July 2024 - openSUSE Project - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Status of the foundation?
by Martin Schröder 18 Aug '24

18 Aug '24

Hi, what's the status of the openSUSE foundation? Wikipedia has this: "The project is self-organized without a legal structure, although the establishment of a foundation has been under consideration for some time." citing an article from 2020(!). Best Martin

10 32

TSP for openSUSE Conference 2024
by ddemaio openSUSE 06 Aug '24

06 Aug '24

Hi all, We will not be accepting any more TSP requests for the openSUSE Conference 2024. We've had a large amount of requests and will do our best to accommodate those that have already been submitted requests. If you know any companies that would like to sponsor the conference, please have them view the prospectus at https://en.opensuse.org/images/f/f6/OSC24prospectus.pdf or people can also donate at https://geekos.org/sponsorship/ to assist with more travel support. v/r Doug

2 1

openSUSE Board minutes 2024-07-08
by ddemaio openSUSE 02 Aug '24

02 Aug '24

Board Meeting Monday 2024-07-08 14:00 CEST Present: Doug, Gerald, Neal, Simon, Shawn, Patrick Missed: Guests: From Previous Meetings We never made a formal decision on the policies for Permanent bans. Syncing after openSUSE Conference Shawn could not attend in person Gerald attended on Thursday, then sick and stuck in bed the following days :-( Those present in person report many constructive discussions. Talk generally perceived well. Only one member noting "If the name changes I'll leave". Several raised a desire to consider alternate names to "Geeko(s)". General feedback at the event was people were fine with renaming part of the talk at oSC24, less so with a removing the commuity brand outlook and splitting up the projects Discord/Matrix/IRC feedback has generally been ambivalent. A fair bit of narrative of "being forced" by SUSE. It seems that there is enough positive desire within the community to a good extent since this shouldn't just be the board driving proposals. It seems that more contributors are open to the idea of changing then the general userbase, at the same time there are some more SUSE employees that are less likely to want to change. Board to await the maturation period for the community to discuss before moving forward with a planning/phased approach Action Item: Gerald, statement from the board after discussion dies down.

6 11

openSUSE Board minutes 2024-06-03
by Neal Gompa 28 Jul '24

28 Jul '24

Sorry about the delay, but here they are... = Board Meeting Monday 2024-06-03 14:00 CEST = * Present: Doug, Gerald, Neal, Patrick, Shawn, Simon * Excused: * Missed: * Minutes: Neal * Guests: Georg == Organizational == * Minutes of last meeting (on Wiki)? * Meeting times before openSUSE Conference == Update the meeting bot for the mailing list == * Currently its still sending out the wrong time, * Can be done following https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_best_practices#Meeting_reminder/invi… * AI: Gerald to follow up * Pull request with change created: https://github.com/openSUSE/mail-reminder/pulls == Trademark Issue == * AI: Gerald to follow up == GDPR Update == Doug notes that for those having issues with "other" on onetrust form in some browsers has been fixed. Suggests implementing a workflow involving GDPR officers to ensure user identity deletion via a p.o.o. ticketing system. The tool facilitates validations, ensuring compliance and proper handling of privacy-related processes. == Proposal for Permanent Records of Banned Persons == * Establish permanent records for banned individuals to ensure consistency and transparency in enforcement. * Current decisions rely on collective memory, which is unreliable over time. * Records should be maintained and accessible to moderators, the board and membership officials. == Proposal for openSUSE Ban Process Regulation == * The openSUSE community upholds a strict code of conduct to ensure a respectful and productive environment. Bans may be issued for violations, escalating from temporary bans to permanent and lifetime bans. ** Temporary Bans: Issued for initial or minor infractions, typically lasting up to three months. ** Six-Month Bans: Serve as a clear warning that any further violations will result in a permanent ban. ** Permanent Bans: Imposed for repeated or severe violations. Individuals may apply for reinstatement after one year; however, reinstatement is not guaranteed and subject to Board review. ** Lifetime Bans: Reserved for the most egregious violations, including but not limited to harassment, ban evasion, and misuse of resources. Lifetime bans are irrevocable. * What about Revoking memberships? * What about Revoking IDP Account access? If so, how does it affect people who need it for their job? * A final warning may precede a permanent ban, making clear the consequences of further infractions. All bans are documented to ensure transparency and consistency in enforcement. -- Neal Gompa (ID: Pharaoh_Atem)

3 2

Geeko Foundation - Potential future structure
by Patrick Fitzgerald 25 Jul '24

25 Jul '24

Hi All, Given the current state of proceedings we thought it would be good to have a bit a of reference of current and future status of the Geeko Foundation. The plan is a kind of a meta-organisation (as you will see) that enables multiple "projects" to be share funding, infra and travel support under a common entity. Each "project" can have it's own "board" for management. This is not meant to be a contribution to naming debate, as we feel that whatever is chosen can fit into this structure. Take a look.. it is available here: https://geekos.org/the-future/ Thanks - Patrick -- -------------------------------- Patrick Fitzgerald All Support queries to: isupport(a)i-layer.com <mailto:isupport@i-layer.com>

1 0

Rebranding of the Project
by Shawn W Dunn 25 Jul '24

25 Jul '24

Pursuant to Richard and Robert's talk at oSC 2024: https://media.ccc.de/v/4411-we-re-all-grown-up-opensuse-is-not-suse This is a topic that needs to be discussed as a community, especially as it's currently a request from SUSE. I do want to be clear, this message is me posting as "Community Member SFalken" not "openSUSE Board Member SFalken" Myself, I'm in favour of "rebranding" the community project, and making it clear that openSUSE != SUSE. Far too much of the time in our support channels is spent clearing up these misconceptions, where new users (and even some experienced users), are saying things like "SUSE Should do $x" or "Why doesn't SUSE do $x?". I'm less certain that I agree with Richards proposal of the individual projects sort of "go their own way", at least as he's laid it out, but again, this is absolutely a topic that deserves consideration. Thoughts?

34 86

openSUSE Board Meeting in 3 Minutes
by Simon Lees 24 Jul '24

24 Jul '24

Apologies all, I just noticed we seem to still be having issues with our meeting reminder bot. So unfortunately today you get me as a manual reminder 3 minutes before the meeting start. The next meeting will be at 12UTC on Monday 2 weeks from now (2024-08-05) in case it forgets again The biweekly board conf call will be held in two days at 14:00 Europe/Berlin time (CET = UTC+1) Meeting will be in the regular Board Meeting Room https://meet.opensuse.org/OSBoard Current Topics: https://code.opensuse.org/board/tickets/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting Board Members: If you cannot participate, please advise by replying to this mail. -- 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

3 3

RFC: Renaming the openSUSE Board
by Henne Vogelsang 22 Jul '24

22 Jul '24

Hey, this has been in the back of my mind since a long time. This is a request for comment for change to the openSUSE Guiding principles. Reality? -------- When the project invented the openSUSE Guiding Principles that people are supposed to adhere to, we also needed to invent a group of people that could enforce those principles. Because enforcing those rules could mean, in the worst case, to exclude someone from the project, we wanted to give this group of people some democratic legitimization. By giving the community members the say on who is in this group with voting, limiting members terms, making sure it's not dominated by one company etc. We explicitly codified what this group of people is supposed to do and what it is not supposed to do. We named this group openSUSE Board. Also: In businesses, non-profits and in many other Open Source projects a board of directors is the governing body that sets the strategy, oversee management, finances, protects the interests of stakeholders etc. Consequences? ------------- By now we learned that by naming this group of people doing this job "openSUSE Board" we have awakened expectations that go way beyond the responsibilities this group of people has. Examples: Frequently in openSUSE Board elections people run on a platform that says they will be able to change some aspect of the project. It often makes the wrong people apply to the openSUSE Board. Whenever we need to form a new group of people that takes care of some aspect of this project, people think this new group has to get legitimacy from the openSUSE Board. But the board does not do this. It keeps people from *taking* responsibility. openSUSE Sponsors, especially SUSE, are using the openSUSE Board as "confidant" to bring forward requests. Instead of using it as consultants how to bring forward their requests to the community. It hinders direct communication and the establishment of other communication channels with project members. A *lot* of confusion happens as people wait for the openSUSE Board to decide and give directions, to solve disagreements with two viable options or to "start" some project. Again, it keeps people from *taking* responsibility. A *lot* of in-fighting about gaining/keeping/expanding control over the openSUSE Board because it's mistaken as source of "power". It needlessly makes this community a hostile place. Every new board basically goes to this phase of discovery what their job actually is and struggles with the wrong expectations. It makes the very hard job the openSUSE Board members have, *way* harder than it needs to be. Future? ------- The "Governance" paragraph of the openSUSE Guiding Principles is changed and the openSUSE Board gets a different name that does not invoke the comparison to the concept of a "board of directors". The job of the group of people formerly know as openSUSE Board gets easier to do. The reality is clear to contributors that they have to organize *any* group of people to work on something themselves. The shortcomings of the infrastructure to form new groups of contributors taking care of some aspect of this project is becoming the responsibility of the existing contributors. The shortcomings in the communication structure of our project become clear and are not overlaid by the expectations that you just have to go to the "board of directors" and they will drip the information down into the organization for you. The *stupid* in-fighting about expectations to the board *and* control over it hopefully stop if people realize what the openSUSE Board actually is. Proposal! --------- We rename the group of people that is now called the openSUSE Board to openSUSE Mediators. We change the "Governance" paragraph of the openSUSE Guiding Principles to read: https://en.opensuse.org/index.php?title=User:Hennevogel/Guiding_Principles_… Comments? Henne -- Henne Vogelsang http://www.opensuse.org Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson

9 10

Open Letter to the openSUSE Board, Project and Community (Final)
by Knurpht-openSUSE 21 Jul '24

21 Jul '24

Dear all, Let me first define a couple of things that the community is being faced with: - Our current governance is not working. With the things we're facing and the current model / Board rules, there is no good way the Board could drive the resulting changes coming up. Bi-weekly meetings will definitely not be enough. Furthermore, the Board has not shown any real proactive leadership in some situations where it should have. In the end, the reason I stepped down from it. - Whether we like it or not, we have to rebrand the Project. We can start working on it now and be proactive, or later be forced by f.e. some new owner of SUSE ( mind, SUSE has expressed their concern about such a thing happening and clearly stated that they do not want to get rid of the Project. ). To drive this we need something else than the Board as it is now. But keeping things as they are simply is an unrealistic option. - We need more contributors. It is a simple fact that we have been losing those, So, we have to question ourselves not only on how we're getting more people in, but also on how we keep them in. From what I've seen too many of them start enthusiasticly and get burnt out because lack of onboarding / mentoring. That said, I've also seen exceptions to that. What can we do? Proposal is a project-team that drives the changes. That project-team should exist of users/contributors/members with ampel experience in the Project/Community, people who know how things currently work. Basically they would come up with a plan, evaluate that with Board and Community and when ready execute the plan. A thing that should be taken into consideration is how f.e. our governance should relate/communicate to/with the Foundation. - The choice of a new name for the Project would best be a limited choice of ~3 names, that that team would have researched/checked, this to avoid having an endless list of non- workable options. - The rebranding of the distros as f.e. "openSUSE Tumbleweed" to "Tumbleweed" is already an ongoing thing. I don't see any reason to have a discussion about that again. - A vote on the Project logo has already been done, and was won by our LCP, no need to do that again. The people maintaining the distros have accepted LCP's logos as their distro logo, so using the same design for the Project makes sense since it gives a nice consistency. Hoping this finds you well, Best regards, -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team openSUSE Mods Team

22 43

[opensuse-project] How we will use the GSoC money
by Vincent Untz 18 Jul '24

18 Jul '24

Hi, (let's see how a public discussion about money goes :-)) The Google Summer of Code brings us great students, but also means that the openSUSE project will get $8000 (if I'm not mistaken) at the end of the summer. That's $500 per student. A while ago, I requested comments on my blog about what to do with the money, but didn't get any feedback. So I take this as "do what you feel is best", and this mail is about the plan. As a reminder, the main issue is that we will likely not have the openSUSE Foundation created in time for this. For instance, Google would like us to get some form filled before the end of June; this is not a mandatory timeline, but I think it shows that we won't be ready with the Foundation for that. The current plan is to give that money to another organization we feel close to, and I have two candidates in mind: - the Software Freedom Conservancy (http://sfconservancy.org/) it's a really nice org that provides a home for various cool projects (see http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/) and those projects help make openSUSE a great project. - the Desktop Summit (https://www.desktopsummit.org/) it's one of the biggest event this year, and this would help us have some more visibility (since we'd be sponsors, I guess). I'm sure they would welcome this to secure their budget. Note that an alternative solution would be to leave the money to Google for a future GSoC or similar program, but I feel it's better to use the money where it can make a difference today. Now, it's not too late to change the plan. If you have a better suggestion, please tell us. There's no need to argue forever about it, just explain why you think it's good. Keep in mind that if we cannot receive the money ourselves, this also means that we cannot use it to buy stuff for openSUSE. Pavol and I will take the final decision since we are the GSoC admins for openSUSE. Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org

22 38

Re: Rebranding of the Project
by Sarah Julia Kriesch 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

