On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 12:09 +0930, Simon Lees wrote:
Given this news, I would like to suggest that the Board reconsiders
whether it's actions on this topic actually reflect our own
"We want be open and work transparently" from
To read this threads initial public statement and note the absense of
any specifics and then subsequently learn that the Board did discuss
and make a decision regarding a specific organisation, I am left
feeling that the Board is trying to act in an obfuscating manner.
Even though I approve of both the initial message and the decision
regarding sponsorship of the FSF, I do not approve of how the Board
conducted itself on this topic.
As part of our openness and transparency this was published as part of
the minutes where we discussed this issue as can be seen in the link
below. It is somewhat unfortunate that these minutes were not fully
ready to be sent out at the same time, however that meeting contained
several complex issues and as you would understand that did have an
impact on how quickly we were able to publish the minutes.
Even with the minutes posted, the contrast between the loud public
statement and the quiet meeting minutes seems like a perfect example of
the Board attempting to talk aout of both sides of their mouth
The way the Board has acted means that any supporter of the FSF's
position can point to openSUSE as a sympathetic potential ally, who has
not taken a hard stance against their action.
Conversely, any who feels the FSF's position is abhorrant can point to
openSUSE's temporary ("for the time being") suspension of sponsorship
and promise of a proposal from yourself and Neal as a positive step.
In short, the Board's stance is not to have a stance.
And that is what I do not approve of.
Your reply, attempting to defend the Board's duplicity has not reduced