is simply about what the problem is. I don't care about any names but I certainly would be interested to hear what the actual problem is before starting some public discussion on how to avoid that unknown problem since that is somehow missing the point be definition.
My 2 Cents.
Mine added.
PS: please don't cc me but simply mail it to the list so the "reply to list" button works. -- I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste. -- Marcel Duchamp Without Questions there are no Answers!
Alin Marin ELENA Advanced Molecular Simulation Research Laboratory School of Physics, University College Dublin ---- Ardionsamblú Móilíneach Saotharlann Taighde Scoil na Fisice, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address: Room 318, UCD Engineering and Material Science Centre University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://alin.elenaworld.net alin.elena@ucdconnect.ie, alinm.elena@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 14 January 2011 06:50:40 Stephan Kleine wrote: Hi,
If someone is still personally interested in knowing the problem and verifying it, I believe a better way will be to ask the concerned person directly or the senders of the mail, in private during a beer, instead of a Google searcheable public mailing list.
It is simply about what the problem is. I don't care about any names but I certainly would be interested to hear what the actual problem is before starting some public discussion on how to avoid that unknown problem since that is somehow missing the point be definition. what can it be? The board can not operate on their believes and likes, but only on what was agreed on. That is the Guiding Principles of our commuinty or more precise the membership.
So what has happend must have been continous violations of what is written in the guiding principles. Not more, not less. Pascal also said that in his mail. There can't be other things (like 'he was wearing too much red pullovers in the last two month') that lead to that, so reading the GPs should be sufficient to learn how to avoid this. I am as a result trustful that there is no need to stress this case more and make it even worse. Klaas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 14 January 2011 01:24:32 Pascal Bleser wrote:
Hi all Sorry, very long mail ahead... (As privacy is pretty sensitive on this matter, please contact the board directly (board@opensuse.org) if you have further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public.)
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
As Community participants are admitted to membership, they agree to abide by the Guiding Principles of the openSUSE Project. One of the responsibilities of the elected members of the Board is to be the guardian of those principles; fostering a positive and pleasant environment for all members of the Community.
From time to time the board is obligated to take actions to uphold those principles on behalf of the membership. In doing so, the board acts in a manner to mindfully protect the privacy of all effected parties, including both the offender and those affected by the offensive actions. The privacy of those who were personally affected must also be taken into consideration.
After receiving a series of complaints from numerous members of the Community regarding violations of the Guiding Principles by that person over a prolonged period, the board began working to uphold its obligation to the membership by attempting to resolve the conflicts through discussions and mediation with all involved parties and ultimately issuing a warning of possible expulsion.
In December, complaints were renewed and the Board felt that despite repeated warnings and discussions, the Board could no longer abide by actions that violated the principles which our Community is built upon.
Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles). 5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from the project altogether ?
First of all, the Board never had to deal with a situation like this one before, where many attempts of mediation and dialogue didn't result in the person who violated the Guiding Principles understanding the concerns and going back into behavior that is socially acceptable (because that's, in essence, what the Guiding Principles are about). Hence we, as a Community, didn't have any precedence to look for, nor any mistakes we did in the past to improve the process upon.
1) So, yes, indeed, neither the Guiding Principles nor the Board statuses *explicitly* state that the Board may remove someone's membership upon repeated violation of the Guiding Principles nor how it must be dealt with regarding a public record of action (or not).
But, as stated in the Guiding Principles, one of the primary missions of the board is to mediate and try to resolve conflicts. When people approach board members and ask us to take action, it is the role of the Board to do so and, unfortunately, if all the constructive attempts to resolve the issue through dialogue fail, the Board have to take the final and non-revocable action of removing that person from the project.
We added that point to the members page on the wiki after-the-fact for the purpose of clarification, and if people feel that it is controversial and needs discussion for similar situations in the future, let's have that discussion -- ideally when the new board is in place, after the elections.
2) We, the Board members, hope you trust us as well as the other Community members who have been involved sufficiently to believe us when we say the board would never take such measures without having exercised all the "better ways" to deal with it. The Board always tries to mediate first. And not only once but a lot of times in various forms. If that doesn't help the offender is given a fair warning of the intent to escalate this further and only then, if an offender does not change his behaviour, the Board has to take such extreme measures.
3) The timing, indeed, may seem suspicious. We (Board members) were very aware of that but decided to finalize what we started nevertheless. As said above, the Board had to work on a lot of details like deciding whether a public announcement should be made, draft up an email, let it circulate on the internal board mailing-list to let all the board members have a say, vote, and/or make amendments and so on on the fly.
But you have to understand that the Board work by consensus, pretty much in a democratic way: the Board members aren't the borg, they all have their individual opinions, and especially in a matter as important as this one, the Board members obviously wanted everyone on the team to have a chance to agree or disagree. Of course, the Christmas holidays didn't help accelerate the process either.
So in the end the Board was obviously unable to draft an earlier letter to inform the Election Committee as well as the openSUSE Community at large of his change of status. We regret the timing but the whole matter had lasted all to long already, especially with regards to the people who have been the repeated victims of that person's behaviour over a very long period of time.
4) Matters such as these can only be handled in private, behind closed doors, only involving the people who are directly concerned. As the Board members want to protect the privacy of the person in question, as well as the privacy of the people who have been the victims of his behaviour, it would have been inappropriate to do so publicly. If you don't think so, just imagine that we make all that in public and an employer or potential future employer googling it up. Not nice. We do not want to harm anyone, and do not want public crucifixions either.
Some argued that it could have been done by anonymizing the person's name, as we are doing right now (for the very reasons stated above), but that simply wouldn't have worked over an extensive period of time and with more details than what we're including in this email.
Please note that the Board attempted to avoid making a public statement for those exact same reasons, but evidently it is needed at this point, to our deepest regret to the victims involved (again, for the reasons above).
5) The primary tool to prevent individual Board members to take abusive actions is the inherent democratic way the Board functions.
Yes, the actions and decisions of the Board are often, if not always, very slow, but that is the price to pay for a democratic approach, where decisions are taken by consensus, with every Board member having a chance to vote and voice her opinion.
Attempts of abuse by an individual will be outweighed and prevented by the opinions and votes of the 5 others.
The tool to prevent a majority of the Board or even the whole Board from taking abusive actions are the elections.
The Election Committee is there to do their best to prevent abuse in the election process itself, and they have -- rightfully so -- voiced their concerns on the timing (as explained above), which we have hopefully cleared up in an email thread with the members of the current Election Committee.
The Board is the only elected body of the Community, so for those of you who are openSUSE Members, do exercise your right carefully. You elect the people you trust to do the best for the project and the Community.
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
Finally, we all respect and are thankful for what that person did for the project, and deeply regret that it had to come to this, but it was really the only option left.
Thanks for reading so far.
With regards, and in no particular order ;), Rupert Horstkötter, Henne Vogelsang, Pavol Rusnak, Alan Clark, Andreas Jaeger (*), Jos Poortvliet (*), Michael Löffler (*), Pascal Bleser. (**)
(*) who have also been involved in mediation attempts (**) Bryen decided to abstain from taking part in the whole proceedings on the matter, as he was too directly involved
I'd like to ask you all to take the privacy of those involved serious. If you want a reason for that, just think about how a potential employer would respond if he or she would read a public discussion with accusations flying all directions concerning his/her potential new employee. Or how other communities that person might be involved in would react. I don't think it is ethical to go that road and I'd like to ask all of you again: if you have questions or concerns about this specific case, CONTACT THE BOARD. I can tell you that this issue has been going on for well over a year, there have been a series of quite serious incidents and subsequent complaints. Many people (including myself) tried to mediate but no real progress was booked. Obviously those closely involved know who this is about and I applaud them for keeping it private as well. I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me. If you want to discuss the mandate of the board in matters like these or anything related to procedure, please go ahead. Preferably in another thread. If you want to discuss this case specifically, again, CONTACT THE BOARD. jdd brought up that this person could come up with a new identity. That is a valid point and indeed it is possible. But we'd kick him/her again if we figure it out. The person involved wouldn't be able to build up any relationships or trackrecord - and have little reason to stay around. It sucks that things like this happen, but it is unavoidable in a large project like ours. It is why we have the Guiding Principles and a Board chosen by the community. I'd like to echo Adam's statement: let's go back to coding please ;-) Greetings, Jos
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me.
Why did anything have to be disclosed at all then? Pascal wrote a lengthy public email about the whole thing, saying "As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure." It seems that quite a few people knew nothing at all about this, so making it public only served to provoke more questions :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (11.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 14 January 2011 13:32:21 Per Jessen wrote:
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me.
Why did anything have to be disclosed at all then? Pascal wrote a lengthy public email about the whole thing, saying
"As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure."
It seems that quite a few people knew nothing at all about this, so making it public only served to provoke more questions :-)
Yes, that is true. Initially no statement was to be made. However questions were already coming up and the board felt that doing a public statement would be the best way to address that.
On 01/14/2011 01:44 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Friday 14 January 2011 13:32:21 Per Jessen wrote:
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me.
Why did anything have to be disclosed at all then? Pascal wrote a lengthy public email about the whole thing, saying
"As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure."
It seems that quite a few people knew nothing at all about this, so making it public only served to provoke more questions :-)
Yes, that is true. Initially no statement was to be made. However questions were already coming up and the board felt that doing a public statement would be the best way to address that.
I would thanks the board to made that statement. Real nice piece of communication, for those who knows, or have ask the what,how,who,why. I've been one of those who ask the board to make a public statement about that exclusion. I would thanks each part who take time to answer my question about this. -- Bruno Friedmann (irc:tigerfoot) Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member User www.ioda.net/r/osu Blog www.ioda.net/r/blog fsfe fellowship www.fsfe.org GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 vcard : http://it.ioda-net.ch/ioda-net.vcf -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 14/01/2011 23:32, Per Jessen wrote:
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me. Why did anything have to be disclosed at all then? Pascal wrote a lengthy public email about the whole thing, saying
"As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure."
It seems that quite a few people knew nothing at all about this, so making it public only served to provoke more questions :-)
What I cannot understand is why when Fred Miller and Aaron Kulkis (and in his many aliases) were "kicked out" there was no such consideration afforded them about their privacy so as not to affect their future employment prospects yet here we have the Board going out its way to keep this matter 'under wraps'. And I agree: if the matter was not known to people why did Pascal then write a lengthy email telling us that the Board will not divulge any details? :-) (except, of course, if you contact the Board). BC -- "I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY" Brian K. White -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Basil Chupin wrote:
And I agree: if the matter was not known to people why did Pascal then write a lengthy email telling us that the Board will not divulge any details? :-) (except, of course, if you contact the Board).
Hindsight is great, here is what I would have said: "We, the openSUSE Board, have unanimously decided to expel XXXXXXXXX due to gross and repeated violations of the openSUSE Guidelines". Period. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (7.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 15/01/2011 20:27, Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
And I agree: if the matter was not known to people why did Pascal then write a lengthy email telling us that the Board will not divulge any details? :-) (except, of course, if you contact the Board).
Hindsight is great, here is what I would have said:
"We, the openSUSE Board, have unanimously decided to expel XXXXXXXXX due to gross and repeated violations of the openSUSE Guidelines". Period.
Not bad. The only thing missing is: which exact part of the motherhood statement Guidelines was violated? Don't you want to know? I would like to know. 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 Mon, 2011-01-17 at 20:03 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 15/01/2011 20:27, Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
And I agree: if the matter was not known to people why did Pascal then write a lengthy email telling us that the Board will not divulge any details? :-) (except, of course, if you contact the Board). Hindsight is great, here is what I would have said: "We, the openSUSE Board, have unanimously decided to expel XXXXXXXXX due to gross and repeated violations of the openSUSE Guidelines". Period. Not bad. The only thing missing is: which exact part of the motherhood statement Guidelines was violated? Don't you want to know?
No. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 17/01/2011 21:39, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 20:03 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 15/01/2011 20:27, Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
And I agree: if the matter was not known to people why did Pascal then write a lengthy email telling us that the Board will not divulge any details? :-) (except, of course, if you contact the Board). Hindsight is great, here is what I would have said: "We, the openSUSE Board, have unanimously decided to expel XXXXXXXXX due to gross and repeated violations of the openSUSE Guidelines". Period. Not bad. The only thing missing is: which exact part of the motherhood statement Guidelines was violated? Don't you want to know? No.
I find your answer most strange but I will not comment about it except to state that future posts by you I will just have to examine closely, and take less seriously than those you made before. 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
Basil Chupin wrote:
On 15/01/2011 20:27, Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
And I agree: if the matter was not known to people why did Pascal then write a lengthy email telling us that the Board will not divulge any details? :-) (except, of course, if you contact the Board).
Hindsight is great, here is what I would have said:
"We, the openSUSE Board, have unanimously decided to expel XXXXXXXXX due to gross and repeated violations of the openSUSE Guidelines". Period.
Not bad.
The only thing missing is: which exact part of the motherhood statement Guidelines was violated?
Don't you want to know? I would like to know.
Personally, no, I wouldn't want to know (except perhaps if I were somehow personally involved) and I don't think there would be any need to make the public announcement any more elaborate. Anyone who is curious would obviously be free to ask the board to elaborate. -- 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, 2011-01-14 at 13:23 +0100, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me.
+1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Dear Jos, Having in mind the seriousness of the decision. I would have liked to read from the statement these facts.
