Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (317 mails)

[Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2012-01-31 17:14:34 (+0000), Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>

> > Yes, becoming openSUSE Member is something you got because you contributed.
> > That contribution doesn't go away, hence you shouldn't be kicked out. Yet 
> > the
> > problem is real - some don't care about participating as member. That is, 
> > they
> > don't vote, which is the major thing a member does. There is nothing else a
> > member can do that a non-member can not.

> #1 - You established that the only thing that a member can do that
> non-members can't is to 'vote'. You also establish that some might not
> want to participate as members (don't vote).

> > So, I propose that those who don't care about the vote for 2 years become 
> > non-
> > voting members. I think it respects their wishes. Of course they keep their
> > mail address (the only perk of being member) and nothing else changes. They
> > just don't count in the statistic and don't vote. If they want to change 
> > their
> > status they can ask the membership committee to re-instate them as voting
> > members.

> Now, everything you state on this paragraph is against #1. So if the
> only thing a member can do that others can't is to vote we don't need
> middle terms. People are either Members or Non-Members. What's the
> confusion ?

Members also get an @opensuse.org email alias because they have
contributed enough to be trusted to be representative of the
project (that's the very short version or the idea behind giving
an alias to members).

> What you describe here is simple, you are trying to enforce a way that
> members are forced to vote... Dude, look at the real world... Do you
> loose your dutch citizenship because you don't vote ?

I think that's quite a stretch, no one said anything like that.

Quite explicitly, Jos proposed that you become a "non-voting
member", precisely in order to _keep_ your membership (for
everything else, as you then don't care about voting).

> Having the choice to vote and not to vote is a part of the democratic
> process, what you are proposing is pretty much self-prejudice.

Arguable, and a few countries disagree (see below).

> > This makes clear what members are interested in the governance of openSUSE.

> Sure they are, or might not be... or might be more commited to fixing
> their packages and their projects than just following the elections
> hype. Either way, why should non-SUSE members even care about the
> voting? SUSE members by themselves can elect any board and that's way
> to easy to manipulate and hide from the world. So yeah... it makes all
> sense that members might not want to vote or be involved in governance
> because their vote is worthless in most cases.

> Look at the last boards and take your own conclusions.

Sorry, but could you please be a bit more precise (maybe in
another thread) ?

If you are criticizing people who have been and are on the
openSUSE board for their work, I would highly appreciate if it
was based on actual items and not just a random "they're all
crap" as you just did.

> > Others are members just as much and through contributions they inbfluence
> > openSUSE on a technical level. But the voting procedure is about governance 
> > -
> > things like the conference and travel money and sponsorship. I get it
> > completely if you don't care about that but you should still be able to be
> > member. But that membership should count as part of those who vote. If and
> > when we transition to a Foundation we need to have this procedure in any 
> > case
> > - you can't make certain decisions lawfully if you have only 30% of your
> > members vote... So having 'non-voting' members solves that problem.

> No it doesn't, you are discriminating and forcing members to vote.
> Having the option not to vote is something pretty much accepted in
> Democracy (maybe not in Brazil and the Netherlands), but in the rest
> of the civilized world people have that option. Why do you want to
> segregate the community?

Um, sorry: obligatory voting is not undemocratic. Both have pros
and cons, and some believe that forcing people to vote is more
democratic because democracy is not just rights, but also
obligations.

But we don't even need to argue about this in an endless side
discussion: no one said there is an obligation to vote.

If you don't want to vote, that's fine. You'll simply be marked
as "non-voting member" in order for our statistics to be
meaningful as well as to be able to run a foundation, if and
when we'll have one.

> > And if you don't vote out of protest, I'm sure we can add a "I don't like
> > anything" as option to votes to solve that part. At least then we know who
> > doesn't vote for a reason (protest) or because he/she doesn't care and it'll
> > be actually meaningful.

> When you go to vote on real elections do you have that option ? :) Not
> voting by protest, mistrust, etc is a normal option for people. You
> are complicating stuff...

That highly depends on the country. Some do have a "none of the
above" option, and others have tricks to invalidate a vote,
especially in countries where voting is obligatory.

> > All in all I think this way we can have our cake and eat it too: we know who
> > regularly votes; it's clear who doesn't care or protests; our numbers are
> > actually meaningful; yet we don't take anything from anyone (membership
> > depends on contributions, yet if you don't want to be bothered by the voting
> > stuff that's fine).

> > Acceptable compromise?

> Hell, NO... I don't see why people should be segregated. If a member
> is someone who contributes (in many potential forms), there is no need
> for segregation... People should have the choice to vote or not
> without having the 'community police' trying to enforce stupid things.

> None of this solves your problem... it's just fireworks.

No, in your response, you are simply completely ignoring the
issue this is all about:

- some members are not active any more, which means they are not
  contributing to the project, and not voting either

- this is an issue for two reasons:
1. our "number of members" is meaningless right now, including
   for statistics on the board elections, and they're quite
   useful to also evaluate the legitimacy of a board, it's not
   just numbers for the sake of numbers and pie charts ;)
2. if and when we'll have a foundation, we will _have_ to have
   something like "non-voting members", at any rate, so why not
   tackle the issue right now

You can have a look at other projects, especially those with a
foundation, it's a pretty common practice.

So, in your implicit counter-proposal (by calling Jos a
totalitarian, and everyone who has been a board a worthless
liar) to keep the status quo, how do we solve the points above?

cheers
-- 
  -o) Pascal Bleser
  /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green
 _\_v http://fosdem.org   -- we haz conf