3 2

Re: Open Letter to Board, Project and Community
by Knurpht-openSUSE 12 Jul '24

12 Jul '24

Op vrijdag 12 juli 2024 04:01:53 CEST schreef Knurpht-openSUSE: > Dear all, > > Writing this intentionally outside of the ongoing threads on thelists. > > Let us define a couple of things that the community is being faced with: > > - Our current governance is not working. With the things we're facing and > the current model / Board rules, there is no good way the Board could drive > the resulting changes coming up. Bi-weekly meetings will definitely not be > enough. > > - Whether we like it or not, we have to rebrand the Project. We can start > working on it now and be proactive, or later be forced by f.e. some new > owner of SUSE ( mind, SUSE has expressed their concern about such a thing > happening and clearly stated that they do not want to get rid of the > Project. ). To drive this we need something else than the Board as it is > now. But keeping things as they are simply is an unrealistic option. Sory again, kmail is playing up. -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team openSUSE Mods Team

1 0

Re: Rebranding of the Project
by Patrick Fitzgerald 11 Jul '24

11 Jul '24

Oh, And I should point out that all the warm feeling that people were getting by buying tshirts etc - unfortunately not of that was going to openSUSE. Once again: because there was nowhere for it to go. As soon as we got the Geeko Foundation bank accounts up and running, the merch companies poured in at least 5k EUR, all of backlogged funds that had nowhere to go. (I can feel a blog post coming on about that.) /p On 11 Jul 2024 15:33, Knurpht-openSUSE <knurpht(a)opensuse.org> wrote: Op donderdag 11 juli 2024 14:55:47 CEST schreef Sarah Julia Kriesch: > The GUUG wanted to achieve a change there, but the reason for that was that > all openSUSE sponsorships went via the SUSE credit card. After many > rejected sponsorships based on this reason (see also Mmails by Christian > and Simon), we made the suggestion of an own Foundation in the openSUSE > Board. > > The GUUG didn't want to sign to sponsor SUSE. The workaround was to make a > lunch sponsorship without any SUSE credit card. Afterwards I received the > statement that it has been the single openSUSE sponsorship in this > direction until there will be the possibility to sponsor the open source > project openSUSE. There was nothing special about this specific one. I remember it, and it was just a next one. Talks about an own foundation have been there since the Project exist. Each year openSUSE sent people to GSoC we had issues receiving the money from Google. Actually that was one of the 1st things on the table during my 1st Board term. Another good example is the money generated through shop.o.o via 3rd parties. I get your frustration: You find a potential sponsor, and it breaks on matters like this. Been there, did not get it done, no t-shirt. -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team openSUSE Mods Team

2 1

RE: Rebranding of the Project
by Patrick Fitzgerald 11 Jul '24

11 Jul '24

I think the point is that until the foundation was set up, there was nowhere for donations to go to. If you wanted to donate money to openSUSE, it would have to go to SUSE... * who wants to donate to a commercial enterprise? * even if you did, SUSE are not set up to receive donations. It'd get sent back with a note saying "what is this for?" The Geeko Foundation has already raised significant amounts simply by existing with bank accounts. We are planning to reach UK Charity status shortly (from being a not-for-profit) which will be even better. /p -----Original message----- From: Lukáš Krejza <gryffus(a)hkfree.org> Sent: Thursday 11th July 2024 12:18 To: project(a)lists.opensuse.org Subject: Re: Rebranding of the Project Hey, Dne čtvrtek 11. července 2024 9:37:42, SELČ, Attila Pinter napsal(a): > You will laugh, but I had people come up to me straight up telling me that > they don't understand the relationship between openSUSE and SUSE and they > go back to using whatever distro they came from, and wouldn't even consider > contributing to "SUSE's pocket". Some others just don't like SUSE so they > refuse also. Rebranding, and having a clear differentiation between the two > is a pretty good solution to this issue, and we should probably do it until > we're being asked nice, and we can. > > -- > Br, > A. So... Do potential donors nowadays have a negative perception if a commercial company supports a project with a Libre license or a community? How hard is it to explain it's the opposite and how licensing works? Right, it's like people who dislike RedHat are donating to Fedora. Or people who dislike Canonical donating to Ubuntu. Regards, Gfs