After receiving a series of complaints from numerous members over a prolongued period of time... regarding violations Guiding Principles
x complaints from y members in z years? which from the list of our values were broken. all these are needed, in my opinion, to assure that the process is transparent... the long nice statement from the board falls in my opinion short of assuring a transparent process. If the board finds the behaviour of the person harmful to the community... how withholding the name of the person protects the community? and by the way open source does not mean only coding... Alin On Friday 14 January 2011 13:23:19 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Friday 14 January 2011 01:24:32 Pascal Bleser wrote:
Hi all Sorry, very long mail ahead... (As privacy is pretty sensitive on this matter, please contact the board directly (board@opensuse.org) if you have further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public.)
As you probably all know by now, the openSUSE Board recently revoked an individual's membership as well as his access to the openSUSE infrastructure.
As Community participants are admitted to membership, they agree to abide by the Guiding Principles of the openSUSE Project. One of the responsibilities of the elected members of the Board is to be the guardian of those principles; fostering a positive and pleasant environment for all members of the Community.
From time to time the board is obligated to take actions to uphold those principles on behalf of the membership. In doing so, the board acts in a manner to mindfully protect the privacy of all effected parties, including both the offender and those affected by the offensive actions. The privacy of those who were personally affected must also be taken into consideration.
After receiving a series of complaints from numerous members of the Community regarding violations of the Guiding Principles by that person over a prolonged period, the board began working to uphold its obligation to the membership by attempting to resolve the conflicts through discussions and mediation with all involved parties and ultimately issuing a warning of possible expulsion.
In December, complaints were renewed and the Board felt that despite repeated warnings and discussions, the Board could no longer abide by actions that violated the principles which our Community is built upon.
Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles). 5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from the project altogether ?
First of all, the Board never had to deal with a situation like this one before, where many attempts of mediation and dialogue didn't result in the person who violated the Guiding Principles understanding the concerns and going back into behavior that is socially acceptable (because that's, in essence, what the Guiding Principles are about). Hence we, as a Community, didn't have any precedence to look for, nor any mistakes we did in the past to improve the process upon.
1) So, yes, indeed, neither the Guiding Principles nor the Board statuses *explicitly* state that the Board may remove someone's membership upon repeated violation of the Guiding Principles nor how it must be dealt with regarding a public record of action (or not).
But, as stated in the Guiding Principles, one of the primary missions of the board is to mediate and try to resolve conflicts. When people approach board members and ask us to take action, it is the role of the Board to do so and, unfortunately, if all the constructive attempts to resolve the issue through dialogue fail, the Board have to take the final and non-revocable action of removing that person from the project.
We added that point to the members page on the wiki after-the-fact for the purpose of clarification, and if people feel that it is controversial and needs discussion for similar situations in the future, let's have that discussion -- ideally when the new board is in place, after the elections.
2) We, the Board members, hope you trust us as well as the other Community members who have been involved sufficiently to believe us when we say the board would never take such measures without having exercised all the "better ways" to deal with it. The Board always tries to mediate first. And not only once but a lot of times in various forms. If that doesn't help the offender is given a fair warning of the intent to escalate this further and only then, if an offender does not change his behaviour, the Board has to take such extreme measures.
3) The timing, indeed, may seem suspicious. We (Board members) were very aware of that but decided to finalize what we started nevertheless. As said above, the Board had to work on a lot of details like deciding whether a public announcement should be made, draft up an email, let it circulate on the internal board mailing-list to let all the board members have a say, vote, and/or make amendments and so on on the fly.
But you have to understand that the Board work by consensus, pretty much in a democratic way: the Board members aren't the borg, they all have their individual opinions, and especially in a matter as important as this one, the Board members obviously wanted everyone on the team to have a chance to agree or disagree. Of course, the Christmas holidays didn't help accelerate the process either.
So in the end the Board was obviously unable to draft an earlier letter to inform the Election Committee as well as the openSUSE Community at large of his change of status. We regret the timing but the whole matter had lasted all to long already, especially with regards to the people who have been the repeated victims of that person's behaviour over a very long period of time.
4) Matters such as these can only be handled in private, behind closed doors, only involving the people who are directly concerned. As the Board members want to protect the privacy of the person in question, as well as the privacy of the people who have been the victims of his behaviour, it would have been inappropriate to do so publicly. If you don't think so, just imagine that we make all that in public and an employer or potential future employer googling it up. Not nice. We do not want to harm anyone, and do not want public crucifixions either.
Some argued that it could have been done by anonymizing the person's name, as we are doing right now (for the very reasons stated above), but that simply wouldn't have worked over an extensive period of time and with more details than what we're including in this email.
Please note that the Board attempted to avoid making a public statement for those exact same reasons, but evidently it is needed at this point, to our deepest regret to the victims involved (again, for the reasons above).
5) The primary tool to prevent individual Board members to take abusive actions is the inherent democratic way the Board functions.
Yes, the actions and decisions of the Board are often, if not always, very slow, but that is the price to pay for a democratic approach, where decisions are taken by consensus, with every Board member having a chance to vote and voice her opinion.
Attempts of abuse by an individual will be outweighed and prevented by the opinions and votes of the 5 others.
The tool to prevent a majority of the Board or even the whole Board from taking abusive actions are the elections.
The Election Committee is there to do their best to prevent abuse in the election process itself, and they have -- rightfully so -- voiced their concerns on the timing (as explained above), which we have hopefully cleared up in an email thread with the members of the current Election Committee.
The Board is the only elected body of the Community, so for those of you who are openSUSE Members, do exercise your right carefully. You elect the people you trust to do the best for the project and the Community.
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
Finally, we all respect and are thankful for what that person did for the project, and deeply regret that it had to come to this, but it was really the only option left.
Thanks for reading so far.
With regards, and in no particular order ;), Rupert Horstkötter, Henne Vogelsang, Pavol Rusnak, Alan Clark, Andreas Jaeger (*), Jos Poortvliet (*), Michael Löffler (*), Pascal Bleser. (**)
(*) who have also been involved in mediation attempts (**) Bryen decided to abstain from taking part in the whole proceedings on the matter, as he was too directly involved
I'd like to ask you all to take the privacy of those involved serious. If you want a reason for that, just think about how a potential employer would respond if he or she would read a public discussion with accusations flying all directions concerning his/her potential new employee. Or how other communities that person might be involved in would react. I don't think it is ethical to go that road and I'd like to ask all of you again: if you have questions or concerns about this specific case, CONTACT THE BOARD.
I can tell you that this issue has been going on for well over a year, there have been a series of quite serious incidents and subsequent complaints. Many people (including myself) tried to mediate but no real progress was booked. Obviously those closely involved know who this is about and I applaud them for keeping it private as well.
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me. If you want to discuss the mandate of the board in matters like these or anything related to procedure, please go ahead. Preferably in another thread. If you want to discuss this case specifically, again, CONTACT THE BOARD.
jdd brought up that this person could come up with a new identity. That is a valid point and indeed it is possible. But we'd kick him/her again if we figure it out. The person involved wouldn't be able to build up any relationships or trackrecord - and have little reason to stay around.
It sucks that things like this happen, but it is unavoidable in a large project like ours. It is why we have the Guiding Principles and a Board chosen by the community. I'd like to echo Adam's statement: let's go back to coding please ;-)
Greetings, Jos -- I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste. -- Marcel Duchamp Without Questions there are no Answers!
Alin Marin ELENA Advanced Molecular Simulation Research Laboratory School of Physics, University College Dublin ---- Ardionsamblú Móilíneach Saotharlann Taighde Scoil na Fisice, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address: Room 318, UCD Engineering and Material Science Centre University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://alin.elenaworld.net alin.elena@ucdconnect.ie, alinm.elena@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2011-01-14T13:23:19, Jos Poortvliet
I'd like to ask you all to take the privacy of those involved serious. If you want a reason for that, just think about how a potential employer would respond if he or she would read a public discussion with accusations flying all directions concerning his/her potential new employee. Or how other communities that person might be involved in would react. I don't think it is ethical to go that road and I'd like to ask all of you again: if you have questions or concerns about this specific case, CONTACT THE BOARD.
The board made a public statement, which led to further questions. And no, I'm not satisfied with these statements. It is not that I distrust the board, but very much dislike the openness of the process and result. Sorry, cabals just don't do it for me.
I don't understand why it should be disclosed who this is about (including pointing to any of the offensive threads or logs), other than to satisfy the curiosity of people and frankly that seems the wrong reason to disclose it to me.
It is called "transparency", I believe. If this has been going on for well over a year, with the consequences having been pointed out to the individual in question apparently more than once, I wonder why the board did not feel the need to define a process for member eviction prior to the first incident. Then we'd have had rules known in advance, and this discussion wouldn't have happened. I don't want to know _who_ it is about, but it is probably impossible to discuss the "what" without this being pointed out. And I believe the community and member body _does_ have a right to review and understand how the board reached which decisions and why - because this is the only way how _we_ can understand which rules de facto apply to us, and how we may want them changed.
If you want to discuss the mandate of the board in matters like these or anything related to procedure, please go ahead. Preferably in another thread.
Why? It is coming up as part of this discussion, specifically.
If you want to discuss this case specifically, again, CONTACT THE BOARD.
Why? The _board_ brought it up in public, refering some vague past events that supposedly were public but are not referenced, and "breach of guiding principles" is about as vague as "breach of the US constitution". I'm dissatisfied with how the process worked here, specifically: the rules were, apparently, made up ad hoc. I am dissatisfied with the transparency: the board communicating a final verdict in vague language that means nothing to me. Sorry, guys and gals, but if you want to keep something under the carpet completely, posting in public about it is, perhaps, not the best path forward. With the next round of elections, I'd like to see this addressed. I also want the process to state that the reasoning and result of such a board decision be made public. In that case, offenders will know ahead of time that the result will be made public, and can figure that into their social behavior too. Member participation alas can also, at times, mean that members do not follow the board's argument, and even voice criticism. It's a tough world ;-) Regards, Lars -- Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 01:24:32 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
If the offender feels mistreated does he/she have a chance to voice his/her opinion about the matter to the community? Community preferbly as in opensuse- project mailinglist. That way we can safely trust the judgement of the board until the person can bring up opposite proof. To me this even sounds pretty good as a rule of thumb in case this happens again: A note to -project that the board was forced to remove a member from the project due to violations of the guidelines and he himself is free to speak up if he feels wronged. Otherwise any communication between the affected parties is to be done in private. That way privacy is respected and no member can be silenced by the board without note. A rather unpleasent issue the whole thing, this surely was no easy decission to take =/ Regards, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Karsten König
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 01:24:32 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
If the offender feels mistreated does he/she have a chance to voice his/her opinion about the matter to the community? Community preferbly as in opensuse- project mailinglist.
Improbable as the person was completely remove, ie: from mailing lists, irc...
That way we can safely trust the judgement of the board until the person can bring up opposite proof.
To me this even sounds pretty good as a rule of thumb in case this happens again: A note to -project that the board was forced to remove a member from the project due to violations of the guidelines and he himself is free to speak up if he feels wronged. Otherwise any communication between the affected parties is to be done in private.
The original post on this subject stated that numerous efforts were made to achieve compliance with the GPs w/o success. Doesn't this meet with your suggestion?
That way privacy is respected and no member can be silenced by the board without note.
The notation appears to be an afterthought. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:21:24 schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Karsten König
[01-14-11 08:59]: Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 01:24:32 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
If the offender feels mistreated does he/she have a chance to voice his/her opinion about the matter to the community? Community preferbly as in opensuse- project mailinglist.
Improbable as the person was completely remove, ie: from mailing lists, irc...
That way we can safely trust the judgement of the board until the person can bring up opposite proof.
To me this even sounds pretty good as a rule of thumb in case this happens again: A note to -project that the board was forced to remove a member from the project due to violations of the guidelines and he himself is free to speak up if he feels wronged. Otherwise any communication between the affected parties is to be done in private.
The original post on this subject stated that numerous efforts were made to achieve compliance with the GPs w/o success. Doesn't this meet with your suggestion?
No, I think the removed person should have a right to defend itself in public after the affected parties are informed of the verdict, he doesn't have to though.
That way privacy is respected and no member can be silenced by the board without note.
The notation appears to be an afterthought.
I fear I don't understand, I tried combining the wish of privacy with the transparency of an open government. Regards, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Karsten König
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:21:24 schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
The original post on this subject stated that numerous efforts were made to achieve compliance with the GPs w/o success. Doesn't this meet with your suggestion?
No, I think the removed person should have a right to defend itself in public after the affected parties are informed of the verdict, he doesn't have to though.
You do not think that during these "efforts" the possible consequence was not conveyed? -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:49:11 schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Karsten König
[01-14-11 09:45]: Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:21:24 schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
The original post on this subject stated that numerous efforts were made to achieve compliance with the GPs w/o success. Doesn't this meet with your suggestion?
No, I think the removed person should have a right to defend itself in public after the affected parties are informed of the verdict, he doesn't have to though.
You do not think that during these "efforts" the possible consequence was not conveyed?
Quite the opposite, I am sure the board made clear what the outcome of the continous violations would be, that's also what Pascal wrote in his mail. The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial. (far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial ) The affected person can of course yield his right to a public trial, especially when he/she can predict a negative outcome. If he feels wronged though he/she should be allowed to say so. Regards, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 1/14/2011 10:22 AM, Karsten König wrote:
The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial. (far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial ) The affected person can of course yield his right to a public trial, especially when he/she can predict a negative outcome. If he feels wronged though he/she should be allowed to say so.
