On 2018-08-25 00:22, Richard Brown wrote:
I would like you to consider the following - Board members are individuals elected by a popular vote, with the top 2-3 of any years votes being the new members of the Board
This election model means that upon joining the Board, 1-2 of the Boards new members have the awkward position of feeling that they are everybodies "second favourite" choice
Correct. That's how every election -- in every industry/government across the globe -- works. If someone doesn't want to "come in second" they don't run for office.
Even popular people lose. Just how it works. That's life.
And yet, we (the Project) need the Board to act like a group of equals. They can't do that if they are having to worry about that popularity skew from the election.
What you are saying here is that you don't feel the openSUSE Board can function if the elected board members are considering the views and needs of those that voted them into office.
That is super-duper-off-the-charts wrong.
The Board needs to be an environment that supports dissent too. I like the fact that the current Board is full of passionate members and we manage to fill a whole hour every week seeking agreement on the topics we're discussing.
Good. We are in agreement there. Let's encourage dissent and transparency. This is good for all.
But the Board's ability to function in it's roles of decision makers of last resort, or arbitrator of disputes, is severely impacted if the Board cannot be seen to be a unified body.
This is also true of every government. Dissent in government impacts the ability force their will on the constituents. Yet we're not a fan of dictatorships.
Any decision in any dispute, normally the most agonising and difficult decisions we make given they can impact someone's ability to remain part of the Project, risks its credibility undermined if the long, arduous deliberations we put into such things were always made public.
You are fundamentally wrong there. By this logic there is no point in having an elected Board at all. Might as well simply have one single, all-powerful role that nobody can disagree with.
I've also seen dissenting Board members threaten to airing their dissent publicly during the decision making process, in what I felt was a naked effort to change the decisions of their peers. This was a behaviour I find grossly distasteful and I greatly appreciate our general principle of the Board presenting all of our decisions collectively as an effort to suppress such toxic behaviour.
It shouldn't need to be a threat. Things should simply be public and transparent within the openSUSE Board. Keeping things "secret" and "controlled" is, in my opinion, far more toxic for such an organization.
That said, I totally get transparency is important, and support it.
Good. Do it. Always.
So taking the soccer club sponsorship decision as an example. When the feedback started coming in questioning the decision, I would have strongly supported any Board member taking the opportunity to give the project a 'peek behind the curtain' about the decision making process.
I'm getting some mixed signals here, my friend. :)
Just a few days ago you chastised others for being public about Board decisions:
"Replying a little seriously, and to justify my vote publicly (which is something I shouldn't have to do, given the Board's rule that decisions made collectively are defended collectively, but someone seems to have forgotten that... :-/ )" - Richard Brown, Tuesday
And sure, if Ana had been the one telling the Project in abstract that one person had objected to the decision, some conspiracy theorists might have put 2+2 together and guessed right this time that Ana was the one objecting.
It really shouldn't be theorizing. Just be public, no problems in trying to work so hard to keep things secret.
The community deserves to know the Board is as diverse as it is and agonises at length over the decisions it makes.
Totally! Agreed! Transparency helps that. Just give in to openness. :)
If every individuals personal view was aired constantly on the lists, I fear it would turn the Board into more of a reality-show drama and less of a necessary decision making function in the Project.
Meh. Maybe. Democracy (in all forms) is messy. You can accept that messiness is part of it, or fight it to try to be a secrecy-filled form of governing.