On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 at 18:31, Per Jessen <per@computer.org> wrote:
Hi Richard
I think being elected or appointed makes a significant difference compared to having more or less accidentally joined a team. I (as an arbitrary community member) did not choose/elect/appoint e.g. the forums team nor do I, to my knowledge, have any influence on it's composition. A select do-ocracy. Much like the openSUSE Heroes.
I have a nuanced view on this but I want to avoid a long post. I agree with your use of the word do-ocracy for the majority of the other teams in the Project. I disagree with your statement that you can't have influence on it's composition or actions. You can step up and join the forums team if you disagree with what it's doing. That is do-ocracy at work. You don't have that luxury with the Board. Nor would it make sense, the nature of Board work means that we will never be able to share all of the information behind our decisions. You shouldn't be able to step up and help out without getting additional information only the Board are entrusted with. The nature of Board work is to be discreet, to handle private incidents, and to intervene when do-ocracy fails. Which is why I consider both an element of privacy in the Board AND the fact the Board is elected to be mandatory. In my mind you can't have one without the other. The election grants the Board the mandate it requires to be able to do it's job in those private incidents. If the situation can be handled by do-ocractic, and more public means, then it doesn't require the mandate granted to the Board by it's election, and shouldn't be done by the Board.
Why should privacy of decision-making be afforded to those who undemocratically declare themselves a certain function in our Project? Why can you change any thing in this project without needing to proactively explain the thoughts and reasons that led you to make that change, but the Board not?
Permit me to reply with a question - you don't see the Board taking up a special position, the board is just a team, as any other?
If the Board isn't special, why is the Board elected? If the Board is special, why should the Board not be subject to different rules?
The Board is elected because it is required to do work that no one else is in a position to handle. The project-as-a-whole cannot negotiate with our sponsors on financial matters. The project-as-a-whole cannot mediate and decide on disputes between contributors. These roles require discretion and privacy that would not be available if we were MORE transparent than the forums or openSUSE heroes teams. Which is why I think it's a very good thing the Board is elected, because that election is a collective mandate from the project, effectively stating "we the members who voted for you trust you to do the job we need you to do, but can't do ourselves" If we could handle everything in public, we wouldn't need that trust, we wouldn't need the election, and we wouldn't need the Board.
Why are all openSUSE infra tickets private by default?
I believe the reason is that they might contain sensitive information.
Genau. And everything the Board deals with should include sensitive information (or else, the Board shouldn't be deciding on it)
If all of our votes were public, the elected members of the Board who are also SUSE employees could find themselves in a very awkward position, being required to publicly go on record against their employer.
I thought it was quite clear by now that no one is asking for _every_ vote or decision to be made public, automagically? Just enable more transparency by encouraging/enabling votes to be made public, in particular if asked for or if a board member feels it is right.
I understand where you're coming from with the principle - but (for the last time, not because I'm frustrated with you but I really am tired of this thread) I do not believe the Board can be more transparent than we already are without undermining the function of the Board. Or to put it another way, I could say that I accept your principle, but if there is ever a case where the Board where the Board is deciding something where I am comfortable with my vote being public, then I'll be immediately tabling a motion that the Board shouldn't be voting on the topic and should be shifting the decision to this list or delegating that responsibility to others in the Project. You could argue that is even more transparent from a certain point of view. We need a Board for when transparency and do-ocracy fails us, I really want to preserve the environment that enables and empowers the Board to do that job. Beyond that, for everything else should be available to be grasped firmly in the hands of the community-at-large. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org