On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 03:14, Fraser_Bell <Fraser_Bell@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 08/24/2018 12:44 PM, Bryan Lunduke wrote:
It is not only appropriate that those personal points of view are expressed... it is *critical*.
The Board positions are elected (other than Richard, who is installed by a corporation). If Board members cannot speak their personal opinions on any (and every) topic, it becomes *pointless* to have elections -- as there would be no way to easily understand the differences between elected officials and hold them accountable to the people who elected them.
Are there any other items Board members are currently forbidden / discouraged from discussing?
-Bryan Lunduke
I agree with this, completely.
Although once voted on, all Board Members should agree to/accept the final decision of the vote, at least until something changes to bring it back to a vote in the future.
However, the whole idea of the democratic process tied to elected Board Members requires that the results of votes and differing personal opinions should be available and transparent to the voters.
Dissenters should still be allowed to express their stand on the issue, but not to a point where it becomes disruptive or dysfunctional.
As voters, we have a right to know where the individual Board Members stand on Board issues.
That is called transparency.
But, please note, my expressing this view is in no way meant to be critical of the Board or anyone on the Board.
Just that I urge the Board to reconsider whether differing views should be public, which I thoroughly believe they should be.
I would like you to consider the following - Board members are individuals elected by a popular vote, with the top 2-3 of any years votes being the new members of the Board This election model means that upon joining the Board, 1-2 of the Boards new members have the awkward position of feeling that they are everybodies "second favourite" choice The fact we do every vote transparently means that on a rolling basis, every Board member has a perception of their popularity (or lack of it) compared to their peers in the Board And yet, we (the Project) need the Board to act like a group of equals. They can't do that if they are having to worry about that popularity skew from the election. I wholeheartedly agree that, just like the Project needs to be an environment that supports dissent. The Board needs to be an environment that supports dissent too. I like the fact that the current Board is full of passionate members and we manage to fill a whole hour every week seeking agreement on the topics we're discussing. But the Board's ability to function in it's roles of decision makers of last resort, or arbitrator of disputes, is severely impacted if the Board cannot be seen to be a unified body. Or else every decision can easily be picked apart by people playing political games of divide and conquer. Any decision in any dispute, normally the most agonising and difficult decisions we make given they can impact someone's ability to remain part of the Project, risks its credibility undermined if the long, arduous deliberations we put into such things were always made public. The Project is one that is run by the general principle of "those who do, decide" - everything we do is do-ocratic, but also somewhat democractic, as we operate in an environment of respect, shared consent as outlined in the Projects Guiding Principles. The Board plays a necessary role on being the only body that can, and must, act when that general open operating procedure doesn't apply. We need to make ugly decisions in uncomfortable circumstances. Internally that means we HAVE to have the same openness and equality that you see in the rest of the Project, but when a decision is made the only way they are likely to stick in any meaningful way is if they are exercised as a collective. Only the Board, and not any one individual in the Board, has the collective mandate of the Project's membership. In my long years, I've seen this from multiple sides. I've been the dissenting Board member on more decisions than I can count, and given my position as Chairman I disproportionally have the unusual privilege of being the one presenting such decisions to you all. I hope the vast majority of the time none of you ever had any suggestion that I did not wholeheartedly agree with the decisions which internally I had fought long and hard against. I do not regret any of the times I have hidden my personal distaste for a decision from the Board, because I wholeheartedly believe that the collective decision of the Board, not my personal opinion, was the right decision for the Project. In the few times when those decisions received negative feedback along the lines of my objections, I kept my council to the Board, and used the opportunity to reinforce why I had objected. There would have been no benefit of me joining the angry mob in the mailinglists. By acting in this way, I'm confident the projects feedback and my own combined into the collective decision making process for future decisions, with the least disruption for the Project on a day to day basis. I've also seen dissenting Board members threaten to airing their dissent publicly during the decision making process, in what I felt was a naked effort to change the decisions of their peers. This was a behaviour I find grossly distasteful and I greatly appreciate our general principle of the Board presenting all of our decisions collectively as an effort to suppress such toxic behaviour. That said, I totally get transparency is important, and support it. Therefore, when relevant, there has been times in the past and I expect their will be in the future, when the decision of the Board comes into question, and the fact that one or more Board members dissented is relevant to the discussion. In those cases, there is nothing preventing the Board from describing the internal disputes behind their decision in abstract. So taking the soccer club sponsorship decision as an example. When the feedback started coming in questioning the decision, I would have strongly supported any Board member taking the opportunity to give the project a 'peek behind the curtain' about the decision making process. A general overview of what the prevailing topics of discussion were, what points primarily led to the decision, AND sharing the fact that the _Board_ was not unanimous and that there was dissenting views, would have been a great addition to the thread and the discussion. And sure, if Ana had been the one telling the Project in abstract that one person had objected to the decision, some conspiracy theorists might have put 2+2 together and guessed right this time that Ana was the one objecting. But it would be a guess - theres been times I've shared details of dissent in the Board when it wasn't me dissenting, and like I imply above, its something which I think every Board member should feel empowered to do. The community deserves to know the Board is as diverse as it is and agonises at length over the decisions it makes. But by handling it in abstract (eg. "one/some Board members disagreed and this is how I'd describe their view..." vs "_$FOO_ disagreed and feels xyz") is the only way I think we can strike a balance between keeping the Project informed about what we're doing and how we're doing it, without undermining the impact and value of the decisions we make as a result. If every individuals personal view was aired constantly on the lists, I fear it would turn the Board into more of a reality-show drama and less of a necessary decision making function in the Project. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org