2 1

RE: Rebranding of the Project
by Patrick Fitzgerald 11 Jul '24

11 Jul '24

Hi Lukas, Consider it in these terms... The foundation finally came about because of fears re the funding of future community events. There were a lot less events sponsored by SUSE in the last couple of years, and who knows, for whatever reason that may continue. The foundation exists to allow for the collection of donations, because openSUSE cannot have a bank account, because it is not a legal entity - just a name. You might say, well SUSE can take the donations themselves; but then most people would think "why am I donating to a company that sells it's software for a profit?" (Hence the naming issue as well - because outsiders do not understand the difference). But then in the absolute worst case scenario, imagine what would happen if a larger, hostile competitor bought all of the shares of SUSE (say, when it was public), took the customer base, hired the core dev teams, integrated the software into their own, and killed the brand. Then there would be no SUSE, and by definition, no openSUSE either - because openSUSE is a trademark of SUSE. Before you say "that wouldn't happen" - I can assure you that it happens all the time in all industries. With a foundation, and a new name, it provides at least a chance of survival beyond the lifespan of SUSE (which I hope will be long and prosperous btw!). /p (not a SUSE employee in case you are wondering) -----Original message----- From: Lukáš Krejza <gryffus(a)hkfree.org> Sent: Tuesday 9th July 2024 11:41 To: project(a)lists.opensuse.org Subject: Re: Rebranding of the Project Hey, Dne úterý 9. července 2024 8:43:36, SELČ, ddemaio openSUSE napsal(a): > On 2024-07-08 23:23, Lukáš Krejza wrote: > > Since I am against the foundation effort (and have expressed that along > > with my > > opinion on Richard's proposal in a thread "Why separate foundation?" on > > this > > list 9. 1. 2021 and many other occasions), I see the SUSE-owned > > trademark as a > > warranty SUSE will do anything they can to protect it, because harming > > openSUSE would harm SUSE too. > > > > Does SUSE think openSUSE is doing their "brand" a bad name? If not, the > > reasons for rebranding were not strong enough IMHO. If yes, please let > > us know > > how and where. > > There are benefits and drawbacks whichever point is taken. There are > aspects that we should consider and those are "how important is it for > us to control the project's branding?" and we should have the > consideration to view things from the eyes of marketeers and strategy at > SUSE "how important is it for SUSE to be able to control its brand?" > Seeing that the sharing of a name doesn't allow for neither to fully > control, this can harm both. > > Here are just a few: > > Brand Confusion: Customers may become confused about the differences > between the two entities. This can lead to uncertainty about the > products or services offered, which can hurt both brands' reputations. I think of it exactly the opposite way. The most active promoters of SUSE are the openSUSE community. It's us after all who have SUSE and openSUSE stickers on our laptops, photographs of the geeko plushies on our social networks, talk about it with our colleagues etc. How exactly is this hurting or confusing the SUSE brand? > Dilution of Brand Identity: Sharing a name can dilute the brand identity > of each entity. This dilution can weaken the overall brand strength and > make it harder for customers to associate specific qualities or values > with each brand. See above. > Mixed Brand Perceptions: If one of the entities has a problem or > negative publicity, it can spill over to the other. For example, if > openSUSE faces a security issue, customers might associate this problem > with SUSE as well, even if SUSE is not affected. Exactly. That is our warranty, that SUSE will do whatever it can to protect openSUSE. Regarding security issue, but that's correct! In case SUSE is using openSUSE binaries (and vice versa), there are for sure some security issues that affect both, naturally? This again "forces" SUSE to cooperate with the community tightly and was always the case. Again, that is correct. > Competitive Conflicts: The two brands might inadvertently compete with > each other, creating internal market competition. This can lead to > resource wastage and strategic conflicts. OFC. If I use openSUSE in my small company, I will use Debian or RHEL in my second bigger company. Makes complete sense (no it does not) :) > Customer Trust and Loyalty: Brand confusion and mixed perceptions can > erode customer trust and loyalty. Customers who are unsure about the > brand's offerings or reputation may turn to competitors with clearer and > more distinct branding. openSUSE community is strengthening the brand. Again - how and where is the openSUSE community "hurting" the SUSE brand? Unles you make it more specific, this is just a PR BS, nothing more. > There can certainly be reasoning for the opposite of these. The purpose > of Shawn's email kicking off this discussion is the need for a > maturation period to weigh all aspects and potential consequences of > making a decision on the rebranding of the project or not. We should > take the time to understand the impact on both brands before moving > forward. It would be ideal to avoid a situation of not making any > decisions. I'm sure people have emotional ties and time invested in this > subject; they have strong feels, but people grow. Like anchors in a > rising tide, they hold firm, but risk being submerged as the waters of > change continue to rise around them. A lot has changed since 2005. I > think the project should also consider a change. Why should we consider change of name and branding when something other changes? That makes no sense, change for the sake of change. Or you mean like the 42.1 versioning effort? :D If this is meant to be discussion (and "proposal"), then make a poll so the community can decide by themselves. To make it clear even more: 1) I am against rebranding openSUSE 2) I am for SUSE considering rebranding SLES and SLED instead as I wrote earlier (again, same proposal as theirs) 3) I am against any foundation effort 4) I want SUSE to clearly specify if they are controlling openSUSE or not. If they are not, we can just deny their proposal, if yes, they for sure need to change some rhetoric and not trying to implicate they do not have the control. If SUSE would change SLES and SLED branding, the business guys could still sleep well and write on their linkedin they have the real power and control. Either you have the control over openSUSE or you don'ŧ have it. It's really just that simple. Regards, Gfs