Regards, Karsten
I can see where the train of thought is going, however, I have to disagree. How many of you on this list work with employers that release employees without notification? How many of those releases are done 'in private' and handled by the Human Resources department or a board of directors? Do they disclose the "reasoning" behind it? My point is, the board has given out quite a bit of information and gotten down to the brass tacks of: - The behavior was habitual - The behavior was addressed and actions taken to try and quell the situation, which failed. - This was a last resort that none of them wanted to take and this is the first time a situation like this has arisen to where the board was truly tested in this type of situation. Should procedures be updated/changed to make things like this a bit easier or more 'transparent' in the future? Probably. Will they change? I'm sure they will. Will it happen overnight? I hope not. Needs to be thought out/planned to make sure that, if and when the next time this happens, the situation can be handled smoothly and efficiently to make it easier for ALL parties involved. I'm not blaming the board for any failure on their part, as I don't view this as any failure on their part, but someone who is constantly causing the same issues over and over again, no matter what action anyone takes, eventually something has to be done. Just my two cents. -Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Karsten König
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:49:11 schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
You do not think that during these "efforts" the possible consequence was not conveyed?
Quite the opposite, I am sure the board made clear what the outcome of the continous violations would be, that's also what Pascal wrote in his mail.
The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial. (far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial ) The affected person can of course yield his right to a public trial, especially when he/she can predict a negative outcome. If he feels wronged though he/she should be allowed to say so.
If you are quite sure that the "possible consequence" was provided, then that individual had every opportunity to make public his position and avail himself a "public" inquisition. I am certain that he wasn't "called on the carpet" at 10:30am yesterday and "removed from public view" at 10:31am. The impression left by Mr. Bleser's post was that of a somewhat lengthy effort which had no avail. Why would you surmise that he had no time to "feel wronged" and make public that feeling? When is enough actually enough? -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 15/01/2011 02:44, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:49:11 schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
You do not think that during these "efforts" the possible consequence was not conveyed? Quite the opposite, I am sure the board made clear what the outcome of the continous violations would be, that's also what Pascal wrote in his mail.
The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial. (far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial ) The affected person can of course yield his right to a public trial, especially when he/she can predict a negative outcome. If he feels wronged though he/she should be allowed to say so. If you are quite sure that the "possible consequence" was provided, then
* Karsten König
[01-14-11 10:22]: that individual had every opportunity to make public his position and avail himself a "public" inquisition. I am certain that he wasn't "called on the carpet" at 10:30am yesterday and "removed from public view" at 10:31am. The impression left by Mr. Bleser's post was that of a somewhat lengthy effort which had no avail. Why would you surmise that he had no time to "feel wronged" and make public that feeling?
You'd make a marvellous pseudo-lawyer, Patrick :-) . "If you are quite sure....", "I am certain that he.....[1]", "The impression left by Mr.Bleser's post was....", "Why would you surmise that he.....[1]". All good stuff, Patrick. However, if you know what this is about then at least provide the mail list where all this occurred, otherwise do not "surmise" or "be quite sure" :-) . You are leaving the impression that you know about this matter than you pretend not to know - for example my [1] note: you know that the person in question is a male, right?
When is enough actually enough?
Good question. What's the answer? BC -- "I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY" Brian K. White -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Basil Chupin
All good stuff, Patrick. However, if you know what this is about then at least provide the mail list where all this occurred, otherwise do not "surmise" or "be quite sure" :-) .
You are leaving the impression that you know about this matter than you pretend not to know - for example my [1] note: you know that the person in question is a male, right?
When is enough actually enough?
Good question. What's the answer?
It certainly will not come here. Basil, you are either part of it and participate with the aim of improvement or you sit on the side lines using a different distro, you said that you didn't use openSUSE any longer, and toss barbs at the membership. Your comments show you glanced at the original post in this thread for were unable to comprehend the language. The post provided an avenue to address "further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public". <rhetorical questions> What is your purpose here? Did you vote for the board? Are you even a member, I don't see your name in the listing? Can't be bothered. Or is it because I support the country in which I live, work, play, and worship which you show much disdain? </end> -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial. (far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial ) The affected person can of course yield his right to a public trial, especially when he/she can predict a negative outcome. If he feels wronged though he/she should be allowed to say so.
All countries have the option / possibility of non-public trials, especially in circumstances where the publicity could compound the original offence, harm the victims or prejudice the outcome. Examples are libel, blackmail and some offences judged as disgusting by society.
From what Pascal said, this was something which fell into that category. Their judgement was that holding a public debate about it would have compounded the original offence.
We can either: trust them to agonise over this privately; or request that an independent member of the group talks to them to understand, and then confirm to us their agreement (or not) with the board's judgement; or request the board resigns. And if this independent adjudicator doesn't agree? Then we vote for a new board whose judgement we do like. Or we can just request that the board step down every time there's a difficult decision to make. I, personally, believe that the board have discussed it at sufficient length, and have come to the best decision they can. They have my support in how they've handled this. David -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 16:22 +0100, Karsten König wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 15:49:11 schrieb Patrick Shanahan Quite the opposite, I am sure the board made clear what the outcome of the continous violations would be, that's also what Pascal wrote in his mail. The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial.
So why have a board if they can't make final decisions. +1 the board having final authority, because otherwise nobody does.
(far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial )
Seriously? Attaching a legal right to membership in an Open Source project? That is, IMO, just ridiculous. You agreed to terms when you became a member, violation of those terms [the arbiter of which is the board] results in non-membership. Clear and simple. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:00 +0100, Karsten König wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 01:24:32 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue. If the offender feels mistreated does he/she have a chance to voice his/her opinion about the matter to the community?
Yes, it is called a BLOG. And that person can privately e-mail as individuals as they like.
Community preferbly as in opensuse-project mailinglist. That way we can safely trust the judgement of the board until the person can bring up opposite proof.
You can trust the judgement of the board by electing / voting-for people you trust. Transparency used in this manner is a flimsy veil for nit-picking and generally hobbling. IMO, as for basically filing for an appeal on the forum [which is really what you suggest] is a terrible idea [what else can "bring up opposite proof" mean]. I assume [trust!] the board has already communicated with the person and they've already had ample opportunity to argue their case. There is no reasonable cause to believe in a secret cabal of the board kicking out members. Dragging this kind of crap around in a forum accomplishes nothing but providing a *disincentive* for people to participate. The paranoid witch-hunt crowd here is already ample enough with giving them fuel. [I know I and others have dropped of opensuse mailing lists because of the incessant haranguing that Novel/the-board/whoever is evil/conspiring/cloistered]. In general I feel the powers-that-be here are much *too* tolerant for the projects good; certainly not the opposite. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 15/01/2011 02:59, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:00 +0100, Karsten König wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2011, 01:24:32 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue. If the offender feels mistreated does he/she have a chance to voice his/her opinion about the matter to the community? Yes, it is called a BLOG. And that person can privately e-mail as individuals as they like.
Community preferbly as in opensuse-project mailinglist. That way we can safely trust the judgement of the board until the person can bring up opposite proof. You can trust the judgement of the board by electing / voting-for people you trust.
I think that you are being either a bit naive or trying to overstate your argument: you trust the politicians you elect? and do you know personally each of the members of the Board you vote for?
Transparency used in this manner is a flimsy veil for nit-picking and generally hobbling.
IMO, as for basically filing for an appeal on the forum [which is really what you suggest] is a terrible idea [what else can "bring up opposite proof" mean]. I assume [trust!] the board has already communicated with the person and they've already had ample opportunity to argue their case. There is no reasonable cause to believe in a secret cabal of the board kicking out members.
Dragging this kind of crap around in a forum accomplishes nothing but providing a *disincentive* for people to participate. The paranoid witch-hunt crowd here is already ample enough with giving them fuel. [I know I and others have dropped of opensuse mailing lists because of the incessant haranguing that Novel/the-board/whoever is evil/conspiring/cloistered].
Well, jolly big boo-hoo-hoos for them! If they can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Having said this, if you look at the Guiding Principles as they are now appear on Wikipedia, here - http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles, they show that the Board can resolve disputes. So this part is a non-issue. However, nobody as yet, and this has been asked to be done, has spelt out which of the multitude of Principles has been breached to create an offence for which someone has now been "thrown out"? From my quick reading of the Principles, there is nothing but broad rhetorical statements about "principles" but no specific instances which for which a person can be "thrown out". And so, as asked by many others already, which "principle" was so badly breached as to attract such a penalty?
In general I feel the powers-that-be here are much *too* tolerant for the projects good; certainly not the opposite.
"In general..." but how about being specific? BC -- "I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY" Brian K. White -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Like Pontius Pilate: "I am innocent from this man's blood; you will see". I would just leave a small think for people to think on... * Were all the solutions explored? - CLEARLY NOT! -- Email clients can block inbound emails from certain origins; This would've help not reaching this state. -- IRC allows /ignore; You only need a username and a mask; This would've help not reaching this state. -- etc... Based on this, the victim(s) wanted to be the victim(s). No I don't have experience in management of FOSS communities, but I've got a long road on online gaming communities (it started many years ago with the old MUD's through text consoles, MUD = Multi User Dungeons). This issues are way too popular on gaming communities, and they do trigger a far wide scale problems than this one... Even in games people contribute/play side by side for the same goal, sometimes not even speaking to each other, and they use this methods and tactics (ignore, etc) to prevent situations like this to happen. To me, it should never go out of the 'good sense'. I'm sorry I find this 'crucification' exageratted, and I don't believe all the possible ways have been explored to stop this... now it's too late... I fear for the future if a Evil Clown[1] pops by... hopefully he will have a short stock on 'grenades'[2]. [1] - http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm [2] - http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm My two cents... "I am innocent from this man's blood; you will see". - Pontius Pilate Nelson Marques. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 1/14/2011 11:28 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Based on this, the victim(s) wanted to be the victim(s).
So victims choose to be victims? I don't see how that makes any sense. -Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 11:38 -0500, Matt Hayes wrote:
On 1/14/2011 11:28 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Based on this, the victim(s) wanted to be the victim(s). So victims choose to be victims? I don't see how that makes any sense.
Because it doesn't make any sense; don't even bother. There is, apparently, a definition of "community" that involves everyone having to [figuratively] drive a tank, wear body armor, and carry a gernade launcher so as to be avoid encroaching on the 'freedom' of others. If the madness of such a scenario isn't obvious.... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Dear Matt,
Me and Carlos Ribeiro have also been victims of gnokii and his
bullying... Strangelly, we have worked out with gnokii, without any
intervention from the board. Please ask Pascal or AJ if they haven't
warned gnokii in the past about the same behavior with me and Carlos.
Now did anyone heard me or Carlos regarding this subject? Because so
far as I see it, me, Carlos Ribeiro and Gnokii are friends... we
managed to work out our differences and we're friends today. Tell
me... are we that special? Did we required intervention from anyone?
So why does it work for some and not for others?
This two examples, Me and Carlos Ribeiro could helped refute this
claims. But they weren't even mentioned before... I believe that some
people on the board are aware of it... So if they are aware of it, why
such a large scale crucification ?
NM
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Matt Hayes
On 1/14/2011 11:28 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Based on this, the victim(s) wanted to be the victim(s).
So victims choose to be victims? I don't see how that makes any sense.
-Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 1/14/2011 11:42 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Dear Matt,
Me and Carlos Ribeiro have also been victims of gnokii and his bullying... Strangelly, we have worked out with gnokii, without any intervention from the board. Please ask Pascal or AJ if they haven't warned gnokii in the past about the same behavior with me and Carlos.
Now did anyone heard me or Carlos regarding this subject? Because so far as I see it, me, Carlos Ribeiro and Gnokii are friends... we managed to work out our differences and we're friends today. Tell me... are we that special? Did we required intervention from anyone?
So why does it work for some and not for others?
This two examples, Me and Carlos Ribeiro could helped refute this claims. But they weren't even mentioned before... I believe that some people on the board are aware of it... So if they are aware of it, why such a large scale crucification ?
I don't recall seeing a crucification other than and explanation from the board. No names mentioned at all. So pointing the finger at the board and saying they are crucifying the person in question is incorrect in my opinion. Whatever floats your boat I guess. -Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... Those who
understand binary and those who don't.
NM
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Matt Hayes
On 1/14/2011 11:42 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Dear Matt,
Me and Carlos Ribeiro have also been victims of gnokii and his bullying... Strangelly, we have worked out with gnokii, without any intervention from the board. Please ask Pascal or AJ if they haven't warned gnokii in the past about the same behavior with me and Carlos.
Now did anyone heard me or Carlos regarding this subject? Because so far as I see it, me, Carlos Ribeiro and Gnokii are friends... we managed to work out our differences and we're friends today. Tell me... are we that special? Did we required intervention from anyone?
So why does it work for some and not for others?
This two examples, Me and Carlos Ribeiro could helped refute this claims. But they weren't even mentioned before... I believe that some people on the board are aware of it... So if they are aware of it, why such a large scale crucification ?
I don't recall seeing a crucification other than and explanation from the board. No names mentioned at all.
So pointing the finger at the board and saying they are crucifying the person in question is incorrect in my opinion.
Whatever floats your boat I guess.
-Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
let us not to mix the things... there are two issues here on which people may agree or disagree... 1. is the process through which a decision was taken by the board. I militate for transparency as written in the principles... check one of the last paragraphs and I am afraid in all this business the only transparency I saw was the one from the border of my kde windows... Everything was blurred in general considerations about privacy and references to the principles... complicating the matter even more. As one who puts a lot of his time in irc helping and annoying people I know that the arguments can be very hot and personal sometimes. 2. the outcome of the decision. I am sure not in the position to argue... I really do not know the facts of the case... at the end of the day this is why we have a board... Unfortunately this case proved that we do not have a transparent process in place. I will urge to board to review their statement about the decision and keep the hard facts that made them to decide the exclusion. My hope is that from all this the community will learn. Individual members have to understand that they are allowed to criticise ideas but not make judgements on the people that emit them. Alin -- I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste. -- Marcel Duchamp Without Questions there are no Answers! _____________________________________________________________________ Alin Marin ELENA Advanced Molecular Simulation Research Laboratory School of Physics, University College Dublin ---- Ardionsamblú Móilíneach Saotharlann Taighde Scoil na Fisice, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address: Room 318, UCD Engineering and Material Science Centre University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://alin.elenaworld.net alin.elena@ucdconnect.ie, alinm.elena@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Nelson Marques
Dear Matt,
Me and Carlos Ribeiro have also been victims of gnokii and his bullying... Strangelly, we have worked out with gnokii, without any intervention from the board. Please ask Pascal or AJ if they haven't warned gnokii in the past about the same behavior with me and Carlos.
Now did anyone heard me or Carlos regarding this subject? Because so far as I see it, me, Carlos Ribeiro and Gnokii are friends... we managed to work out our differences and we're friends today. Tell me... are we that special? Did we required intervention from anyone?
So why does it work for some and not for others?
This two examples, Me and Carlos Ribeiro could helped refute this claims. But they weren't even mentioned before... I believe that some people on the board are aware of it... So if they are aware of it, why such a large scale crucification ?
NM
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Matt Hayes
wrote: On 1/14/2011 11:28 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Based on this, the victim(s) wanted to be the victim(s).
So victims choose to be victims? I don't see how that makes any sense.
-Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Nelson, I don't think it was good to name name's. Beside, you and Carlos weren't the only ones. There were more. -- ----------------------------------------- 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
Nelson, I don't think it was good to name name's. Beside, you and Carlos weren't the only ones. There were more.
I've talked with the perpetrator before, I've only mentioned his nick and he has no problems with that. I've mentioned my name and Carlos, because unlike the 'others' we went from 'victims' to friends, and that has to count for something... If worked ok for us, it should've worked ok for others as well... which leads me to think... why didn't worked? lack of commitment? (speculation, as it's the only thing I know, since I know only the perpetrator side and what one member of the Board told me in private). No I don't agree with the conduct used sometimes by the perpetrator, but on the other side, I see at least 2 people which could go over it, so I find this 'crucification' (that's how I see it) a bit off hand, specially when it's an applicant to the Board. I trust the Board, but I would love to know for sure that all options have been explored... and I feel they haven't... so please, enlighten me... why did not the 'victims' blocked the source in the first hand, thus avoiding a large scale conflict? I do trust the Board at some point, and I congratulate them for giving their face to this... but mark my words and please if you know the answer to this questions please answer them... I would also like someone from the board to make a public statement about this issues I'm going to raise: * Was the perpetrator given the right to present a defense? How and When? (That's a right granted by the Chart of Human Rights); * Why was the perpetrator banned from IRC channel when this issue was discussed? (This was told to me by the perpetrator himself); Please feel free to enlighten me about the transparency of all this process.... Because to me it sounds... fuzzy... NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
2011/1/14 Nelson Marques
Nelson, I don't think it was good to name name's. Beside, you and Carlos weren't the only ones. There were more.
I've talked with the perpetrator before, I've only mentioned his nick and he has no problems with that. I've mentioned my name and Carlos, because unlike the 'others' we went from 'victims' to friends, and that has to count for something... If worked ok for us, it should've worked ok for others as well... which leads me to think... why didn't worked? lack of commitment? (speculation, as it's the only thing I know, since I know only the perpetrator side and what one member of the Board told me in private).
No I don't agree with the conduct used sometimes by the perpetrator, but on the other side, I see at least 2 people which could go over it, so I find this 'crucification' (that's how I see it) a bit off hand, specially when it's an applicant to the Board.
I see one people who could act nice from the start and nothing of this would have happened,am I wrong? Does anyone,even you Nelson, believes that he was playing nice and I or all the others attacked him? I don't see myself as a victim, the only victim here is the community under my opinion. I was just offended by him and no one can get me wrong for this ,can you? But at the bottom line I see no reason I have to apologize for something I did not do, believe it or not I might be the last one who learned about it...
I trust the Board, but I would love to know for sure that all options have been explored... and I feel they haven't... so please, enlighten me... why did not the 'victims' blocked the source in the first hand, thus avoiding a large scale conflict?
When someone insults me I don't ignore him, I ask him why and I expect a reasonable answer, isn't that what I did? If someone insults you, you ignore him?
I do trust the Board at some point, and I congratulate them for giving their face to this... but mark my words and please if you know the answer to this questions please answer them... I would also like someone from the board to make a public statement about this issues I'm going to raise:
* Was the perpetrator given the right to present a defense? How and When? (That's a right granted by the Chart of Human Rights); * Why was the perpetrator banned from IRC channel when this issue was discussed? (This was told to me by the perpetrator himself);
Please feel free to enlighten me about the transparency of all this process.... Because to me it sounds... fuzzy...
NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- 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
Kostas Koudaras wrote:
When someone insults me I don't ignore him, I ask him why and I expect a reasonable answer, isn't that what I did? If someone insults you, you ignore him?
I quite often do, e.g. when I don't believe something was intended as an insult, but just poorly worded due to language. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (6.0°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
<snip>
No I don't agree with the conduct used sometimes by the perpetrator, but on the other side, I see at least 2 people which could go over it, so I find this 'crucification' (that's how I see it) a bit off hand, specially when it's an applicant to the Board.
I see one people who could act nice from the start and nothing of this would have happened,am I wrong? Does anyone,even you Nelson, believes that he was playing nice and I or all the others attacked him? I don't see myself as a victim, the only victim here is the community under my opinion. I was just offended by him and no one can get me wrong for this ,can you? But at the bottom line I see no reason I have to apologize for something I did not do, believe it or not I might be the last one who learned about it...
I don't believe you understood what I tried to say... LOOK: "No I don't agree with the conduct used sometimes by the perpetrator"
I trust the Board, but I would love to know for sure that all options have been explored... and I feel they haven't... so please, enlighten me... why did not the 'victims' blocked the source in the first hand, thus avoiding a large scale conflict?
When someone insults me I don't ignore him, I ask him why and I expect a reasonable answer, isn't that what I did? If someone insults you, you ignore him?
Yes, haven't you seen me walking away from the Marketing Team? You said yourself... instead of blocking or ignoring you choosed to fight back. So, this only proves that not everything that could be done (in fact the most easy thing, blocking) wasn't done. In other words... People decided to keep fueling a situation that if it was handled by ignoring/blocking could've been avoided. This considering that the only fact behind gnokii's demise is actually the stuff around behavior... because I've seen some harsh critics from gnokii with some very cool arguments against other people that mentioned on Pascal's email regarding budget allocation for travelling amongst other stuff. Which at some point, if gnokii is right on such claims, this could actually sustain a strong claim for crucification. Let me put it another way: 1. The board allows 1 year of abuses from the perpetrator; 2. The board doesn't create a community mechanism to handle this situations; 3. Behind closed doors the board gives gnokii no right to defence and boots him off the project; 4. Everything is kept under secrecy motivated by the arguments presented on Pascal's email; 5. During an election period, and most likely one of the last official acts of the current Board leads to a new precedent and booting away from the project a member... All of this seems normal to you ? My question remain: 1. Was the perpetrator given a chance to defend himself against accusations? When and how? 2. Why was the perpetrator banned from the IRC during that meeting? Please, the focus should be around this 2 questions, not on the past, because every single people is different and react in different ways. The perpetrator now is gnokii, later can be anyone else.
I do trust the Board at some point, and I congratulate them for giving their face to this... but mark my words and please if you know the answer to this questions please answer them... I would also like someone from the board to make a public statement about this issues I'm going to raise:
* Was the perpetrator given the right to present a defense? How and When? (That's a right granted by the Chart of Human Rights); * Why was the perpetrator banned from IRC channel when this issue was discussed? (This was told to me by the perpetrator himself);
Please feel free to enlighten me about the transparency of all this process.... Because to me it sounds... fuzzy...
NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- 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
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Nelson Marques wrote:
Nelson, I don't think it was good to name name's. Beside, you and Carlos weren't the only ones. There were more.
I've talked with the perpetrator before, I've only mentioned his nick and he has no problems with that.
Well, I ask you to read the following story just as an allegorical story. ;-) In the top post of this thread, Pascal told us to "contact the board directly (board@opensuse.org) if you have further questions or need clarification, instead of discussing it in public". And in another post, Jos told us "if you have questions or concerns about this specific case, CONTACT THE BOARD". The question here is: Are we *asked* to do so, or *warned* to do so? If the answer is latter, those who are discussing this issue in public (I might be one of them, though) are considered "persons who ignored the warnings repeatedly" and can be banned and blocked? ... If there are some things which are still not clear to you, I'd strongly recommend you to contact the Board first, as suggested. Board must be responsible about that. Knowing everything may help you determining if this case is handled correctly and the dicision and procedure are reasonabel and acceptable enough or not, but we have to remember that disclosing everything in public may compromise specific persons. We need to be as cautious as possible not to harm our *friends*. ;-) Best, -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
I'm seriously considering dropping off this mailing list. I've seen so many open source projects go downhill because of disputes in public forums. Gentoo was like that, and it pretty much destroyed a big part of the distro. I don't want to see it happen to openSUSE. There's simply no place for verbal abuse in a public mailing list for an open source project. I've put a filter to block the subject, but I'm beginning to think I should just unsubscribe from the list. People skills matter. Got it? -- http://twitter.com/znmeb http://borasky-research.net "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." -- Paul Erdős -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 15/01/2011 04:46, Chuck Payne wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Nelson Marques
wrote: Dear Matt,
Me and Carlos Ribeiro have also been victims of gnokii and his bullying... Strangelly, we have worked out with gnokii, without any intervention from the board. Please ask Pascal or AJ if they haven't warned gnokii in the past about the same behavior with me and Carlos.
Now did anyone heard me or Carlos regarding this subject? Because so far as I see it, me, Carlos Ribeiro and Gnokii are friends... we managed to work out our differences and we're friends today. Tell me... are we that special? Did we required intervention from anyone?
So why does it work for some and not for others?
This two examples, Me and Carlos Ribeiro could helped refute this claims. But they weren't even mentioned before... I believe that some people on the board are aware of it... So if they are aware of it, why such a large scale crucification ?
NM
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Matt Hayes
wrote: On 1/14/2011 11:28 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Based on this, the victim(s) wanted to be the victim(s). So victims choose to be victims? I don't see how that makes any sense.
-Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Nelson, I don't think it was good to name name's. Beside, you and Carlos weren't the only ones. There were more.
I don't understand. Don't people use mail clients which can automatically send received mail from certain people to the crap-bin?! I have some dozen names in my crap-bin filter and what they post is simply 'flushed down the toilet' (where they belong). Or cannot people simply hit the NEXT message button/key? The mind boggles...... :-( BC -- "I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY" Brian K. White -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 15/01/2011 03:42, Nelson Marques wrote:
Dear Matt,
Me and Carlos Ribeiro have also been victims of gnokii and his bullying... Strangelly, we have worked out with gnokii, without any intervention from the board. Please ask Pascal or AJ if they haven't warned gnokii in the past about the same behavior with me and Carlos.
Now did anyone heard me or Carlos regarding this subject? Because so far as I see it, me, Carlos Ribeiro and Gnokii are friends... we managed to work out our differences and we're friends today. Tell me... are we that special? Did we required intervention from anyone?
So why does it work for some and not for others?
This two examples, Me and Carlos Ribeiro could helped refute this claims. But they weren't even mentioned before... I believe that some people on the board are aware of it... So if they are aware of it, why such a large scale crucification ?
NM
Thank you, Nelson, for this 'expose`'. It is also most interesting that this matter comes up at the time when people have been submitting their names for the Board election - and as a message posted by someone here states that this person was one who was putting his name forward for the Board. And the current Board chose just this very specific time, after fooling around with this issue for some 12 months or so, to expel this person. Coincidences do happen all the time don't they?...... BC -- "I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY" Brian K. White -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Thank you, Nelson, for this 'expose`'.
Basil, Please be mindful that two of the victims of the perpetrator's attacks are running to the board, and third victim of the perpetrator attack is already on the board. According to the perpetrator, a 'defense' wasn't allowed to happen. Indeed there is something fuzzy here, and it should be a +1 if there was the need of the Board clarifying this. I believe the board mission isn't about 'enforcing' but prevention. This opens a very dangerous precedent which can be exploited in the future to use the Board as a tool of repression. I wouldn't be surprised that with this precedent the number of cases might escalate in the future.
It is also most interesting that this matter comes up at the time when people have been submitting their names for the Board election - and as a message posted by someone here states that this person was one who was putting his name forward for the Board.
And the current Board chose just this very specific time, after fooling around with this issue for some 12 months or so, to expel this person.
