On 2/28/20 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:24:34 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 2/28/20 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:21:15 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
But there was little scrutiny and lots of speculation.
Speculation happens in a vacuum of information, and that's what we have.
Speculation happens when people _choose_ to speculate, it doesn't just pop up out of nowhere.
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?
It's difficult to drop
No it is not, Christian asked us, twice, not to do exactly what is happening. All the rest of us have to do is quit running our fingers over the keyborad concerning this topic, exercise a little restrained, and respect the desire of one of our valued members of the community. How hard is it really to _not_ make up some conspiracy theory and just say:
Thank you Christian for your effort, sorry to loose you as a board member. Very happy that you will continue with all the other stuff you already do.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Because why? They are somehow accountable to the membership, but not accountable to an agreement that might exist with Christian?
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?
There are two sides to every coin and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to point the finger.
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.
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. """
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.
I think we should be better than that.
Obviously I am getting agitated at the bikshedding and finger pointing. Thus I am going to be done with this thread after this response.
All I can do is, once again appeal to everyone, to drop the speculation and to respect what Christian has asked for and not force the issue.
That is a huge problem.
it when 40% of the board has resigned for what appear to be similar reasons. If there's a problem in the board, something needs to be done to correct that problem, and the membership can't do that when there's no information.
The membership's opportunity to get involved is in the next election. AFAIK there is no such thing that the membership can decide during any part of the term of a sitting board that all or some board members need to be evicted.
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"?
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?
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.