Hey hey, Thanks for the informative reply. Here are a few comments... Le jeudi 26 mars 2009, à 00:37 +0100, Pascal Bleser a écrit :
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 24 mars 2009, à 13:23 +0000, Benji Weber a écrit :
We do have a community server paid for by several people which hosts planet suse, software portal, webpin and other things. Unfortunately these things have to be organised informally, since there is no openSUSE organisation or even a ringfenced openSUSE fund that people can contribute to towards hosting costs etc.
Nod. We discussed this a bit on #opensuse-gnome. The lack of legal entity for openSUSE makes things difficult for funding. A good solution that I'd like the board to consider is to have the project join something like the Software Freedom Conservancy [1] or SPI [2].
[1] http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/
We talked a bit about this topic at our board meeting today. I'll first get in touch with the appropriate people at Debian and Drupal, as they're both under the umbrella of SPI, to hear how it works out for them.
It's definitely an option, and if we can avoid jumping through lots of paperwork and legal woes, then it's a serious option ;)
Awesome, glad to read this :-) If help is needed on this topic, don't hesitate to ask! [...]
So, hrm, how can we change this? :-) I guess we can't change this easily in the short term, but does it make sense in the long term to have the opensuse.org domain controlled by, say, the board? (question for the board, I guess)
Why not, but I'm not sure this would actually change a lot. If you mean controlled on a technical level, I guess that's rather unlikely to happen. And if you mean on a decisional level, well, I think we already have the right connections to the right people to ask for changes to be made.
Is there any (good) reason that it's unlikely to happen on the technical level? I mean, as long as the domain is owned by Novell, this is perfectly understandable, but then, is there any reason to have it owned by Novell? (again, I'm thinking long-term -- I'd be surprised to see us being able to change this in the next 6 months) [...]
3) LEGAL ENTITY FOR OPENSUSE ============================ Would an openSUSE legal entity of its own address those problems ?
[...]
3.2.2) CONTROL OVER THE FUNDS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Who would control the funds ?
The board is currently the only elected body of the community so.. it would probably make sense. But the board also includes a Novell-appointed chairman and has the restriction of 2 NEs and 2 NNEs (note that Michl is currently that Novell-appointed chairman and has my complete support and trust, it's clearly not about the person that is currently doing the job)
And if it isn't the board, then we'd need to run another election. And how would that work out between those two presumably different teams ? Doesn't sound too good IMHO.
Nod. We'd want the board to handle this (or to appoint people to handle this).
The 2 NEs vs 2 NNEs rule could be removed in the future I guess. It was originally installed to make sure that we have 2 NNEs on the board. And not the opposite, even though I'm sure some people might think it was in order to make sure that there are 3 NEs on the board (2 elected + 1 appointed). I know that wasn't the reason, I was part of the bootstrap board that created those rules and kicked off the first elections ;) Given the results of the 1st election, I'm not sure we still need that.
What about having a simple rule like "no more than 50% of the elected board members may be directly or indirectly affiliated with the same company"? I actually don't remember if we discussed that for the first elections (and it's too late for me to search ;-)). (there would still be the Novell-appointed chairman, don't know if it's an issue or not) Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org