Coincidences do happen all the time don't they?......
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. NM
BC
-- "I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY" Brian K. White
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2011-01-15 Nelson offered the following:
Thank you, Nelson, for this 'expose`'.
Basil,
Please be mindful that two of the victims of the perpetrator's attacks are running to the board, and third victim of the perpetrator attack is already on the board.
According to the perpetrator, a 'defense' wasn't allowed to happen. Indeed there is something fuzzy here, and it should be a +1 if there was the need of the Board clarifying this.
I believe the board mission isn't about 'enforcing' but prevention. This opens a very dangerous precedent which can be exploited in the future to use the Board as a tool of repression. I wouldn't be surprised that with this precedent the number of cases might escalate in the future.
It is also most interesting that this matter comes up at the time when people have been submitting their names for the Board election - and as a message posted by someone here states that this person was one who was putting his name forward for the Board.
And the current Board chose just this very specific time, after fooling around with this issue for some 12 months or so, to expel this person.
Coincidences do happen all the time don't they?......
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
NM
I would have hoped this would have been your excuse to FIGHT! ... to right a wrong and to get on the board and set policy to a correct route by defining the RIGHT way to handle such incidents and to right past wrongs where possible. If you don't, or won't, openSUSE, is DEAD IMO. Politicians need to be grossly mistrusted intrinsically by the electorate and the 'community'. The community needs to hold a strong string tied collectively around the most sensitive part of the gonads of the governing members of the board, congress, executive, judicial or other bureaucracies that affect them. When the governing members get out of line, the community needs to 'yank hard' to remind them who is in charge, eg, they govern by informed consent, not by hidden edict and 'trust me, I am doing what is best for you even if you don't like it' jam it down your throat force. Richard Creighton Community member -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Richard Creighton
On 2011-01-15 Nelson offered the following:
Thank you, Nelson, for this 'expose`'.
Basil,
Please be mindful that two of the victims of the perpetrator's attacks are running to the board, and third victim of the perpetrator attack is already on the board.
According to the perpetrator, a 'defense' wasn't allowed to happen. Indeed there is something fuzzy here, and it should be a +1 if there was the need of the Board clarifying this.
I believe the board mission isn't about 'enforcing' but prevention. This opens a very dangerous precedent which can be exploited in the future to use the Board as a tool of repression. I wouldn't be surprised that with this precedent the number of cases might escalate in the future.
It is also most interesting that this matter comes up at the time when people have been submitting their names for the Board election - and as a message posted by someone here states that this person was one who was putting his name forward for the Board.
And the current Board chose just this very specific time, after fooling around with this issue for some 12 months or so, to expel this person.
Coincidences do happen all the time don't they?......
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
NM
I would have hoped this would have been your excuse to FIGHT! ... to right a wrong and to get on the board and set policy to a correct route by defining the RIGHT way to handle such incidents and to right past wrongs where possible. If you don't, or won't, openSUSE, is DEAD IMO. Politicians need to be grossly mistrusted intrinsically by the electorate and the 'community'. The community needs to hold a strong string tied collectively around the most sensitive part of the gonads of the governing members of the board, congress, executive, judicial or other bureaucracies that affect them. When the governing members get out of line, the community needs to 'yank hard' to remind them who is in charge, eg, they govern by informed consent, not by hidden edict and 'trust me, I am doing what is best for you even if you don't like it' jam it down your throat force.
Richard Creighton Community member
Richard, Thanks for your kind words. I don't have any motivation on being part of a organizational organ that 'polices' other people. My interest on the board was purelly to promote expantion and to promote sensibility towards users needs. Helps us understand what our users expect from us, so we could answer properly. Also helping our users understanding who we are and what we stand for... Nothing of this has to do with 'community police' actions. The community knows how to take care of itself ;), we all know that... NM
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already. @election committee members We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Should the ballots for Nelson be just ignored, or should we undo and start fresh voting? Best, -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson?
Ignore them. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday January 15 2011 21:15:32 Per Jessen wrote:
Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson?
Ignore them.
This weren't fair cause then some of us had just one vote. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson?
Ignore them.
Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes. If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 15/01/2011 21:26, Greg Freemyer a écrit :
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
there are several things here. * one have to think before voting. For the present vote, votes can't be changed. * a candidate can resign at any moment before the vote, but this have no value. Usually the vote don't change. The votes for the candidate *are* counted (and sometime the candidate *is* elected and accept to be - I've seen this :-). The candidate can still resign after the election. Sometime a candidate don't give bulletins, so he have nearly no votes (but this don't apply here, there are no bulletins). * no vote should be accepted before *the end* of the discussion with the candidates. Candidacy are much too close. We should ** have the candidates ** discuss they programm with them (it's not possible before) ** then only vote. * No major board decision should be made public *just before* the vote and *after the candidate presented themselve* because the opinion of the candidates about the decision is crucial. * I hope Nelson will not resign. Even if he is not elected, the vote number on his position is important for the hole community 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 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them. Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg
This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after the current election is over. One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with. 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 Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Basil Chupin
On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson?
Ignore them.
Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg
This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after the current election is over.
One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with.
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
Basil, I don't you know well enought, but please let this thread die. Again everyone need to just let it go. Calm water make better sailing. -- ----------------------------------------- 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
On 16/01/2011 16:57, Chuck Payne wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Basil Chupin
wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them. Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after
On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote: the current election is over.
One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with. Basil,
I don't you know well enought, but please let this thread die. Again everyone need to just let it go. Calm water make better sailing.
Chuck, I don't know *you *well "enought" (sic) either but why should I, or anyone else here, "let it die"? None of 'us' brought this subject up to begin with. It was posted, at length, here by a current Board member (unless the entry in Wikipedia is wrong). Why was the message posted here? For what reason? Irrespective of the reason, I, personally, am glad that it had been posted because it shows the underlining 'management proficiency' - for want of a better word - of the Board, and the gaps in procedures which they have allowed to exist. This should not be swept under the carpet. This is a very important matter. Of course there will be those who are total arseholes who will direct this matter into the never-never-land of stupidity but, as an ex-President of one organisation, ex-Secretary of another organisation, and ex-Treasurer of another and having to handle legalistic matters about the Rules governing those organisations, what is now happening is not to be swept under the carpet. The whole matter is just too important for the future of the Board members should they want to be considered for membership of the Foundation. 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 2011-01-16 Basil offered the following:
On 16/01/2011 16:57, Chuck Payne wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Basil Chupin
wrote: On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote: > I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke > my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the > future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson?
Ignore them.
Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg
It may not make much difference in the long run... Look at the following exerpt from the "Guiding Princiles" that each member is required to subscribe to before membership is 'granted'.... Quote Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork . Do you want to support the Guiding Principles? End Quote from https://users.opensuse.org/guidingprinciples When I went to login the other day, it logged me in as if I was a new member and told me to check the agreement noted in my quote above. Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly. Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Quote
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork
Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly.
You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that. Someone [a legally existing entity] *MUST* own the trademark (otherwise it isn't a trademark, same for copyright). There is no reason that entity can't agree to let anyone else use it or even transfer the ownership of the trademark. If there [currently] is no openSUSE foundation / incorporated entity / whatever then, of course, "openSUSE" can't own the "openSUSE" trademark because, simply, there is nobody to own it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Jan 19, 11 06:52:45 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Quote
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork
Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly.
You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that.
Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named. Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want. I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Juergen Weigert
On Jan 19, 11 06:52:45 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Quote
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork
Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly.
You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that.
Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named.
Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want.
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing.
IIRC One of the previously stated goals for the foundation is to own and enforce the copyrights associated with openSUSE. I expect that to be clarified as the openSUSE foundation activity of the board is summarized and posted to the -foundation list in the next days. (I have not read the board notes, so I don't know any details. If you're real curious, go read those. They're public I believe. And recall the board Chairman is specifically a Novell representative, so I assume in that role he is speaking for Novell(?)) Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2011-01-19 08:08:06 (-0500), Greg Freemyer
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Juergen Weigert
wrote: [...] Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named.
Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want.
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing.
IIRC One of the previously stated goals for the foundation is to own and enforce the copyrights associated with openSUSE. I expect that to be clarified as the openSUSE foundation activity of the board is summarized and posted to the -foundation list in the next days.
No, it was not. The perspective/plan/idea here is to get something done, and hence not go for the full monty right from the start. Personally, and I'm not the only one, I believe that indeed, the trademarks/copyrights should be owned by the foundation at some point in the future. But that has not been discussed much with Novell and not something we plan to pursue as an objective as of now. The reason is that the more pressing matter is having *a* foundation in the first place, and the primary, pressing, practical goals which have lead to creating a foundation are: * have an entity that can receive donations/sponsoring for the project (this is currently not possible, or at least not in a form that is transparent and directly funds the project) * use those funds to support initiatives of the openSUSE project (e.g. renting infrastructure/hosting servers when needed, fund travel expenses and promo material for ambassadors, etc...) Now, of course, that is a first but big step. We will have to see how things will evolve and take the next steps further down the road. On the trademarks, I personally don't think that it would be a good idea to have them owned by the foundation just yet. Let's see how it works out, how the foundation board and membership will function, how the funds will be used, and how much financial support we will get. Because owning trademarks also means that you *must* enforce violations of those trademarks, including taking legal actions, and we don't know yet (or rather when) the foundation will be in a position to do so. Hence, as of now, the trademarks and copyrights are better with Novell anyway. I could also imagine and understand that Novell has a similar feeling about it, waiting to see what the foundation will become, whether it's viable and in a position to defend the trademarks in the first place. Then we'll certainly engage in a discussion on the matter, and we'll see what everyone's position is at that time. But, at least IMHO, not right now. Let's not make the process of setting up the foundation dependent on whether we get the ownership of the trademarks right now or not.
(I have not read the board notes, so I don't know any details. If you're real curious, go read those. They're public I believe. And recall the board Chairman is specifically a Novell representative, so
We're in the process of publicizing stuff about it, we've been a bit lazy on that.
I assume in that role he is speaking for Novell(?))
The board chairman speaks for the board.
(And the board of the foundation will not have an appointed
chairman. And the current plan is that openSUSE board ==
Foundation board, as a single entity, and not have two boards
for the project.)
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser
Le 20/01/2011 15:29, Pascal Bleser a écrit : Pascal wrote many interesting things, that comfirm my feeling that the foundation should not use the "openSUSE" work in it's name nor in it's goals. Let's be more generals. I still also think than a foundation have to be a - say by analogy - a holding, having several local non profit organisations. I'm ready to create such thing in France, it's enough to be 3 people :-), but better begin with the foundation (or not?) 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
Le 20/01/2011 15:43, jdd a écrit :
foundation should not use the "openSUSE" work
word, not work!! my english is not as good as I would like :-( sorry 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 2011-01-20 15:43:48 (+0100), jdd
Le 20/01/2011 15:29, Pascal Bleser a écrit :
Pascal wrote many interesting things, that comfirm my feeling that the foundation should not use the "openSUSE" work in it's name nor in it's goals.
Huh? No, I wrote that we have an "unofficial" (as in: not written down on paper) agreement that Novell will license the use of the openSUSE trademark to the openSUSE foundation. And, hence, we can use the name openSUSE for the foundation. (again, disclaimer, that's the current state of things)
Let's be more general. I still also think than a foundation have to be a - say by analogy - a holding, having several local non profit organisations.
And why would that be? What's the point of doing that? Except making it a lot more complicated ?
I'm ready to create such thing in France, it's enough to be 3 people :-), but better begin with the foundation (or not?)
Yes, we should definitely concentrate on the foundation to get
that done.
Note that a lot of work has already been done there, we're not
starting at zero at this point.
Documentation about where we are right now in the process will
be available soon on the wiki, and let's please start from there
and not from the beginning, unless there is really a compelling
reason to do so.
(= please wait for the documentation to be there, read it, and
then I and everyone else involved will be more than happy to
have more feedback and input to discuss on the foundation
mailing-list)
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser
On 2011-01-19 13:34:30 (+0100), Juergen Weigert
On Jan 19, 11 06:52:45 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly. You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that. Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named.
We already have an agreement from Novell that the openSUSE trademarks will be licensed to the openSUSE Foundation. It's not written down at this point, but we already have an informal OK ;)
Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want.
Indeed, and it seems like that's what Novell is thinking too ;)
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing.
The informal OK was received before the merger started.
Of course, it'll only be carved into stone once we'll have the
bylaws and a foundation and a formal copyright licensing etc...
But no reason to panic about that right now :)
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser
On 21/01/2011 01:13, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On Jan 19, 11 06:52:45 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly. You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that. Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named. We already have an agreement from Novell that the openSUSE
On 2011-01-19 13:34:30 (+0100), Juergen Weigert
wrote: trademarks will be licensed to the openSUSE Foundation. It's not written down at this point, but we already have an informal OK ;) Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want. Indeed, and it seems like that's what Novell is thinking too ;)
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing. The informal OK was received before the merger started.
But, Pascal, this is the most serious stumbling block facing this Foundation and all discussion about it and its Rules and By-Laws and name is a total waste of time and effort! You do NOT have a formal agreement, nothing in writing, and Novell has been sold. The new owners are never under any obligation to honour any agreement made by the organisation it just acquired especially since there is nothing in writing and which would have been part of the documentation looked into the new owners before acquiring Novell. All this is about smoke and mirrors and hopes.
