On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 13:18:33 +0100, Pierre Böckmann wrote:
I fully concur with Neal here. And more: Over the years I was on the board I've seen Richard trying and doing his utmost to protect you, to help you and the heroes. To be honest, Sarah and Christian, this is beginning to look like a public lynch party. IMNSHO too low for words.
I think a lynch party is as exaggerated as Richards apocalyptic prophecies for the case that the no-confidence vote happens, not to speak about the prophecies for when it succeeds.
The way Christian and Sarah express their opinions is - as far as I am concerned - still in line with all rules. We can not expect everyone to be friends with one another and as long as criticism is backed by clear and true facts I don't think that you'd call that a lynch party.
What you might bring up here without exaggerating is, that Richard is not part of the board anymore and only part of the history of the events taken place in the board the last weeks and therefore maybe should not be such a big topic in this thread.
Well said, Pierre. I've been silent on this thread, but have been following along - have been hesitant to comment because I know some see me as an instigator because I asked questions about what happened as a result of being concerned that two members of the board departed the board in quick succession. I honestly don't know if I'd vote for removal of the board, but the question on my mind is this: If we have a process whereby the board could be removed by the membership (as we do), but some predict the demise of the project over the potential use of that option - then why did we put the option in place? I think the vote itself is a useful tool to measure the temperature of the membership and understand where their heads are at in this situation. I do admit that I find it troubling that being a member, in some peoples' minds, isn't sufficient to raise questions - that you have to be willing to "do more" - to sit on the board, in particular - in order to be "qualified" to be able to expect some accountability. Not everyone seems to think this is necessary, but some apparently do. I understand that this project (and OSS in general) is a "do-ocracy" - that those who want things do them. I have been asked in the past to run for the board - I have never felt that I could contribute the time to do the job justice. I've spent about 10 years as a member of the forums staff (most of that time as one of three non-technical admins), and have been focused on our Facebook group and page presence as well. But somehow, in some peoples' minds, that's not enough to be "qualified" to ask critical questions about the project governance. Recognizing that one cannot commit the time to be directly involved in that governance would seem to me to be a valuable recognition. (I further recognize that were I to offer to step up now, as divisive as some people seem to think I am - well, that would be bad for the project as a whole - so I emphatically would *not* stand for a board position, nor would I take it if someone nominated me - I don't think it would be healthy for the project, and I fully expect some might even look to undermine my involvement *because* they see my involvement as a bad thing). Just a few things to think about. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org