Hey, Le jeudi 21 février 2019, à 11:41 +0100, Richard Brown a écrit :
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 11:01, Lars Vogdt
wrote: openSUSE membership can be managed via paper. Setting up Email aliases and IRC cloaks can be stopped until there is a new tool established. Lost trust and data because of security breaches is way harder to restore and will result in much more work for everyone.
I wholeheartedly agree, which is why the recent changes to the process and requirements for new "tooling" written as loosely as they were. (pen and paper is a "tool") We took great care to make sure the door is wide open for innovative solutions to the problem. But, the problem should not be exacerbated by the actions of other contributors. That's simple good behaviour under our Guiding Principles. To give an equivalent example.
Badly maintained package gets removed from our distributions. In these cases, the maintainer is expected to drive forward the situation, meaning the maintainer is expected to announce the intention of removing the package, the maintainer is expected to drive the mitigation of the removal of the package.
That might mean talking to others and encouraging them to take on the problem, that might mean posting general calls for help on the mailinglists.
I think those expectations carry out to situations like this just as well.
Like a key package in our distributions, connect.o.o provides a key service upon which the entire governance structure of this Project is built upon.
You're describing the graceful way of retiring a package / service. But when the graceful way has been failing for years (which is the case here), I think it's fair to just retire the thing and deal with the consequences in a reactive way. [...]
As we're talking about changes to the Governance structure, any such changes need to be done with the consent of the project as a whole. [...]
This is not a change to the governance structure; it's a change in where and how information is stored. The governance structure would not be impacted by this -- or if it would, can you elaborate how? [...]
We can't just have people randomly turning off services which provide key planks to the project. If OBS dissapeared tomorrow without replacement we wouldn't have any distributions. If connect.opensuse.org disappears tomorrow we don't have any Project members.
If the relevant info is exported, why would we not have any project members anymore?
Quite often, when other topics with a Project-wide impact but no clear owner, such things end up on the Board's desk, as the escalation point of last resort. But we're talking about the very process which selects who can vote for the Board.
No. We're not talking about the criteria that are used to evaluate if somebody should be a member or not. We're talking about a tool that is used to facilitate the work of the membership officials. And honestly, if we're concerned by a conflict of interest, the first thing to change would be this: "Membership officials are appointed by the openSUSE Board." [...]
This isn't the first time I've asked this question on a public stage, but in the hope that this time I get an answer; Who volunteers to tackle the problem with connect.o.o and drive forward a solution?
I would give this request a deadline of a week or two max, and then simply export the data and shut down connect.o.o. Yes, it'll be painful for the membership officials (and I'm sorry for this, as playing that role is already something that doesn't bring much recognition). But I trust the membership officials would find a way to deal with this. Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org