Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:32:53 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
I think most of the principles (particularly under "we value") could be similarly viewed.
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO.
I don't entirely disagree. However, they are (and should be) enough to support punitive action if it is taken - which of course is different than what you've said above.
I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..."
Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers.
I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive.
I'm happy with #2 so long as it's understood that that's the case.
I do have a fundamental problem with electing a board that isn't trusted. Personally, I trust the board, so I'm fine with it myself.
I think part of the issue might be that the board is not exactly very public. It's due to the nature of the project, but when most communication happens via irc, email, fora etc, trust doesn't come easy. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org