Of course, it'll only be carved into stone once we'll have the bylaws and a foundation and a formal copyright licensing etc... But no reason to panic about that right now :)
cheers
I don't think anyone is panicking but I also think that a lot of people are living in Never Never Land...... What do the lawyers engaged to put this Foundation together state 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 Friday 21 January 2011 06:09:25 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 21/01/2011 01:13, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On 2011-01-19 13:34:30 (+0100), Juergen Weigert
wrote: On Jan 19, 11 06:52:45 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly.
You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that.
Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named.
We already have an agreement from Novell that the openSUSE trademarks will be licensed to the openSUSE Foundation. It's not written down at this point, but we already have an informal OK ;)
Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want.
Indeed, and it seems like that's what Novell is thinking too ;)
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing.
The informal OK was received before the merger started.
But, Pascal, this is the most serious stumbling block facing this Foundation and all discussion about it and its Rules and By-Laws and name is a total waste of time and effort!
You do NOT have a formal agreement, nothing in writing, and Novell has been sold.
The new owners are never under any obligation to honour any agreement made by the organisation it just acquired especially since there is nothing in writing and which would have been part of the documentation looked into the new owners before acquiring Novell.
All this is about smoke and mirrors and hopes.
No, it's not. While you should bring these concerns to the foundation list and not here (as has been said about 1000 times already, reading is hard isn't it?), I can simply answer that: the board has stated many times we'll have a foundation, Novell involvement or not. What's so difficult to grasp about that? If Novell is not involved they'll call it the Geeko Foundation or whatever, if Novell gives or 'lends' the trademarks, it'll be openSUSE Foundation. Indeed, Novell can hardly make decisions right now but there is no reason to delay anything. Can YOU stop trowing up smoke-and-mirror screens? If you care so much, why aren't you discussing this on the Foundation mailinglist?
Of course, it'll only be carved into stone once we'll have the bylaws and a foundation and a formal copyright licensing etc... But no reason to panic about that right now :)
cheers
I don't think anyone is panicking but I also think that a lot of people are living in Never Never Land......
What do the lawyers engaged to put this Foundation together state about this situation?
Why ask them if it's crystal clear to anyone but you? Sorry, Basil, but you're rambling and wasting everyone's valuable time. Go to the foundation ML. Or just stop discussing things altogether, nothing new is coming up.
BC
On 21/01/2011 22:47, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2011 06:09:25 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 21/01/2011 01:13, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On Jan 19, 11 06:52:45 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark. Novell permits and encourages the usage of the official openSUSE artwork Any 'foundation' probably won't be able to be named 'openSUSE' if I read the ownership of that name/trademark correctly. You may "read" it correctly; but there is no reason to believe that. Unless Novell grants permission to use the trademark for the Foundation name, or Novell would be willing to transfer the trademark to the Foundation, your reading is correct. I'd like to hear what the chances are, that one of the two happens, so that the foundation can be appropriatly named. We already have an agreement from Novell that the openSUSE
On 2011-01-19 13:34:30 (+0100), Juergen Weigert
wrote: trademarks will be licensed to the openSUSE Foundation. It's not written down at this point, but we already have an informal OK ;) Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want. Indeed, and it seems like that's what Novell is thinking too ;)
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing. The informal OK was received before the merger started. But, Pascal, this is the most serious stumbling block facing this Foundation and all discussion about it and its Rules and By-Laws and name is a total waste of time and effort!
You do NOT have a formal agreement, nothing in writing, and Novell has been sold.
The new owners are never under any obligation to honour any agreement made by the organisation it just acquired especially since there is nothing in writing and which would have been part of the documentation looked into the new owners before acquiring Novell.
All this is about smoke and mirrors and hopes. No, it's not. While you should bring these concerns to the foundation list and not here (as has been said about 1000 times already, reading is hard isn't it?),
I respond to posts in the list in which they are posted - which is HERE, in case you missed this one. You want to discuss it in the foundation list then start a new thread THERE, and tell Pascal to do same. BC -- "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial[-congressional*] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist......Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." (* in the draft of speech, later removed) President D. Eisenhower, 17 January 1961 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2011-01-21 16:09:25 (+1100), Basil Chupin
On 21/01/2011 01:13, Pascal Bleser wrote: [...]
Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want. Indeed, and it seems like that's what Novell is thinking too ;)
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing. The informal OK was received before the merger started.
But, Pascal, this is the most serious stumbling block facing this Foundation and all discussion about it and its Rules and By-Laws and name is a total waste of time and effort!
Hi Basil. No, it is not a "total waste of time and effort", because even if we cannot use the trademarks, we will set up a foundation anyway. And even if Novell (or Attachmate) doesn't want us to, we will set up a foundation anyway. Obviously, it is better for both "sides" (we're very much on the same side actually, at least as of now, and I don't expect that to change) if Novell/Attachmate licenses the use of the trademarks to the foundation, no doubt about it. Having to call it "The Green Thing Foundation" is sub optimal. But it wouldn't stop us.
You do NOT have a formal agreement, nothing in writing, and Novell has been sold.
Correct. I don't think that the agreement was inked on paper in one form or another at this point. I'll have to check back to find out. Novell has been sold, but from everything we heard up to now from Attachmate, I expect that quite a few of the same people will stay in place (and I'm talking at "SUSE level" or rather "operational level" here, not at "Novell CEO level" or such, the latter not having all that much to do with openSUSE anyway). And I don't expect those people to change their mind. Some of us know them, and trust them. Not because we're naive. There is no 100% guarantee at this point, that's all I actually wanted to say, but I don't expect Novell/Attachmate to not license the trademark usage to the foundation. And that's all we can do about it at this point. But, as said, if they don't, we'll have our foundation anyway.
The new owners are never under any obligation to honour any agreement made by the organisation it just acquired especially since there is nothing in writing and which would have been part of the documentation looked into the new owners before acquiring Novell.
Stunning news for you: we are well aware of all that.
All this is about smoke and mirrors and hopes.
Of course, it'll only be carved into stone once we'll have the bylaws and a foundation and a formal copyright licensing etc... But no reason to panic about that right now :)
I don't think anyone is panicking but I also think that a lot of people are living in Never Never Land......
I don't believe we are. We are human beings as well, not just email addresses and IRC nicks. We have our life experience as well, and most if not all the people currently involved in the openSUSE board have quite a lengthy experience in working with opensource projects, communities, dealing with sponsors and businesses that have different priorities, etc... Please don't assume we're just a bunch of naive "never never land citizens". Of course, any *constructive* feedback, ideas, sharing of experience is most welcome. That is why we're in the process of putting out documentation about the current state of things regarding the foundation, and inviting people to join the effort on the appropriate foundation mailing-list.
What do the lawyers engaged to put this Foundation together state about this situation?
We're not quite there yet.
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser
On 21/01/2011 23:27, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On 2011-01-21 16:09:25 (+1100), Basil Chupin
wrote: On 21/01/2011 01:13, Pascal Bleser wrote: [...]
Not calling it 'The openSUSE Foundation' just because of trademark reasons makes Novell appear to be spoiling the game. This is something Novell cannot possibly want. Indeed, and it seems like that's what Novell is thinking too ;)
I don't expect an answer to this question while the merger is ongoing. The informal OK was received before the merger started. But, Pascal, this is the most serious stumbling block facing this Foundation and all discussion about it and its Rules and By-Laws and name is a total waste of time and effort! Hi Basil.
No, it is not a "total waste of time and effort", because even if we cannot use the trademarks, we will set up a foundation anyway. And even if Novell (or Attachmate) doesn't want us to, we will set up a foundation anyway.
Obviously, it is better for both "sides" (we're very much on the same side actually, at least as of now, and I don't expect that to change) if Novell/Attachmate licenses the use of the trademarks to the foundation, no doubt about it.
Having to call it "The Green Thing Foundation" is sub optimal. But it wouldn't stop us.
You do NOT have a formal agreement, nothing in writing, and Novell has been sold. Correct. I don't think that the agreement was inked on paper in one form or another at this point. I'll have to check back to find out.
Novell has been sold, but from everything we heard up to now from Attachmate, I expect that quite a few of the same people will stay in place (and I'm talking at "SUSE level" or rather "operational level" here, not at "Novell CEO level" or such, the latter not having all that much to do with openSUSE anyway). And I don't expect those people to change their mind. Some of us know them, and trust them. Not because we're naive.
There is no 100% guarantee at this point, that's all I actually wanted to say, but I don't expect Novell/Attachmate to not license the trademark usage to the foundation. And that's all we can do about it at this point.
But, as said, if they don't, we'll have our foundation anyway.
The new owners are never under any obligation to honour any agreement made by the organisation it just acquired especially since there is nothing in writing and which would have been part of the documentation looked into the new owners before acquiring Novell. Stunning news for you: we are well aware of all that.
Of course, it'll only be carved into stone once we'll have the bylaws and a foundation and a formal copyright licensing etc... But no reason to panic about that right now :) I don't think anyone is panicking but I also think that a lot of
All this is about smoke and mirrors and hopes. people are living in Never Never Land...... I don't believe we are. We are human beings as well, not just email addresses and IRC nicks. We have our life experience as well, and most if not all the people currently involved in the openSUSE board have quite a lengthy experience in working with opensource projects, communities, dealing with sponsors and businesses that have different priorities, etc... Please don't assume we're just a bunch of naive "never never land citizens".
Of course, any *constructive* feedback, ideas, sharing of experience is most welcome. That is why we're in the process of putting out documentation about the current state of things regarding the foundation, and inviting people to join the effort on the appropriate foundation mailing-list.
What do the lawyers engaged to put this Foundation together state about this situation? We're not quite there yet.
cheers
Thanks Pascal for this response (and sorry to quote it all back here). I hear what you are saying but I must state that your last para is of some concern to me. I would have thought that getting legal advice would have been paramount when considering forming a foundation otherwise why would you seek legal advice after you get past the "we're not quite there yet" stage, if at all? :-) . BC -- "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial[-congressional*] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist......Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." (* in the draft of speech, later removed) President D. Eisenhower, 17 January 1961 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 16:53 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them. Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg
This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after the current election is over.
One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with.
Stop CRIBBING, you could have helped when the rules were formed which was done on the -project mailing list / joined the election committee to know the amount of work people do and appreciate it. DO NOT put blame on others for lack of foresight. YOU could have helped in adding your hindsight.
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 16/01/2011 17:10, Manu Gupta wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 16:53 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them. Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after the current election is over.
One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with. Stop CRIBBING, you could have helped when the rules were formed which was done on the -project mailing list / joined the election committee to know the amount of work people do and appreciate it. DO NOT put blame on others for lack of foresight. YOU could have helped in adding your hindsight.
So what you are saying that those who came up with the "rules" are idiots and that *I *could have "saved the day"? Get real. 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 Sun, 2011-01-16 at 17:54 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 17:10, Manu Gupta wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 16:53 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
> I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my > membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to > openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them. Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after the current election is over.
One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with. Stop CRIBBING, you could have helped when the rules were formed which was done on the -project mailing list / joined the election committee to know the amount of work people do and appreciate it. DO NOT put blame on others for lack of foresight. YOU could have helped in adding your hindsight.
So what you are saying that those who came up with the "rules" are idiots and that *I *could have "saved the day"?
You could have saved the day by telling us where we lack not by crying now. Why did you not bother earlier when the rules were formed? IMHO, they are not IDIOTS, they are SMART and I am utterly OBLIGED however there have been flaws which we will learn only by experience.
Get real.
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 16/01/2011 18:39, Manu Gupta wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 17:54 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 17:10, Manu Gupta wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 16:53 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 07:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Per Jessen
wrote: Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
> Nelson Marques wrote: > >> I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my >> membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to >> openSUSE GNOME. > Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you > whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting > phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you > already. > > @election committee members > > We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How > should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them. Is there a way for voters to change their votes prior to voting closing? If so, they just need to change their votes.
If not, next time there should be. Voting should be open and changable until the it closes.
Greg This should be the subject of a new thread - which will no doubt arise after the current election is over.
One does not introduce new "rules" half-way thru a procedure when there were no rules re the process to begin with. Stop CRIBBING, you could have helped when the rules were formed which was done on the -project mailing list / joined the election committee to know the amount of work people do and appreciate it. DO NOT put blame on others for lack of foresight. YOU could have helped in adding your hindsight. So what you are saying that those who came up with the "rules" are idiots and that *I *could have "saved the day"?
You could have saved the day by telling us where we lack not by crying now. Why did you not bother earlier when the rules were formed? IMHO, they are not IDIOTS, they are SMART and I am utterly OBLIGED however there have been flaws which we will learn only by experience.
Don't twist my words nor what I stated. Why did *you* miss this important omission? You seem to have been involved when the 'rules' where being formed - I don't recall 'being around' when this was happening. Maybe I was around, maybe I wasn't; maybe I had already expressed some thoughts over the years and found that I was simply peeing against the wind...... Who knows, I cannot remember. 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
* Basil Chupin
Don't twist my words nor what I stated.
Like you do to others?
Why did *you* miss this important omission?
Why are you concerned? You are not a member, did not vote and told the list that you did not use openSUSE. You are beginning to appear a *troll*.
You seem to have been involved when the 'rules' where being formed - I don't recall 'being around' when this was happening. Maybe I was around, maybe I wasn't; maybe I had already expressed some thoughts over the years and found that I was simply peeing against the wind...... Who knows, I cannot remember.