5 4

Re: Open Letter to the openSUSE Board, Project and Community
by Knurpht-openSUSE 09 Jul '24

09 Jul '24

Op dinsdag 9 juli 2024 18:42:43 CEST schreef Knurpht-openSUSE: > Dear all, > > Writing this intentionally outside of the ongoing threads on this list. > > Let me define a couple of things that the community is being faced with: > - Our current governance is not working. With the things we're facing and > the current model / Board rules, there is no good way the Board could drive > the resulting changes coming up. Bi-weekly meetings will definitely not be > enough. - Whether we like it or not, we have to rebrand the Project. We can > start working on it now and be proactive, or later be forced by f.e. some > new owner of SUSE ( mind, SUSE has expressed their concern about such a > thing happening and clearly stated that they do not want to get rid of the > Project. ). To drive this we need something else than the Board as it is > now. But keeping things as they are simply is an unrealistic option. Don't know that happened but this unfinished message was sent spontaniously. Will resend tomorrow. -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team openSUSE Mods Team

2 2

openSUSE community/users - education and/or change
by mitko＠tuionui.com 09 Jul '24

09 Jul '24

Dear fellow Geekos, Reading all the opinions regarding the rebranding initiative and the governance, including previous similar threads, there seems to be a pattern. It is about a (vast) group of users (no matter whether they are community members or not), who “are confused”; “do not know to whom to address issue X, Y, Z”; “seek for help where they should not”; “mix SUSE and openSUSE”; “do not know how to write either of the names”; and so on. If the above is identified as an issue, it can be solved in two ways – changing (by simplifying, removing, renaming, etc.) and educating. Of course, both can be applied simultaneously. That is why, I decided to start a new thread – about addressing the knowledge gaps amongst our current and future users. I would love to read your thoughts on the subject. Of course, if other communication channels are preferred for this type of discussion, please let me know. PS1: This is my first time posting here, so if I did not honor all the rules, please let me know. PS2: The intention here is not to blame someone, but to initiate a discussion with the respective action items. Regards, Dimitar Zahariev Technical Trainer & Consultant T: +359 899 605 664 E1: dimitar(a)zahariev.pro <mailto:dimitar@zahariev.pro> E2: mitko(a)tuionui.com <mailto:mitko@tuionui.com>

