-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pascal Bleser schrieb: | Cornelius Schumacher wrote: | | On Tuesday 18 March 2008 02:15:58 Francis Giannaros wrote: | |> At the moment I prefer the membership only method because it's the | |> simplest and is only really problematic in theory if the board is | |> corrupt and unfairly give out membership in order to further their | |> cause. In fact, this is pretty much the last premise I would ever | |> accept as a possibility in the argument. Perhaps making the membership | |> process even more transparent could help here, and I'd be willing to | |> listen to any ideas about that. | | | | If we are going this route I think it's mandatory that the process of | giving | | out membership status is transferred to a committee which is not the | board | | itself. This would also help to free the board to do the tasks which it's | | primarily meant to do. | | Do you mean right now, or now and for the future ? | Because if it's also for the future, then that "committee which is not | the board itself" has no legitimation at all, as it hasn't even been | elected. | | And let's not fool ourselves, the level of independence isn't all that | high either. If someone who works for Novell is inside that committee | for memberships, and 3 Novell employees are on the board, how | independent is it at all ? We're one community, with certain people | knowing others personally and not others, hence a high degree of | independence will never be reached anyway. | | So who will determine that committee ? | - the board ? not independent from the board then | - the members ? possibly, they should have the least interest as they're | members already | - a vote open to all ? worst of options IMO, as non-members could have | an interest to vote for people who put the bar a lot lower for becoming | member) | - Novell ? pointless, Novell appointed the board | | It really gets us to the same point again and again. | | This distrust of the individuals who compose the board right now is | something that puzzles me, tbh. We're in a bootstrapping scenario now, | and certain trade-offs have to be made because we're always getting back | to chicken/egg until we have an elected board. The question is always | which trade-offs to choose as the least worst one. | You really think that Francis, Stephan, Andreas, Federico and I are | favouring people who we know would vote for us when we check and vote | internally on their level of contribution to the project ? | (and I'm explicitly putting names on our faces as the confidence that | has to be granted to us is not about "The Board" as some black box | driven by evil interests, but about the individuals that compose it) | | Now if you mean for the future, pretty much the same problems apply. | Shall we also vote for a membership committee ? And create two boards, | more or less ? As the next board will be elected, won't they have enough | legitimacy and trust to do that on their own ? (or at least determine a | membership committee themselves) | | cheers I fully agree. I would just like to add, that the problem of board members choosing the members in order to be reelected can be circumvented by restricting the board members to serve not more than one or two terms in a row. I also find this problem to be unlikely, but this could be the best solution for this attack vector. HTH Felix -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH36h3aQ44ga2xxAoRAoupAJ9cYwr71HcAO7KYJ/4gvJ3xxOWYqgCdHPSM uUVLAjXdgBa03ErreuKYrE0= =/kNQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org