And not pleading "oldtimers". Get real :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 17/01/2011 00:43, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Basil Chupin
[01-16-11 03:34]: Don't twist my words nor what I stated. Like you do to others?
Sorry Patrick, but you are starting to annoy me quite a bit. Please QUOTE where I have done this, otherwise shut up. I quote the messages I respond to and then post my responses to the quoted material. I have never attempted, nor will ever attempt, to twist anyone's words.
Why did *you* miss this important omission? Why are you concerned? You are not a member, did not vote and told the list that you did not use openSUSE. You are beginning to appear a *troll*.
Oh my god..... the new variant of Godwin Law is now coming into effect, is it Patrick? Is intercourse with others in your life, Patrick, only confined to the limited capacity of only recognising "trolls" and "non-trolls"? Or seeing someone as, "Him good!" or "Him bad!"? BTW, just for the sake of clarification as you are throwing terms around like confetti: what exactly do you mean by "[You are not] a *member*"?
You seem to have been involved when the 'rules' where being formed - I don't recall 'being around' when this was happening. Maybe I was around, maybe I wasn't; maybe I had already expressed some thoughts over the years and found that I was simply peeing against the wind...... Who knows, I cannot remember. And not pleading "oldtimers". Get real :^)
No, I am not pleading 'old timers, or anything. I have already stated openly that I use Ubuntu but still have openSUSE installed and still fool around with it, and that I hope that openSUSE will get back to its old glory days when it was called the solid German product called S.u.S.E (SuSE). O:-) 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 Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Basil Chupin
BTW, just for the sake of clarification as you are throwing terms around like confetti: what exactly do you mean by "[You are not] a *member*"?
openSUSE has a formal concept of membership. Only members can vote for the board. http://en.opensuse.org/Members There are 469 per https://users.opensuse.org/membership/list Your name does not seem to be on the list. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 18/01/2011 00:59, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Basil Chupin
wrote: <snip> BTW, just for the sake of clarification as you are throwing terms around like confetti: what exactly do you mean by "[You are not] a *member*"? openSUSE has a formal concept of membership. Only members can vote for the board.
Thanks for this.
There are 469 per https://users.opensuse.org/membership/list
Your name does not seem to be on the list.
You are VERY observant!
Greg
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 16/01/2011 07:15, Per Jessen wrote:
Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Ignore them.
I disagree. The votes HAVE been cast and therefore legitimate votes. Lack of foresight by the board and election committee does not provide for the votes to be discarded or dealt with in any way and therefore they remain legitimate votes. It is up to Nelson to direct those votes to whomever he chooses as they are "his" votes to do with as he wants to. 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 Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:47:54 pm Basil Chupin wrote:
It is up to Nelson to direct those votes to whomever he chooses as they are "his" votes to do with as he wants to.
I disagree. I voted for some person to take Board seat and nothing else. If that person resign now, or later, I want to be asked who will be successor. This will prevent situation where my vote is handed to the person that I will not vote for. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 01:23 -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
On Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:47:54 pm Basil Chupin wrote:
It is up to Nelson to direct those votes to whomever he chooses as they are "his" votes to do with as he wants to.
I disagree.
I voted for some person to take Board seat and nothing else. If that person resign now, or later, I want to be asked who will be successor. This will prevent situation where my vote is handed to the person that I will not vote for.
I agree with Rajko, its the candidate who has broken my trust over him and has no right to play with my rights
-- Regards, Rajko
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 16/01/2011 18:35, Manu Gupta wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 01:23 -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
On Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:47:54 pm Basil Chupin wrote:
It is up to Nelson to direct those votes to whomever he chooses as they are "his" votes to do with as he wants to. I disagree.
I voted for some person to take Board seat and nothing else. If that person resign now, or later, I want to be asked who will be successor. This will prevent situation where my vote is handed to the person that I will not vote for.
I agree with Rajko, its the candidate who has broken my trust over him and has no right to play with my rights
Question: what ARE your 'rights'? Also see my response to Rajko: why did you vote in the first instance for the candidate "who has broken [my] trust.."? 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 16/01/2011 18:23, Rajko M. wrote:
On Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:47:54 pm Basil Chupin wrote:
It is up to Nelson to direct those votes to whomever he chooses as they are "his" votes to do with as he wants to. I disagree.
I voted for some person to take Board seat and nothing else. If that person resign now, or later, I want to be asked who will be successor. This will prevent situation where my vote is handed to the person that I will not vote for.
You voted for a person whom you trusted to make the right decisions and to be ethical in their dealings with matters handled by the Board. This has been the theme of some posts in this thread. Now you want to claim that your vote for some person was a total waste of time because you now do not trust that person you voted for. Doesn't sound all that kosher, don't you agree Rajko? Which, of course, begs the question: on what basis do people base their vote for the nominees for the Board? Think about it. 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 Sunday, January 16, 2011 02:41:18 am Basil Chupin wrote:
Doesn't sound all that kosher, don't you agree Rajko?
Eh, Basil, I don't. If you interpret my words by simplifying matters of life to static binary model then your conclusion is correct, but life is not well described with that model. Life is not black and white (binary), nor it keeps its properties for ever (static). No one is using it to think about life, with exception of those that are naive, pretend to be naive in order to get their math correct. Vote is given to certain person at certain point in time, based on what we know about both, the person and the task. When that changes vote is not valid without asking voter about opinion. In particular, we never discussed that single person (Board member) can appoint his replacement for the Board seat, as you propose, so votes are not given to anyone for that task.
Which, of course, begs the question: on what basis do people base their vote for the nominees for the Board?
See above. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Satoru,
(Sorry for Top Posting)
I feel that if he is serious, and doesn't want to have the chance to
make a different on the board, then a fresh start. It not fair for
those that wanted to have him on the board. Not only does it cheat
them with don't do a clean start, but it is unfair to all.
Nelson, do not fire from the hip. You have chance to make a different
by being on the board and please keep your membership. Be leader and
clam down and let this pass.
I think what everyone needs to do is step back, take a deep cleaning
breathe and then focus the project in hand. This is a year we can
shine, but all this in-fight is only going to hurt us.
I will go on record. I feel that the board did what was best for the
project. I can tell you from what I been reading the, the was a very
very hard decision for them. I but it wasn't just a few people that
complain, and for I am seeing with the board, they do try very hard to
work with everyone.
Now that happen, the board along with the membership group should work
on what do if something like this happens again. One way, I feel would
to be update the "Principle Guide Lines" to cover such action. But
that is for the board and the membership group to talk about, if you
feel that really need to be address, come to a board meeting, bring up
the topic for them. Board Meeting are open.
Again everyone. Do not quit. Do not throw away, what you have done.
Just take step back. Take a breathe. We don't need Civil discord.
I think it would be best for this thread to be stop for the good of the group.
Pup --
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Satoru Matsumoto
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Should the ballots for Nelson be just ignored, or should we undo and start fresh voting?
Best,
-- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- ----------------------------------------- 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
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Satoru Matsumoto
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME.
Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
Satoru, I had asked for a Board meeting to check a couple of things. I've also tried to speak with Sagkill_ yesterday to get some information. Given the recent events which include ricreig's message and some other messages that have poped out in my mailbox, I'm on the run. No need to change things now, I know I don't have a chance to win, so there's no need to bring aditional problems. In case I'll win, I'll try my best, though I doubt it will happen. Sorry for the trouble. NM
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Should the ballots for Nelson be just ignored, or should we undo and start fresh voting?
Best,
-- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 15/01/2011 21:43, Nelson Marques a écrit :
Given the recent events which include ricreig's message and some other messages that have poped out in my mailbox, I'm on the run. No need to change things now, I know I don't have a chance to win, so there's no need to bring aditional problems.
even if you don't win, the votes for your position are valuable. Please don't resign no (you still can after the vote if you still want) 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 Saturday, January 15, 2011 01:59:23 pm Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
@election committee members
Decision to resign is honored, independent of voting results, so elections will run and votes will be counted anyway. Candidate's responsibility is to explain to his voters what happened. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Satoru Matsumoto
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Should the ballots for Nelson be just ignored, or should we undo and start fresh voting?
Offer *those* voter an opportunity to *adjust* their ballot. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 16/01/2011 08:14, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Satoru Matsumoto
[01-15-11 14:59]: @election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Should the ballots for Nelson be just ignored, or should we undo and start fresh voting?
Offer *those* voter an opportunity to *adjust* their ballot. NO!
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses. He can pass them on to you, Patrick - if you were a nominee..... 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
Le 16/01/2011 08:00, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses.
certainly not. Votes are done and can't be changed by anybody 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 16/01/2011 18:50, jdd wrote:
Le 16/01/2011 08:00, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses. certainly not. Votes are done and can't be changed by anybody
jdd
The votes don't belong to anybody but the person who attracted them. They certainly don't belong to anybody else, and absolutely certainly there is nothing in any "rules" which states otherwise. If there is then please quote chapter and verse to prove me wrong. 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
Le 16/01/2011 09:51, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes don't belong to anybody but the person who attracted them.
nope nobody "own" any vote. A candidate can ask the people that trusted him to do something, but facts are many don't.
They certainly don't belong to anybody else, and absolutely certainly there is nothing in any "rules" which states otherwise.
the rules state what can be done. do you see any rule that state that a vote can be changed? 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 Sunday, January 16, 2011 02:51:16 am Basil Chupin wrote:
If there is then please quote chapter and verse to prove me wrong.
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election Where do you see that one Board member elect can appoint his replacement? -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 16 January 2011 09:51:16 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 18:50, jdd wrote:
Le 16/01/2011 08:00, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses.
certainly not. Votes are done and can't be changed by anybody
jdd
The votes don't belong to anybody but the person who attracted them. They certainly don't belong to anybody else, and absolutely certainly there is nothing in any "rules" which states otherwise.
I agree. And if that person retracts his candidacy, the votes which were given to him are void. Seems simple enough. Anyway, I believe Nelson has retracted his retractation of his candidacy (not sure if English is up to describing such persistent change) so this point is moot. Not that it's not a bad idea to talk about it, the election comittee for next year can solve this. How about you bring it up when the rules are set for next time?
If there is then please quote chapter and verse to prove me wrong.
BC
On Sunday January 16 2011 20:46:32 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Sunday 16 January 2011 09:51:16 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 18:50, jdd wrote:
Le 16/01/2011 08:00, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses.
certainly not. Votes are done and can't be changed by anybody
jdd
The votes don't belong to anybody but the person who attracted them. They certainly don't belong to anybody else, and absolutely certainly there is nothing in any "rules" which states otherwise.
I agree. And if that person retracts his candidacy, the votes which were given to him are void. Seems simple enough.
Why should I have one less vote just cause I voted for someone who retracts his candidacy either cause he wants or cause of 3rd party events - e.g. cause he got hit by a bus? Simply leave the poll open until the end so one can change ones votes and the problem is gone. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 16. Januar 2011, 21:13:46 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Sunday January 16 2011 20:46:32 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Sunday 16 January 2011 09:51:16 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 16/01/2011 18:50, jdd wrote:
Le 16/01/2011 08:00, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses.
certainly not. Votes are done and can't be changed by anybody
jdd
The votes don't belong to anybody but the person who attracted them. They certainly don't belong to anybody else, and absolutely certainly there is nothing in any "rules" which states otherwise.
I agree. And if that person retracts his candidacy, the votes which were given to him are void. Seems simple enough.
Why should I have one less vote just cause I voted for someone who retracts his candidacy either cause he wants or cause of 3rd party events - e.g. cause he got hit by a bus?
Simply leave the poll open until the end so one can change ones votes and the problem is gone.
That would require to store whom you voted for, which is not how votes should be done (store who voted, but not what his vote was) Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 17/01/2011 06:46, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Sunday 16 January 2011 09:51:16 Basil Chupin wrote:
Le 16/01/2011 08:00, Basil Chupin a écrit :
The votes were cast for that person and therefore they belong to him, and it is therefore up to him to do with them as he pleases - he can allocate them to whomever he chooses. certainly not. Votes are done and can't be changed by anybody
jdd The votes don't belong to anybody but the person who attracted them. They certainly don't belong to anybody else, and absolutely certainly
On 16/01/2011 18:50, jdd wrote: there is nothing in any "rules" which states otherwise. I agree. And if that person retracts his candidacy, the votes which were given to him are void. Seems simple enough.
WEll, I don't quite agree with this because the votes belong to him and therefore they are at his disposal to do what he wants to do with them. Neverthess, as there are no rules to cover any of this then this point is open to much debate.
Anyway, I believe Nelson has retracted his retractation of his candidacy (not sure if English is up to describing such persistent change) so this point is moot.
Aaah! So Nelson has decided to contest the election. Good for him! In which case, as you state, the point is moot.
Not that it's not a bad idea to talk about it, the election comittee for next year can solve this. How about you bring it up when the rules are set for next time?
OK, if I have the time. I have spent many an hour rewriting Rules and Constitutions of the organisations I belonged to - and doing so is not just sitting down and having a cup of tea..... :-( . 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
Le 17/01/2011 10:25, Basil Chupin a écrit :
WEll, I don't quite agree with this because the votes belong to him and therefore they are at his disposal to do what he wants to do with them.
new thing. Who said that? votes are votes and belongs to nobody. They can be used following the rules adopted before the vote, nothing else. If there is no rule, there is no use. Point. 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 17/01/2011 21:21, jdd wrote:
Le 17/01/2011 10:25, Basil Chupin a écrit :
WEll, I don't quite agree with this because the votes belong to him and therefore they are at his disposal to do what he wants to do with them. new thing. Who said that?
votes are votes and belongs to nobody.
