Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (479 mails)

["Administrator" <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I do disagree that EVERY matter will have to be publicly voted for - it
> would
> make sense in some situations to instead choose a few people from the
> membership to audit a decision by the board. There are cases where a NDA
> is in
> effect, or financial matters make disclosure hard. For example,
> sponsorship
> deals are usually under NDA and if say the Board decides to accept
> sponsorship
> of Oracle and the membership disagrees or isn't happy with/sure about the
> terms, it is something we can't handle in public. So a commision of
> members
> should audit the decision.

This makes no sense.  We vote people onto the board, and we either trust
them or we don't.  If we don't then we MUST demand a new board (i.e.
elections).  Add more (voted for) people who check on what our voted for
board members are doing just makes things more complicated without adding
any more democracy.

If the members' board members didn't support this action, then they should
have voted against it at the board decision.

Anybody who was directly connected should have recused themselves from this
decision, and only participated in the discussion to clarify their personal
experience.

There are two aspects outstanding at present:

1) the precedent / the correct practice: how things like this should be
handled in future.

2) the decision: was it made correctly.

I would suggest the second item is best addressed by suspending the decision
and putting it in front of the new board after the elections.  Then there is
no possibility that the elections are compromising the decision.

The first item may benefit from further discussion, but I would suggest that
this needs be done rationally and from principles rather than on the basis
of a single case and what outcome we would like for that case.

David


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx