On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:31 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin(a)iinet.net.au>
On 13/10/19 11:57 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Simon Lees <sflees(a)suse.de> [10-13-19 03:44]:
>> On 10/12/19 7:19 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
>>> * Ish Sookun <ish.sookun(a)lasentinelle.mu> [10-11-19 13:52]:
>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>> On 10/12/19 12:31 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
>>>>> and how are you tallying the "Abstention" votes
>>>>> w/o and indication that
>>>>> "Abstention" is desired rather than "just not
>>>> What I meant is that the act of not voting in itself is abstention.
>>> but it is not recorded and indiscernible from not voting. there is a
>>> difference from abstention and not voting and they are not equal. one
>>> would have to know the choice was made and not just failing to vote.
>> Given that all our ballots are private and no one can see
>> who voted for what
>> I don't think abstain really means anything, its not like
>> Australia where it
>> is compulsory to turn up and vote.
>> Having abstain doesn't really tell us anything other then
>> making the result
>> more complex and giving people something to argue over.
>> Personally if we
>> went back and added it i'd just ignore it.
>> We also have to remember that starting a new vote would
>> cause some confusion
>> and we would have to work hard to ensure that people who
>> already voted don't
>> get confused and not vote because they think they already have.
>> While the current vote isn't perfect I think that starting
>> another vote now
>> will just make things worse. The board has made it clear
>> that we are after
>> an indication of whether people would like the openSUSE name
>> changed or not
>> so that we can take that data forward into our future
>> decision making and
>> will try our best to implement that solution, with that in
>> mind while the
>> current naming isn't the best we had it does ask that question.
> imnsho, abstention indicates the provided options are not viable to the
> voter where not voting indicates a lack of interest or not knowing there
> is a vote. then a large number of abstentions would indicate
> the outcome
> of the vote was seriously flawed.
> and I understand completely the problems with leadership by
> committee but
> an uninformed vote and/or a indecisive ballot do not provide information
> worthy of action.
I have read most, but all, of the thread(s) regarding the matter of
name change of 'openSUSE'.
My take on the matter is that someone is pushing their own agenda
and the decision to change the name from openSUSE to whatever (yet
to be decided no doubt by another "vote" of the Community members
[which count how many? some 286 or so voters?]) has already been
That would be 491 community members, and the idea of another vote to
choose the final name was a thing since the beginning. You should
familiarize yourself with the initial discussion from May/June.
Perhaps I missed the statement, which is quite
possible, but I
haven't seen where any member of the past or current board has
stated that an approach was made to the SUSE management and/or
SUSE's legal team and the question was asked of them, "Is their some
insurmountable problem which would be faced if the name 'openSUSE'
was used for the creation of the suggested '[openSUSE] Foundation'?"
Now, I would have thought that this would have been the very first
thing that should have been settled; if the answer was that there
is/are no insurmountable problem(s) then their is no need for the
vote which is now being conducted, but if the answer was 'Yes' then
the everyone's time and effort in creating this poll of the
'Communiy' would be directed at "What should be now call
(And I'll bet that that name has already been determined by whoever
is pushing their agenda in this matter.)
What is that name? I would love to hear it.
If I have missed the part where SUSE management
and their legal team
has been asked "The Question" then I apologise for wasting your time
in reading what I wrote and would greatly appreciate it if 'you'
could point me to the the post(s) where the response to "The
Question" was quoted.
I asked this question in form of "How restricting would openSUSE be in
case we used it as the foundation name?", however, afaik, it never got
past the board, just because we still had/have(?) no clue about the
final form of the foundation, so it wasn't/isn't(?) worth it to get the
This is basically correct, the initial discussions we had with a more
general lawyer around the time this was first discussed was it could be
quite restrictive, but followup with a trademark lawyer has suggested that
it should not be restrictive at all.
This is why the board would really like your opinion on a name change
without taking this issue too much into account. If most want to change the
name anyway then its a non issue, if an "openSUSE Foundation" does end up
being too legally restrictive for whatever reason then the board will
propose using something else (but if most people want to not change the
project's name we won't change the name of anything else). But the current
advice the board has is it shouldn't be legally restrictive so we hope to
just be able to follow the result of the vote.