On 5/15/20 9:24 AM, Chase Crum wrote:
my greatest concern is the idea that not voting is the same as a no vote. I can't recall another instance in history where abstaining from voting was equated to a no vote (although it may have the same impact).
Maybe this counts as "the same impact", or maybe by "history" you mean OpenSUSE's project history, but in general I think this is just how voting works. Voting is done to implement a change, and without a vote the status quo prevails. If the county (USA) wants to raise tax rates, or get a bond for schools, or if citizens want to change a law without going through the legislative branch, a referendum is submitted, and that referendum is either to do it, or get it on the ballot, or whatever, but if people do not vote for it then the status quo prevails and, effectively, the citizens vote "no". Or maybe I"m wrong. Aaron Burgemeister Identity / Security / Linux Consultant On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:37 AM Chase Crum <chase.crum@suse.com> wrote:
my greatest concern is the idea that not voting is the same as a no vote. I can't recall another instance in history where abstaining from voting was equated to a no vote (although it may have the same impact). This would imply that every single member was aware of the vote. While I am certain they would all receive an email or message with a call to vote - we couldn't then guarantee that they actually received or even read that call. While we could suggest that this is their problem, again - at the risk of repeating myself - I cannot see how a vote can equate a missing vote as a no vote.
Chase Crum | Sr. Architect a: SUSE | Professional Services | Consulting e: chase.crum@suse.com | w: suse.com/consulting m: (918) 568-2808 #ChangeStartsRightHere #DareToBeDifferent 0250 A137 772C B90F 79C4 5D53 1611 DE08 CDE2 B49A
On 3/16/20 3:15 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Sonntag, 15. März 2020, 23:35:25 CET schrieb Vinzenz Vietzke:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2020, 23:39:59 CET schrieb Christian Boltz:
I agree that none of these options is perfect. See, that's what I meant. Welcome to my (and the board's) situation for at least two weeks now. It's "pick your poison" somehow. :-/ No worries, I'm fully aware that it isn't an easy situation.
Oh, and I wouldn't call option 3 the "midway" - the board mail was closer to option 1 than to option 2, and contained more details than really needed. To keep it with your chicken game example one could say you were the first one pointing away from the chicken. That means I improved the chances of winning the chicken game ;-)
(Not sure if you really meant it that way ;-)
Don't get me wrong: I understand you position in that whole story. But you didn't chose option 2. You went with something near to 3 as well by stating "[…] some things happened in the board that are completely against my principles and beliefs." [1]
Again, I'm not accusing you for your decision. It's just not correct that you remained silent. Resigning "for personal reasons" or similar would be more like that. First of all - no offence taken. I'll explain some bits nevertheless ;-)
If you look at it from a purely "technical" point of view - yes, in theory I could have written "for personal reasons".
In practise, my principles stopped me from doing that. I would have lied to myself (bad, but possibly doable in rare cases if there are very good reasons) and to the community (much worse, and clearly not an option) if I'd have written "for personal reasons".
My resignation mail was as softened and vague as my principles allowed.
I think "as silent as possible" describes it quite well, and IMHO it was closer to "staying silent" than you might think - but obviously that is my personal opinion, and you are free to have a different opinion. (Besides that - we discussed the board statement yesterday, not my resignation mail. I won't complain that you silently switched the topic, but also won't leave it unnoticed ;-)
It shouldn't surprise anybody that I used "slightly" different words in the board meeting after Sarah got kicked out - but even in that situation, I didn't use any "bad" words. Why? My own principles stopped me from that, and at this time it was a case of "damn principles!"
As a sidenote - I even coordinated the wording of my resignation mail with the board. The other board members agreed with my draft or proposed only a few minor changes that didn't change the meaning. Actually the "chicken game" (my request not to ask questions) was the part we discussed most because it was unclear to everybody if it would cause or prevent questions.
For completeness, I should probably mention that one board member replied that I should delete the draft instead of sending it out. Well, nice try ;-)
[2] For comparison: I remember some cases when the board heard about "technical" (in a very wide meaning) plans that were not meant for the public yet. In _all_ these cases, everything the board heard was kept confidential. But I assume there weren't any related statements or even board resignations to handle back then where people indirectly pointed at those confidential plans. The good thing with all the "technical" (again: in a very wide meaning) things the board had to keep confidential is that we usually (with very few exceptions) agreed on them or easily found a compromise that made everybody happy. Of course, nobody ever resigned because he/she agreed with everything ;-)
When it comes to handling humans, keeping things confidential should be taken even more serious because - opposed to computers - those humans have feelings.
Regards,
Christian Boltz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org