On 2024-04-16 13:42, ddemaio openSUSE wrote:
And yet both you and Doug were totally absent from the discussions till now. Discussions which your input could have been useful in.
The fact that I choose not to engage with a topic is my right. It's who I am, like it or not.
My views that you should be more directly engaged with the community are reinforced by how fast you and Doug have appeared to defend yourselves.
I'm not defending anything. I'm expressing my belief that I have a right to share my opinions with whom I wish to share those opinions. There is no entitlement to know what I do or do not think. I ran on what my wiki says and it hasn't changed since I ran. It says "I do vocalize my stance on certain items and events that concern the project and FOSS." I don't think there is anymore that needs to be stated.
I would have preferred you defended the Board or the Community with this same passion.
People speak up based on being attack. Anyone would do the same thing. People have different passions. Don't ask people to express the same passion for something as defending themselves from being attacked. It's not the same.
Hi Doug, I think your views would be perfectly compatible with a functional Board that collectively owned, communicated, and supported its decisions as a group. Being able to have a Board that could integrate more narrowly focused views as your own while still serving the needs of the Project as a whole would be an advantage to the Project. However, under a model where minuted decisions are immediately followed by Board members individually expressing their opposition, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the community to hold all of it's Board members to account, individually. Sadly I think this would mean that I think the Project couldn't afford to have Board members so selectively engaging in only narrow topics of their interest to the community. So, can I assume you will be proactively working on steering the Board towards a model of collective ownership? I'd like that. Regards, Richard