To follow your logic, any vote cast for any person in this election - and let's restrict this debate to THIS election, OK? - does not belong to any of the people for whom the votes were cast. So, if I cast cast a vote for Henne, that vote does not belong to him and therefore the vote cannot be directed towards his nomination for the position on the board. Right? This is what you are saying. Who then owns that vote and therefore has the authority to decide to whom that vote should be allocated?
They can be used following the rules adopted before the vote, nothing else. If there is no rule, there is no use. Point.
jdd
"Okey-dokey", as Anthony Hopkins said in the fillum, "Hannibal", but as there are no rules then there is also nothing to say that what has been put forward is wrong and cannot be applied in the current circumstances. 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
Le 17/01/2011 12:26, Basil Chupin a écrit :
To follow your logic, any vote cast for any person in this election - and let's restrict this debate to THIS election, OK? - does not belong to any of the people for whom the votes were cast.
the voter is not *owned* by anybody, that mean that nobody can make what he wants of the vote. If one vote for Henne (or anybody else), this mean Henne get one vote for this election, not that he can say "I give 3 vote to XX, 5 vote to YY...". a vote mean ZZ people voted for this candidate. Point. nothing else. 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 17/01/2011 22:49, jdd wrote:
Le 17/01/2011 12:26, Basil Chupin a écrit :
To follow your logic, any vote cast for any person in this election - and let's restrict this debate to THIS election, OK? - does not belong to any of the people for whom the votes were cast. the voter is not *owned* by anybody, that mean that nobody can make what he wants of the vote. If one vote for Henne (or anybody else), this mean Henne get one vote for this election, not that he can say "I give 3 vote to XX, 5 vote to YY...".
a vote mean ZZ people voted for this candidate. Point. nothing else.
jdd
Alright, alright already! I give up! OK!? :-) 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 16/01/2011 06:59, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Nelson Marques wrote:
I have decided to withdraw my application to the board, and revoke my membership. I will though continue my contributions in the future to openSUSE GNOME. Well, as one of the election committee members, I have to ask you whether this is your final decision or not. As you know, the voting phase has already begun and some of the Members might have voted you already.
@election committee members
We didn't suppose such a case and there's no rule to deal with. How should we respond to those who have already voted Nelson? Should the ballots for Nelson be just ignored, or should we undo and start fresh voting?
Best,
Wot? Nobody considered the possibility that some nominee could be run over by a bus during the election period and therefore what to do with the votes already cast for her/him? :-) I suggest that a committee be immediately established to prepare a report on what to do should such a situation arise - as it now has, even though Nelson has not been in the vicinity of any buses :-D . (And some people are concerned how nominees to the board could handle budgets.......sheesh.) 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
(And some people are concerned how nominees to the board could handle budgets.......sheesh.)
BC
You are always free to nominate if you feel you can do a better job. regards, Helen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 16/01/2011 16:49, Helen wrote:
(And some people are concerned how nominees to the board could handle budgets.......sheesh.)
BC
You are always free to nominate if you feel you can do a better job.
regards,
Helen That's the spirit!
(There's is always someone who simply does not get the point.......<sigh>.) 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
Pascal Bleser - 1:24 14.01.11 wrote:
...
Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles). 5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from the project altogether ?
...
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
Just speaking generally about the process... Even though that behaviour wasn't tied with having membership status, I would still consider removing membership as a way how to escalate things without going to extremes. I know there were some discussions, some attempts to sort things out, but still. If I am speeding and I get caught and police man will talk to me, I'll be nice for while, but I'll slip to speeding again. After getting ticket, it will take me more time to slip to speeding again. If they took away my licence for few months, I'll start being really careful about speeding... -- Michal HRUSECKY SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xFED656F6 19000 Praha 9 mhrusecky[at]suse.cz Czech Republic http://michal.hrusecky.net http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 15 January 2011 00:36:14 Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Pascal Bleser - 1:24 14.01.11 wrote:
...
Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a
transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles).
5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from
the project altogether ?
...
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
Just speaking generally about the process...
Even though that behaviour wasn't tied with having membership status, I would still consider removing membership as a way how to escalate things without going to extremes. I know there were some discussions, some attempts to sort things out, but still.
If I am speeding and I get caught and police man will talk to me, I'll be nice for while, but I'll slip to speeding again. After getting ticket, it will take me more time to slip to speeding again. If they took away my licence for few months, I'll start being really careful about speeding...
Yes, you should be. Because if you continue to speed, they will take your driving license - at least here in NL... Which is what was done here too.
Le 15/01/2011 14:13, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
Yes, you should be. Because if you continue to speed, they will take your driving license - at least here in NL... Which is what was done here too.
or you should die in an accident. Speed limits are not there for annoying people but nobody will die on openSUSE, I guess :-)) 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
Jos Poortvliet - 14:13 15.01.11 wrote:
On Saturday 15 January 2011 00:36:14 Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Pascal Bleser - 1:24 14.01.11 wrote:
...
Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a
transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles).
5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from
the project altogether ?
...
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
Just speaking generally about the process...
Even though that behaviour wasn't tied with having membership status, I would still consider removing membership as a way how to escalate things without going to extremes. I know there were some discussions, some attempts to sort things out, but still.
If I am speeding and I get caught and police man will talk to me, I'll be nice for while, but I'll slip to speeding again. After getting ticket, it will take me more time to slip to speeding again. If they took away my licence for few months, I'll start being really careful about speeding...
Yes, you should be. Because if you continue to speed, they will take your driving license - at least here in NL... Which is what was done here too.
Well, the point I was trying to make is that taking away membership although not directly preventing from something similar to happen again, might be motivating enough (more motivating than talking). -- Michal HRUSECKY SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xFED656F6 19000 Praha 9 mhrusecky[at]suse.cz Czech Republic http://michal.hrusecky.net http://www.suse.cz
On Tuesday 18 January 2011 16:12:10 Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Jos Poortvliet - 14:13 15.01.11 wrote:
On Saturday 15 January 2011 00:36:14 Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Pascal Bleser - 1:24 14.01.11 wrote:
...
Now, there have been a few points that have been (rightfully) raised by a few people (I'm paraphrasing here ;)): 1) Who said the board has the right to revoke someone's membership ? 2) Isn't it harsh? Wasn't there a better way to deal with it? 3) The timing is very suspicious. 4) It all happened behind closed doors, you should have made it publicly, in a
transparent manner (as transparency and openness is also part of the Guiding Principles).
5) Who and/or how to prevent abuse from the board ? 6) Removing the membership would have been enough, why remove the person from
the project altogether ?
...
6) Unfortunately, only removing the membership status wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as the disruptive and poisonous behaviour was not seen exclusively in situations where membership plays a role. The Board members were (and still are) convinced that we had to remove the person from the project altogether to resolve this issue.
Just speaking generally about the process...
Even though that behaviour wasn't tied with having membership status, I would still consider removing membership as a way how to escalate things without going to extremes. I know there were some discussions, some attempts to sort things out, but still.
If I am speeding and I get caught and police man will talk to me, I'll be nice for while, but I'll slip to speeding again. After getting ticket, it will take me more time to slip to speeding again. If they took away my licence for few months, I'll start being really careful about speeding...
Yes, you should be. Because if you continue to speed, they will take your driving license - at least here in NL... Which is what was done here too.
Well, the point I was trying to make is that taking away membership although not directly preventing from something similar to happen again, might be motivating enough (more motivating than talking).
That is actually a good point. I'll keep it in mind but I think you should bring this up once we're a bit further in the Foundation discussion. Such a thing might not belong in the bylaws directly but having a written-down procedure on how to deal with things like this in the future would be good. And after a few warnings, taking away membership would be a step in between a full block out of openSUSE infrastructure. What's done is done but we should learn for the future and try to do better!
Le 18/01/2011 18:03, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
That is actually a good point. I'll keep it in mind but I think you should bring this up once we're a bit further in the Foundation discussion.
do not rely too much on the foudation on the subject. As I see it (but it's a personal view), the foundation is more to be seen as the openSUSE community backup to receive cash and sponsorship, not to be mixed with the openSUSE community at large like it is now. May be we will need some sort of non profit organisation, separate from the foudation (legally speaking), but this is still to be discussed 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 Tuesday 18 January 2011 19:02:44 jdd wrote:
Le 18/01/2011 18:03, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
That is actually a good point. I'll keep it in mind but I think you should bring this up once we're a bit further in the Foundation discussion.
do not rely too much on the foudation on the subject. As I see it (but it's a personal view), the foundation is more to be seen as the openSUSE community backup to receive cash and sponsorship, not to be mixed with the openSUSE community at large like it is now.
May be we will need some sort of non profit organisation, separate from the foudation (legally speaking), but this is still to be discussed
Why a separate organization? Shouldn't the foundation be able to take care of conflicts? After all, it'll be responsible for infrastructure too, I expect, that means they can decide to boot someone from it, legally... Of course I do think it would be not a bad idea to have a chosen community council or something like that which deals with conflicts etc in a confidential and quiet way like done in some other communities - the board doesn't have to do that by themselves. Ok, this is something for the foundation ML, I know... shutting up now :D
jdd
* Jos Poortvliet
Ok, this is something for the foundation ML, I know... shutting up now :D
How to join the foundation ml?? I keep getting: <quote> This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
opensuse-foundation+subscribe@lists4.opensuse.org (after RCPT TO): 554
: Relay access denied </quote>
Is it from the "paka@opensuse.org" address? I will try another addr. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Patrick Shanahan
* Jos Poortvliet
[01-18-11 17:45]: Ok, this is something for the foundation ML, I know... shutting up now :D
How to join the foundation ml?? I keep getting:
<quote> This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
opensuse-foundation+subscribe@lists4.opensuse.org (after RCPT TO): 554
: Relay access denied </quote> Is it from the "paka@opensuse.org" address? I will try another addr.
I emailed opensuse-foundation+subscribe@opensuse.org yesterday and it worked. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Greg Freemyer
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Patrick Shanahan
wrote: How to join the foundation ml?? I keep getting:
<quote> This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
opensuse-foundation+subscribe@lists4.opensuse.org (after RCPT TO): 554
: Relay access denied </quote> I emailed opensuse-foundation+subscribe@opensuse.org yesterday and it worked.
the problem was "lists4.opensuse.org" vs "opensuse.org". I copied the former, plead oldtimers on when/where. tks, -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
>>> On 1/18/2011 at 04:32 PM, in message <20110118233240.GB14177@wahoo.no-ip.org>, Patrick Shanahanwrote: > * Jos Poortvliet [01-18-11 17:45]: >> >> Ok, this is something for the foundation ML, I know... shutting up now :D >> > > How to join the foundation ml?? I keep getting: > > > This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity). > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > >>>> opensuse-foundation+subscribe@lists4.opensuse.org (after RCPT TO): 554 >> > Is it from the "paka@opensuse.org" address? > I will try another addr. opensuse-foundation+subscribe@opensuse.org I did a new subscribe this morning and it worked. regards, Alan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org: Relay access denied >
Le 18/01/2011 23:38, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
Why a separate organization? Shouldn't the foundation be able to take care of conflicts?
thats not the problem I have in mind. To catch people and money, it's often best to be local. French people may not subscribe to an Ile of Man corporation, but do to the french-openSUSE chapter (for example). local organisation can be light, or even federal (like in sports) 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 Thursday 20 January 2011 16:18:57 jdd wrote:
Le 18/01/2011 23:38, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
Why a separate organization? Shouldn't the foundation be able to take care of conflicts?
thats not the problem I have in mind.
To catch people and money, it's often best to be local. French people may not subscribe to an Ile of Man corporation, but do to the french-openSUSE chapter (for example).
local organisation can be light, or even federal (like in sports)
Ha, that is a different but very valid point. Once we have a central Foundation, there might be good reasons to set up local chapters with a legal base & money handling capacity at some point. I would however wait with that - GNOME & KDE have each 1 or 2 of those local organisations. There are, after all, costs and work involved with that. Doing that right now is probably a bit too soon and taking on to much at once.
jdd
On 21/01/2011 02:18, jdd wrote:
Le 18/01/2011 23:38, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
Why a separate organization? Shouldn't the foundation be able to take care of conflicts? thats not the problem I have in mind.
To catch people and money, it's often best to be local. French people may not subscribe to an Ile of Man corporation, but do to the french-openSUSE chapter (for example).
LOL! Oy, hasn't this Pommie-Frenchie crap been done away hundreds of years ago? :-D . 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
Le 18/01/2011 23:38, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
Ok, this is something for the foundation ML, I know... shutting up now :D
I missed this one, but you are right 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
participants (29)
-
Adam Tauno Williams
-
Administrator
-
Alan Clark
-
Alin Marin Elena
-
Basil Chupin
-
Bruno Friedmann
-
Chuck Payne
-
Greg Freemyer
-
Helen
-
jdd
-
Jos Poortvliet
-
Juergen Weigert
-
Karsten König
-
Klaas Freitag
-
Kostas Koudaras
-
Lars Marowsky-Bree
-
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
-
Manu Gupta
-
Matt Hayes
-
Michal Hrusecky
-
Nelson Marques
-
Pascal Bleser
-
Patrick Shanahan
-
Per Jessen
-
Rajko M.
-
Richard Creighton
-
Sankar P
-
Satoru Matsumoto
-
Stephan Kleine