On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:38:25 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
When something that appears to be a crisis happens, speculation happens when there's no information.
So you are telling me that you have no control whatsoever about what goes on in your brain and what you allow to flow from there through your fingers into e-mails?
Let's talk again about how showing respect is one of our guiding principles, Robert.
We've known each other a while, and I know you understand what I'm saying, so please stop twisting what I'm saying to fit a different narrative.
Be done and move on. Respect, I think is written in our guiding principles somewhere. That includes respecting community members wishes about not starting speculation.
I respect Christian's decision to leave the board. That's not an issue.
Then maybe you should also respect his request not to speculate.
Again, difficult not to do with no information (and for the record, I've generally not been speculating, I've specifically been asking for some transparency in order to limit speculation).
The only speculative thing I have said is that there *seems* to be a problem in the board, and having some information would help the membership assess the seriousness of the problem.
Being told "there's no problem here, there's nothing to see here" is not helpful to making that assessment.
What I have a hard time respecting is the board's complete and utter silence about what's going on that caused two members of the board to resign so shortly after the election was held.
The board needs to also respect the concerns of the membership and address them, rather than appearing to hide behind a veil of secrecy.
That I agree with. However, how should we expect this to happen when all that's going on on the list is a bunch of speculation about who did what when and where to whom. Sorry, but that's all BS, like a bunch of five year olds, but he started it, blah blah blah....
Of all the mails in this thread there's been a bunch of speculation, meta comments and nothing else, or phrased in a different way bikeshedding. Why should anyone on the board feel compelled to get in the middle of this?
There's been talk of "crisis", oooh the sky is falling and tomorrow the world is going to end. All manufactured in people's head.
Because of a lack of information, as I explained above.
I can respect that we don't need the details. But a green wall of silence is something I have a hard time respecting. The board has effectively closed ranks and said "you, members, don't need to know what's going on in the board."
And the idea that there was possibly mutual agreement between Christian, and possibly Sahra, and those that remain on the board to not provide any details is not plausible?
So this is only a one way street and it is all the "fault" of those that remain on the board?
That's speculative. We don't know. That's why more information is needed.
Or if there was an agreement between those that left and those that remain not to share the details, do we expect the remaining board members to break that agreement?
That is also speculative.
Because why? They are somehow accountable to the membership, but not accountable to an agreement that might exist with Christian?
Never said that. But there are ways in which they can honor both requirements.
If the board is *not* accountable to the membership that elected them - I would see that as a pretty huge miss in our governing principles.
How happy would you be if you were in some way affected and then the party you agreed with to keep things private would go out and splatter things across the world?
I have *repeatedly* said that I don't personally need the details. But broad brush strokes are usually possible. Even if it's just "we had a disagreement about the foundation that we couldn't reconcile" - that would likely provide enough information without providing details that violated the agreements.
We see this sort of thing all the time in dealing with HR issues that result in a departure. Staff will speculate, and to cut down on speculation, management will provide some (often boilerplate) information that doesn't get into specifics. For example, "went on a spending spree during a conference in Vegas using their corporate credit card" wouldn't be shared. "Violated our travel policy" might be, depending on what the governing laws are in the location.
There is more than a binary choice here.
There are two sides to every coin and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to point the finger.
I'm not pointing a finger. I'm calling for some transparency.
Which means there's zero accountability to the membership.
No it does not mean that at all. If there was an agreement between those departing and those remaining to stay silent than that's accountability to each other to honor that agreement.
The board should not, IMHO, prioritize protecting itself over informing the membership of the project.
I choose to honor Christian's desire, and I quote
""" In the best interest of the openSUSE project and everybody involved, please don't speculate about the details or ask for them. """
""" In the best interest of the openSUSE project and everybody involved, please don't speculate about the details or ask for them. I hope that time will heal the wounds, but this will be much harder if you "force" someone to publish more details. """
Yes, I read his desire. I understand it. I'm not asking for *details* (how many times do I need to repeat myself here?). I'm asking for some transparency around the broad issue that led to his and Sarah's departure from the board.
Again, 40% of the board have resigned. We're supposed to not be concerned about this?
The person directly involved has asked twice to let it go. Who are we? Are we the paparazzi membership falling over each other to get a peak at some dirty laundry? Maybe we should ask the NSA/BND/GCHQ/... for the backup of the board meeting phone calls.
No. Speaking for myself, I am concerned about the governance of the openSUSE project, and I have serious concerns about the lack of transparency that we're getting from the board.
I think we should be better than that.
I think we should be better than saying "nothing to see here. There is no problem" when 40% of the board have resigned shortly after the board election.
Obviously I am getting agitated at the bikshedding and finger pointing. Thus I am going to be done with this thread after this response.
Not bikeshedding here. Not pointing fingers. Wanting more transparency and accountability around what *appears* to me to be a serious problem.
I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with that.
And if whatever it is that caused 40% of the board to leave continues to create a toxic situation with the community, so be it?
How is a possibly personal conflict between two or more board members a "toxic situation with the community"?
I wouldn't want to speculate without more information. Yet clearly there are those of us in the community who think this is a problem, and we're being shouted down by those who think nothing's wrong.
At what point do we, as a community, decide that enough is enough? When 3 resign? When 4 resign?
What does that even mean? Are you going to drag the involved parties in front of court and make them swear an oath and make them talk?
Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. But if there is indeed a problem inside the board that caused Sarah and Christian to resign, who's to say we won't see more resignations? We don't have any information.
At what point should we be concerned, if not when two members of the board resign? Should we remain unconcerned if the entire board resigns?
Really, I'd like to know - at what point do we consider this to be a problem?
The membership does not "report" to the board. The board is elected by the membership, and is accountable to the membership.
Correct, and the next elections are at the end of the year. We get to choose whether we want the same board members to come back or not. And given that 2 resigned and appointed members need to run for election at the next possible opportunity that implies that we basically get to elect a whole new board come the end of the year. As seats of those that are currently elected are due for re-election.
And in the interim, the problem potentially continues to be a problem.
That doesn't strike me as a particularly good situation.
You're not the only one here who's getting agitated about this. The more I think about it, the less I like it. The more I am being told "don't worry about it, everything's FINE", the more I want to know what is actually going on.
But fine. If y'all want me to STFU and go away, I'm happy to do just that.