Hi All,
Just a general reminder that over the coming months there will be
several decisions the openSUSE project will be making ranging from name
and branding / logo through to the creation of a foundation, such issues
will be decided via membership votes.
Anyone who contributes to openSUSE is able to apply for membership
following the process listed at [1]. My guess is we have a number of
contributors who have never applied for membership because voting for
the board doesn't seem important to them, where as some of these other
issues may be. If that is the case, now would be a great time to apply
so that we don't flood the membership committee so much that it holds up
the votes.
Cheers
Simon
1. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Members
--
Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 15:11:48 +0200, Richard Brown wrote:
> There are topics like those raised in the ongoing name/logo thread, but
> I foresee many more in the future, regarding such as things like
> budgets, membership dues, etc.
Maybe I missed discussion about this, but "membership dues" is concerning
to me - I think this project should continue to be driven by the people
who do the work, not the people who make monetary contributions.
As such, I wouldn't be in favor of individuals or organizations being
able to buy influence in the project.
I know there's a long history of people wanting to be able to give money
to the project to help with costs, and I'm fine with that as long as
membership and influence over the project isn't predicated on "he who has
the gold makes the rules".
My $0.02. ;)
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi all,
I'd like to propose the following approach for the Project as to
handle the decisions that need to be answered before we can formally
form a Foundation for the Project.
There are topics like those raised in the ongoing name/logo thread,
but I foresee many more in the future, regarding such as things like
budgets, membership dues, etc.
These discreet aspects of our Projects governance will need to be
decided, and the community at large should be involved in those
decisions.
At the same time, I think we all want to avoid being stuck in endless
loops of endless discussions and endless votes.
My proposal is as follows
- Topics surrounding the formation of the Foundation should be raised
for discussion on opensuse-project(a)opensuse.org
- If the discussion produces a clear consensus, as interpreted by the
openSUSE Board, then the Board should vote to adopt that consensus as
a formal decision of the Project. This vote should require a 2/3s
Majority of the Board like required under the Board Election Amendment
rules [1]
- The interpretation of consensus by the Board should be communicated
in advance of any vote by the Board, and should be open to challenge
on the opensuse-project mailinglist.
- If the discussion does not produce a clear consensus, a vote of
openSUSE Members should be conducted
- The result of any vote that involves at least 2/3s of the current
membership will be considered immediately binding as a formal decision
of the Project
- The result of any vote that receives less than 2/3s of the current
membership will not be considered binding, but will be considered
indicative.
- The openSUSE Board will then be expected to interpret that
indicative result and conduct its own vote on the topic, requiring a
2/3s majority for any decision.
To give a real world example - the above policy would mean that the
current Name/Logo discussion is on track for a membership vote, as no
one in their right mind should think that the discussion has a clear
consensus :)
The above proposal would only apply for individual aspects of the
overarching effort to establish a Foundation for the Project. I do not
propose it should apply for the actual formation of the Foundation.
For that I believe there should be a final confirmatory vote of the
openSUSE Membership.
That should require 2/3s participation to be considered valid, and it
will be that vote that will formally reflect the communities agreement
or rejection of the formation of a Foundation for the Project.
I feel the Board should not have a fallback role on such a significant
topic for the Project.
Failure of the vote to receive 2/3rs participation in the vote should
be considered a rejection of the Foundation, due to lack of sufficient
interest from the Membership.
If everyone agrees, I think the above model should let us move quickly
on many aspects of the Foundation we need to approach in the coming
months, while ensuring everyone has their chance to have their say.
It should also ensure that we're all collectively happy both on
individual aspects of the Foundation and the concept as a whole once
we have a better picture of what it will look like in practice.
Regards
Richard
Writing as an individual contributor (ie. I didn't discuss this with
my Board colleagues before posting it)
[1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_rules
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
To bring the whole voting process in line with Board voting I would also propose that 20% of membership is required to replace foundation or change aspects of it.
Which is nonsense.
As I see it, we as a Project need input from at least majority of members in such major and important topics. This is deciding future. You can't put it in hands of 20%. Add "I abstain", "I don't care" or something similar to get neutral input in voting but I think Project need to hear "something" from membership. If such voting is binding from 20% because we fear that not many more Members will even care to vote then why even bother with setting this artificial border - just accept any voting result.
peace,
Patryk Zera
--------------------------------------------
6.6.19 (Czw), Simon Lees <sflees(a)suse.de> napisał(a):
Temat: Re: [opensuse-project] Proposal for Decision Making Process for the formation of our Foundation
Do: opensuse-project(a)opensuse.org
Data: 6 Czerwiec 2019 (Czwartek), 23:30
On 07/06/2019 06:44, Simon Lees wrote:
>
> - 25% of the
membership must vote in a ballot before it is considered
> binding, any vote under 25% shall be
treated as the membership not
> having a
strong opinion and it shall be upto the board to determine
the
> best resolution for the issue.
Upon further thought i'm
going to change the 25% to 20% to bring it in
line with the number of members required to
replace the board
Cheers
--
Simon Lees (Simotek)
http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team
keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux
Adelaide Australia,
UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC
F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email:
opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
On śro, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:28 PM, Xaver Hellauer <xaver(a)hellauer.bayern>
wrote:
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:31 PM, Ish Sookun
> <ish.sookun(a)lasentinelle.mu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/19 3:53 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
>>
>> > I really was upset when it was changed from SuSE and again SUSE,
>> but
>> > understand the need to move to openSUSE. I believe the effort
>> needed to
>> > resolve all the necessary issues is much better expended on
>> further
>> > development of our distribution. and Leap and Tumbleweed should
>> remain
>> > distinctive sub "brand" names for openSUSE.