1 0

Re: Rebranding of the Project
by Patrick Fitzgerald 09 Jul '24

09 Jul '24

Just to clear up any confusion: I wrote the below on the fly and made the fatal error of copying and pasting parts on my mobile. If was originally meant to read: (not speaking as a board member...) But it didn't. My intention was to speak as a community member, not as some kind of official communication from the Board. Anyone who is representing it as such should be corrected. Apologies for the confusion. Must proofread harder. /p On 08/07/2024 16:49, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote: > RE: Rebranding of the Project > > (speaking as a board member.....) > > > Richard, to "rescind" requires prior agreement. So you agreed. > > > That board meeting lasted *2 days* (crazy, I know).**You presented to > us on the first day.**We discussed your presentation last, from memory > - the next day, and voted on it. So it wasn't /after/ the meeting > after all. > > > We reached out to you and informed you of the vote, and your response was: > > > /"O//k, I'll try not to take it personally. :)"/ > > > No objection. You could have raised it as an issue with us then and > there, but you didn't. You could have convinced us, but you didn't. > > > Therefore, we thought that the matter was dealt with. > > > Then you started accusing the board of "censorship", when there was no > such thinking on the boards decision. > > > - Were you able to give your presentation? (yes) > > - Did the board alter any content that was not part of the your > original presentation? > > I *know* that we didn't. Things might have been changed by Robert - > but that's on him (and SUSE, as he was speaking on their behalf), not > the board. > > > My recollection of events was that we just figured that it was better > to clearly contrast a community opinion - yours - with SUSE's, > originally was to be Andy Fitzsimon's presentation. Andy is not part > of the community, and also couldn't make it. We saw Robert as a great > substitution to achieve that aim. > > > The best way to fix this whole issue would have been to raise it with > us at the time, not say "ok" with a smiley emoji. Or even at the face > to face with the board at the last session - but you weren't there either. > > > BUT, we do agree that the priority should be on re-branding. > Everything else will follow. So lets focus on that! > > > /p > > > (As for the heated discussion at the conference, I stand by every word.) > > > > -----Original message----- > *From:* Richard Brown <rbrown(a)suse.de> > *Sent:* Monday 8th July 2024 10:29 > *To:* project(a)lists.opensuse.org > *Subject:* Re: Rebranding of the Project > > On 2024-07-08 09:21, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote: > > In regard to Richards proposal, I think that this is not a major > > priority and should be addressed down the line. > > > > When presented the idea at the board meeting prior to the conference, > > I mentioned that to him and he agreed. > > Since that meeting, the Board intervened and forcefully changed who was > allowed to present the topic at oSC on behalf of SUSE. > This was an act that I believe to be in contravention of the Board's own > rules about directing contributors and grossly exceeded it's > responsibility to "Community community interests to SUSE" > This is at least the second time in recent memory where the Board had > directly intervened and directed contributors - my previous example > would be when the Board forced the continuation of "MicroOS Desktop KDE" > after it was removed due to lack of maintainers after a year+ long > deprecation period. > > I therefore want to make the following very clear: > > I rescind any agreement I may have had with your view that the > governance issues are 'not a major priority' > > I currently hold no confidence in the current openSUSE Board and think > it's absolutely essential the openSUSE project establishes a new > governance model. > > Given the heated discussion we had at openSUSE Conference, I would have > expected you to have implicitly understood that fact and not tried to > make it sound like I supported your view that our governance problems > are not a major priority. > > I had no intention to join this thread here, but your misrepresentation > of my views had to be corrected. > > With all that said, I do believe the greater priority is the branding > issue. > > SUSE's needs as the legal trademark holder cannot be ignored, whereas > the openSUSE Board can be. > > So, both are important, but the Branding issue is the most urgent and > pressing one that needs to be addressed. > I think it might make sense to address it in the context of reworking > our governance, it might not. > But if we do not address our governance at the same time as the > branding, it is something that needs to be resolved pretty quickly > afterwards. > > -- > Richard Brown > Distributions Architect > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 > Nuremberg, Germany > (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) > Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner > Knoblich > -- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to:isupport@i-layer.com

1 0

RE: Rebranding of the Project
by Patrick Fitzgerald 09 Jul '24

09 Jul '24

(speaking as a board member.....) Richard, to "rescind" requires prior agreement. So you agreed. That board meeting lasted 2 days (crazy, I know). You presented to us on the first day. We discussed your presentation last, from memory - the next day, and voted on it. So it wasn't after the meeting after all. We reached out to you and informed you of the vote, and your response was: "Ok, I'll try not to take it personally. :)" No objection. You could have raised it as an issue with us then and there, but you didn't. You could have convinced us, but you didn't. Therefore, we thought that the matter was dealt with. Then you started accusing the board of "censorship", when there was no such thinking on the boards decision. - Were you able to give your presentation? (yes) - Did the board alter any content that was not part of the your original presentation? I know that we didn't. Things might have been changed by Robert - but that's on him (and SUSE, as he was speaking on their behalf), not the board. My recollection of events was that we just figured that it was better to clearly contrast a community opinion - yours - with SUSE's, originally was to be Andy Fitzsimon's presentation. Andy is not part of the community, and also couldn't make it. We saw Robert as a great substitution to achieve that aim. The best way to fix this whole issue would have been to raise it with us at the time, not say "ok" with a smiley emoji. Or even at the face to face with the board at the last session - but you weren't there either. BUT, we do agree that the priority should be on re-branding. Everything else will follow. So lets focus on that! /p (As for the heated discussion at the conference, I stand by every word.) -----Original message----- From: Richard Brown <rbrown(a)suse.de> Sent: Monday 8th July 2024 10:29 To: project(a)lists.opensuse.org Subject: Re: Rebranding of the Project On 2024-07-08 09:21, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote: > In regard to Richards proposal, I think that this is not a major > priority and should be addressed down the line. > > When presented the idea at the board meeting prior to the conference, > I mentioned that to him and he agreed. Since that meeting, the Board intervened and forcefully changed who was allowed to present the topic at oSC on behalf of SUSE. This was an act that I believe to be in contravention of the Board's own rules about directing contributors and grossly exceeded it's responsibility to "Community community interests to SUSE" This is at least the second time in recent memory where the Board had directly intervened and directed contributors - my previous example would be when the Board forced the continuation of "MicroOS Desktop KDE" after it was removed due to lack of maintainers after a year+ long deprecation period. I therefore want to make the following very clear: I rescind any agreement I may have had with your view that the governance issues are 'not a major priority' I currently hold no confidence in the current openSUSE Board and think it's absolutely essential the openSUSE project establishes a new governance model. Given the heated discussion we had at openSUSE Conference, I would have expected you to have implicitly understood that fact and not tried to make it sound like I supported your view that our governance problems are not a major priority. I had no intention to join this thread here, but your misrepresentation of my views had to be corrected. With all that said, I do believe the greater priority is the branding issue. SUSE's needs as the legal trademark holder cannot be ignored, whereas the openSUSE Board can be. So, both are important, but the Branding issue is the most urgent and pressing one that needs to be addressed. I think it might make sense to address it in the context of reworking our governance, it might not. But if we do not address our governance at the same time as the branding, it is something that needs to be resolved pretty quickly afterwards. -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich

