February 2011 - openSUSE Foundation - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Reboot. Lets start again, this time organized
by Henne Vogelsang 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Hey, we have started off not very organized and I would like to change that now. I think we need to make this a purposeful discussion that has rules, moderation and an end. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. So here is how I want us to do it. 0. In all of this we are trying to find compromise and consensus. This is not about getting it your way. We need to build something together! 1. Before we discuss anything we pick someone who moderates the discussions. The moderator is supposed to summarize, track progress and call an end to the discussion. We need results! 2. We discuss single aspects of the foundation. Not the whole foundation and all it's aspects at once. The list of items to discuss is tracked on the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Foundation/Topics We need to focus! 3. We discuss these aspects by trying to make clear our intentions and by agreeing on the important points. Not by hammering out elaborated paragraphs of text. Bullet points first, formulations later. We need to keep track of the important matters! 4. The discussion is limited to arguments. That means if you agree you don't say anything. NO "I like this!" MAILS. If you disagree with something you make an argument against it. NO "I don't like this!" MAILS. We need to keep the length of the discussion to a minimum! 5. We only re-visit a previous discussed topic if the _result_ of a discussion of another topic is that we need to. When we agree on something it's the way it is. We need to be able to rely on things! Comments on those rules? Any additional rule you would want to see? Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+help(a)opensuse.org

9 27

Objective of the Foundation
by jdd 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

This topic is probably the most important, but hopefully we will agree pretty easily on it :-), so may be we have to discuss it now. First some details. The topic pages says: "Objective of the Foundation". May be we should say "objectives" (plural)?? The page linked: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Foundation have as title : "Charter and Purpose of a Foundation". This should be changed for "Charter and Purpose of the openSUSE Foundation" then on the most important parts. In my mind, at first think, a "Foundation" deals only with legal stuff and money, not with the day to day life of a project. So I see two options for the openSUSE foundation: * restricting the goals to that (legal and money), make it leaded by a small group of old timers, well known and interested members and let the openSUSE community at large work with the project on informal basis (like many free software projects). Then the foundation will have a board different from the openSUSE board as seen now (the present board can have a control power of some sort); * make the foundation the whole project. Looks like it's the prefered option for now. In my opinion it's a bit more complicated to deal with. I don't know for sure (and I don't know at all for german associations), but I beg to be a member of an association one have to pay some fee ("cotisation" in french) and to be identified physically (not only in electronical form). Associations with non local (country resident) members may have to be special - most states wants to control strangers activity. This is necessary and even very important because any group involving money may attract some bad interest :-(. In this option, by-laws have to be very well fitted not to have the main direction board changed too easily. Let me give an example: I beg than kde organisation do not attract many users at large, but mostly kde developpers. It's not the case for openSUSE that have to work with a large community. I remember when the ICANN wanted to have an "At large" vote, and sent reigistered mails to any people that wanted to vote (I was in them), the cost was probably hudge. I have already seen relatively small groups of motivated people take the power in association against the former board. It's not impossible than 20 motivated people could discourage others and take the power in openSUSE (how many people in openSUSE are really intersted in legal problems? right now there is little interest to do so and Novell is in control, but on a foundation with lot of money...) I personnally don't have any real taste for one or the other option :-( let's discuss it. jdd NB: If you agree, I may summarize the discussion. Given we are on a week end, may be be we can let go for 4 days, until approx tuesday? -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+help(a)opensuse.org

3 5

legal form
by jdd 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

* The legal form of the foundation is to be a German voluntary association (wikipedia:Eingetragener_Verein). I understand very well that this is much more handy than any other system, given where most suse fellows are located, but I'm not sure it's the better way to solve problems. among others Linux problems are legal problems (see restricted formats). It was said (I don't know if it's true) that the location of Canonical on the Man island is one of the reason ubuntu is more easy to deal with. So may be we should have a foundation in some extra place like Man island or Guernesey? could be Lichtenstein (not far from Nurnberg, I already spent vacations in Vaduz :-). This don't mean we can't work elsewhere. Probably it will cost some more cash hiring lawyers. ideas? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+help(a)opensuse.org

9 31

membership, subscribtion fee and elections
by jdd 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Hello :-) new subject, I think important. we have to manage the foundation in a democratic way. That mean *real* elections, known membership etc. we *can* have several layers. from top down: * a President, secretary or chairman, that is the one people that speaks mostly for the foundation, * a board, usually around 8 people * a Commity (I don't know the exact english wording - "conseil d'administration" in french) * an active membership * a membership usually, for example in a sport association, the membership is the people that makes sport as non professional, the active members are the people that use to have interest on organisational processes and association management, often they pay a bit more than the others. All the members meet as a general assembly, sometime some members have a different weigth in votes than others. they elect the commity. Bay laws are decided from a special general assembly (Assemblée générale extraordinaire) and with a special % of the votes (3/4, 2/3...). The GA are held *in person* (physically) and procuration can only be given to one people on a limited number (not to have one people having himself a majority) The commity elects the board and the president. This system is pretty difficult to setup for us, because we can't allow votes by mail (too easy to trick), and registered mail vote is extremely expensive. Physical encounter is not possible, of course. So we may have to say that the foundation is *not* managed by it's lmembers, but by it's commity. This is perfectly fine in France. bylaws, nominations, decisions are taken by the commity. Commity members are coopted (choosen by previous members). If the initial bylaws are correctly setup, this can be a good way of life. For example we can have a 'constitution' saying that itself can't be changed by less than 80% of the commity, and internal rules modified by an ordinary majority. The constitution can state than only 1/4 of the commity can be changed at a time (all these numbers are example, not propositions), and than the initial board (or a list of people) be member of the commity for all they life and so on. so, first question: * do we want a foundation directed by it's commity or by all the members (and if the second option is to be used, how do we identify the members?) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-foundation+help(a)opensuse.org

3 3