>>
>> How about having a foundation name different as the distro name and
>> we
>> get to keep openSUSE? Something like:
>>
>> +--------------------+
>> | Example Foundation |
>> +---------+----------+
>> |
>> |
>> v
>> +-----+----+
>> | openSUSE |
>> +----+-----+
>> |
>> v--------+----------v
>> +------+ +------------+
>> | Leap | | Tumbleweed |
>> +------+ +------+-----+
>> |
>> |
>> v------+-----v
>> +-------+ +---------+
>> | Kubic | | MicroOS |
>> +-------+ +---------+
>>
>
> How about just giving a new name to the foundation loosely tied to
> the existing brand (e.g. Squamata Foundation) and just dropping the
> "openSUSE" without replacement. The distributions do have names
> already. So basically "openSUSE Tumbleweed" becomes "Tumbleweed" and
> "openSUSE Leap" becomes "Leap" with highly visible release names
> (maybe different lizards) like Debian's and Ubuntu's releases. In my
> opinion this would be beneficial to marketing. Everybody cares about
> "Disco Dingo", but "15.2" sounds quite boring.
> Dropping the "openSUSE" has the following benefits:
> * Seemingly cutting ties to a Novell/Microsoft Deal/"Corporate
> Overlord" past without creating "SUSE is abandonning openSUSE" FUD.
I do wonder if that is over, it has been more than 10 years already for
some of those events.
> * Tumbleweed and Leap are recognizable brands with very different
> audiences, they don't need an umbrella name (like Fedora and CentOS
> don't have one either).
Well, in case of Fedora distros, there is Fedora Workstation, Fedora
Server,
Fedora CoreOS, Fedora IoT and Fedora Silverblue (not to count DE
spins), when
people are talking about "Fedora" they usually mean
Workstation/Spins/Server.
Fedora is very much an umbrella name for a bunch of different
distributions,
just like openSUSE. We do have much higher chance of having distro names
separate from the project name though, because the names aren't as
generic as
Fedora's. As an example Tumbleweed, MicroOS and Kubic already have
parts of
branding that don't mention openSUSE, and Leap 15.2 might too if I'm
motivated
enough to get that going in the coming year.
> * Not being called anything *SUSE* might help making Packman (or at
> least some of the packman packages) more official, which would help
> making it more easy to install them (Ubuntu-easy, not the existing
> "easier than before, but still not really noob-friendly). Mageia for
> example got rid of the PLF repo, when they were no longer
> Mandrake/Mandriva branded.
Not being associated with a corporation, and being a registered
foundation
does not free us from obeying the patent law, I don't really see how
that
would work...
LCP [Stasiek]
https://lcp.world
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
On Tue, 04 Jun 2019 10:14:02 +0200 Stasiek Michalski <hellcp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gecko Linux is abandoned, [...]
GeckoLinux creator here. GeckoLinux is *NOT* abandoned. Please stop spreading misinformation.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hello,
here are the meeting minutes of the 2019-04-02 board meeting.
If you prefer the wiki formatting, you can also read them on
https://en.opensuse.org/Archive:Board_meeting_2019-04-02
There are some items with a "feedback welcome" - if you want to comment
on them (or the other things), feel free to answer here or to board@
== Foundation/Independence ==
* we need to decide which way (e.V., joining an umbrella foundation)
makes sense - topic for the face to face meeting, feedback on
opensuse-project@ is of course welcome
* Simon will write up a summary of the options of umbrella foundations
* in general feedback from SUSE about becoming independent is positive,
but we've also heard a concern that independence could be driven by
fundamental things, not practical reasons
* if ever needed, we could ignore whatever SUSE does and go our own way
* a foundation / independence would make legal stuff like GDPR our
business
* Simon will talk to Ciaran how we could handle GDPR and other legal
stuff
== mail hosting using mailbox.org ==
We have an offer from Heinlein / mailbox org to make @opensuse.org mail
addresses real mailboxes.
Do our members want this? (Feedback on opensuse-project and @oSC
welcome)
== GDPR request ==
openSUSE received a GDPR request which now gets handled by the
responsible people.
== Cloudfest in Rust ==
We've seen the discussion on the opensuse-project mailinglist why
openSUSE wasn't at Cloudfest.
* base requirement (as always) is to have volunteers
* commercial booth prices are insane, we'd have to find out if they
offer free community booths
Regards,
Christian Boltz
--
Es ist halt nur nicht eine einzige zentrale Filterdatei. Vorteil ist,
dass die Anwender ihre eigenen Scripte verwalten (und sich dabei in den
Fuss schiessen können). Nachteil ist genau das gleiche. (^-^)
[Sandy Drobic in suse-linux über Sieve]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hello,
I think openSUSE should stay openSUSE.
As logo was orignally also part of this topic, I think I can live with changed logo.
Regards,
Patryk "Sanchez" Zera
--------------------------------------------
3.6.19 (Pon), Richard Brown <RBrownCCB(a)opensuse.org> napisał(a):
(...)
Do you think openSUSE should change it's
name?
Regards,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org