Dne pondělí 3. srpna 2020 11:00:17 CEST, Richard Brown napsal(a):
On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 10:42 +0200, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
I fully understand Your point, but still I think jdd's proposal has good base. I think we do need some "conciliation" board or so made from old and honorable community members, ehm. :-) Not necessarily from past Board members, IMHO separate voting would be better, so that there is no link with the Board (and no possible conflict of (emotional, ...) interests or so). I suppose there should be not much work for such group (ehm...), so there could be just ~3 people voted for longer time.
Putting my own objections aside which are primarily based on my experience and exhaustion at the nonsense you need to deal with in such a position and trying to look at this rationally. It seems to me you are suggesting an elected body to act as a conflict resolution body for our elected Board which acts as a conflict resolution body?
Every body supposed to solve conflicts must be independent on all possible sides (well, as much as possible...). This is why every modern constitution has judiciary as independent unit.
That body is bound to have some disagreements, and as history has proven even popular people can behave in a manner unbecoming when elected to a responsible role, so we have to consider the need for conflict resolution of that new body. So do we need an elected body to act as a conflict resolution body to act as a conflict resolution body for our elected conflict resolution body for our elected Board?
In case of openSUSE, there are not many options: 1) Somehow selected by Board/from past Board members, etc. - too linked to the Board? 2) Elected by members - too much effort for hopefully as rare activity as possible? 3) Arbitrary selected by SUSE (as main openSUSE contributor) or so - perhaps too directive? Such separate body could be helpful as: 1) It separates explanation and final decision of (any) conflicting situation from executive/management done by Board. 2) There is some final instance and clear process how to deal with conflicts, especially when Board is somehow involved.
Or do we just accept that people are fallable and Simon's suggestion is probably the best option.
I don't say Simon's proposals are bad, U just think more clear rules and procedures might (I emphasize *might*) be helpful. Or let's ask in different way: Do we have better proposal how to solve conflicts when the Board is involved?
After all, we're a project that prides itself on being relatively lightweight when it comes to its organisational structure, adding layers upon layers is probably not the right lesson to have learnt from this saga.
Good point, but on the other hand, in such case relative small number of people do a lot of unrelated tasks, and might be also tasks they'd rather avoid, which has plenty of drawbacks... Of course, I don't insist on such body, but I think it's good proposal to discuss as the discussion should reveal more about ideas people have about governing of the project. What they consider important and what they do not. -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/