4 3

Update from openSUSE Conference: Geeko Foundation Meetup
by ddemaio openSUSE 08 Jul '24

08 Jul '24

Hi all, I hope this email finds you well. We (members who attended the following) wanted to provide an update on the recent Geeko Foundation meetup held on June 29 at the openSUSE Conference. Your input and participation are crucial to move the foundation forward. I'm pleased to update you on the following points discussed during the meetup: Marketing and Branding Branding Projects: With regard to branding discussion, members suggest something like "Leap - A Geeko Foundation Project" and to provide a clear reference to SUSE's involvement in making Leap. Open-source Contributions: Emphasized that tools are open-source, allowing equal contributions from SUSE and the community. Collaboration and Infrastructure: Discussed infrastructure availability and collaboration under a different trademark, with a need for guarantees from SUSE regarding upstream recognition. Package Hub and Monetization Common Understanding: Discussed the monetization of Package Hub and would like to ensure that funds if Package Hub were ever monetized should also benefit communities and contributors. Fragmentation Concerns: Addressed concerns about dealing with fragmentation and proposed an intake model and gateway for onboarding projects. Advocacy and Support: Suggest branding the project Geekos to advocate support of the ecosystem with regard to SUSE and openSUSE, making a clear argument for upstream recognition from SUSE. Narrative Balance: Highlight the importance of a balanced narrative that recognizes Leap's dependency on SUSE and Tumbleweed's role in SLE. Contributions and Community Support Free Licenses for Contributors: Considered models for free licenses for contributors. Desktop Gap: Discussed the potential for the foundation to fill a gap with desktop support. Trademark Protection: Emphasize the importance of the foundation owning the trademark for the community. Propose SUSE match donated funds for any trademark defense if needed. Fundraising and Events Laptop Donations: Proposed was a donation and install fest where people can receive a laptop in exchange for a donation. Mention of labdoo.org was considered as a potential model. TSP Points: Focus on prioritizing contributors before sponsoring events and emphasizing the importance of speakers. Discussed funding limitations. Event Decision Groups: Propose creating groups for each event to make decisions based on value add, and considering the Big Mac Index for cost of living adjustments. Supporting Other Foundations Global Support: Discussed adding support foundations in Asia and the Americas, and the need for technical and sponsors to advance the foundation. Mission Consistency: Stressed the importance of consistency with the mission, ensuring funds and sponsorships don't equate to undue influence or special treatment. We aim to provide transparent information on how the meetup went and how we can advance our goals. Your input and help are crucial. We need supportive members for tasks related to TSP, accounting, and other areas to help develop our initiatives. For the TSP, would like to have a group of people willing to be part of a collective to decide about people’s approval or denial of TSP. If you are interested in contributing or have any ideas, please reach out. v/r Doug

3 3

errant https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
by Felix Miata 06 Jul '24

06 Jul '24

Page includes this language: [quote] When updating Tumbleweed, it is not advised to use graphical tools. To keep Tumbleweed updated to the latest snapshot using zypper, run the following command as root (ideally inside a screen or tmux session): [/quote] The strings "update", "updating", "updated" and similar have no place in Tumbleweed documentation. Those words cause threads like this one: <https://forums.opensuse.org/t/problems-with-zypper-and-yast-repository-afte…> "it is not advised to use graphical tools" is poor construction, should read: "it is advised to not use graphical tools" I tried to fix the language, but it's located in a noedit section, so won't let me. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata

1 0

Etherpad
by Georg Pfuetzenreuter 06 Jul '24

06 Jul '24

Hi, just letting you know that etherpad.opensuse.org might be down for some time, something broke after updating to a new major version (https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/163319) Cheers, Georg

1 0