I feel there are a number of factual inaccuracies and tonal concerns I
wish to raise with your answers
Background: I was asked really often at open source
another company can sponsor openSUSE. We had to say that it would not
possible because all of our money is going via a SUSE credit card and
the money would be lost (same with the GSoC money, which has to be
transferred to other organizations because of this issue). No company
wants to pay Open Source Developers with such a background of an
open-source project. Therefore, most openSUSE Contributors are
working for SUSE or SUSE Business Partners. This topic popped up more
than 3 times during my last Board Membership (really created by SUSE
employees each time!).
There are a number of other ways besides money that other companies and
projects can, do, and have sponsored openSUSE.
I disagree with the implication in the above that openSUSE is not able
to recieve any such sponsorship.
Obviously I agree that direct monetary sponsorship is currently
problematic, but given openSUSE is rarely short of money for the
activities we do, I do not think it's the highest priority for the
Project at this time.
Solution: Creation of the foundation! I had to suggest
more than 3 times before that was accepted by SUSE employees in the
Board. I told about all the benefits how we can manage our own money
then, receive new sponsors, SUSE can use more money for their own,
SUSE can sponsor us continuously and we would be able to receive more
The idea of an openSUSE Foundation has been a recurring topic for the
openSUSE Project since before 2011.
I outright reject the statement that you "had to suggest this solution
more than 3 times that was was accepted by SUSE employees in the
There is no difference between the Board members who are democratically
elected by the community, and I think it is inappropirate for a
potential Board member of to express a "them vs us" outlook between
those elected Board members employed by a certain company and those who
2) openSUSE infrastructure in Provo
Background: I am one of the Founders of the openSUSE Heroes Team and
was allowed to coordinate our first wiki project between Germany and
Provo. The openSUSE infrastructure is in Microfocus hands and they
need very long to respond on issues and we are not allowed to receive
access as a community. Additionally, SUSE is not part of Microfocus
any more which makes it more difficult to receive good support in the
Solution 1: Migration of all openSUSE systems from Provo to Nuremberg
/ Prague (perhaps missing space?)
Solution 2: Migration of all openSUSE systems from Provo to any
German hosting data centre with access for openSUSE Heroes
It is my personal and professional experience that issues I report to
admin(a)opensuse.org are no more likely to be resolved if they relate to
openSUSE infrastructure in Nuremberg than if they related to openSUSE
infrastructure in Provo.
openSUSE also recently experienced a prolonged outage of one piece
infrastructure hosted by a German hosting data centre with access for
Therefore I disagree that moving anything from Provo to Nuremberg or
anywhere else is mandatory or necessarily helpful in order to fix
I agree that openSUSE needs to have vastly improved support of its
infrastructure, but I do not think the Board should be demanding the
details of what steps should be taken to reach that solution.
I strongly feel the details should be left to the volunteers and
sponsors who will be responsible for providing that support.
3) Bad reputation of openSUSE Leap & openSUSE
Background: We are the openSUSE project with many different sub-
projects. We don’t offer only Linux distributions, but we are well
known for that and most people are associating us with that. I had
given many presentations about openSUSE during my last Board
Membership and represented us at different open source events. The
existing openSUSE Board does not do that very much. They have another
focus at the moment.
Solution: We need more openSUSE Contributors representing openSUSE
and I can do that as an openSUSE Board Member again. After that, we
can be one of the top Linux distributions again. 😉
I disagree that you need to be a Board member in order to represent
openSUSE and I dislike the implication that those two roles are somehow
I think it would be a much better to encorage that anyone can, and
should, represent openSUSE regardless of their status in the Project.
should the board do differently / more of?
The existing openSUSE Board is working mostly on the topic with the
foundation. That is good. Thank you! But the role of a Board Member
contains the representation of the community, too. We would have one
less risk with that.
As I state above, I agree the Project needs more ambassadors,
advocates, and cheerleaders but I think the representation of openSUSE
can and should be handled by anyone in the Project.
I'd rather see Board members spend their time on tasks requiring the
trust and responsibility vested in them by the electorate.
I hope my fellow voters elect people based on their ability to handle
tasks the community could not otherwise easily solve themselves.
Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org