Hello, Am Samstag, 14. März 2020, 00:45:55 CET schrieb Vinzenz Vietzke:
Am Freitag, 13. März 2020, 23:15:31 CET schrieb Christian Boltz:
Again, please read carefully what I wrote:
How did the board's email did not respect your wish to not be asked questions?
Wrong question ;-) Maybe read your own previous mail again, especially this part: (copied from above and somewhat shortened)
... some people ... did not respect the clearly stated wish of both former members not to tell the details.
I could easily argue that "some people == the remaining board members". Maybe. But that's not what I meant. I was referring to the questions which started way before the board's statement. And the remaining board members weren't the ones poking you and Sarah with questions - and therefore not respecting your wish.
I never claimed that the board poked Sarah or me with questions - but the board clearly published things they had promised to keep confidential. As I already said yesterday: There's no need to ask questions if you simply send out the answer.
The board statement Marina sent out matches exactly what you wrote - it contained some things [1] the board had promised to keep confidential. ...after Sarah herself made some bits public here and even more already on February 11th on the public Telegram group. Both put fuel to the fire of questions.
For the bit on telegram - I probably don't need to tell you the difference between Telegram (which is an easy-to-join, but still closed group, and things "scroll away") and a publicly archived mailinglist (which is archived for years, and everything can be found by $searchengine). And for the bit on this mailinglist - yes, technically Sarah made that bit public, but it was something that was easily guessable. If two board members resign within a few weeks, and the second one resigns in protest, well, guessing that these events are related is not too hard.
To phrase it more abstract and exaggerated: The person to be protected damages her own protection twice and the group held accountable for protection is getting flak.
That's *very* exaggerated - and doesn't honor the amount and severity of details published by each party. Besides that - there was more than one person to be protected.
As you know I wasn't involved in the whole story until that statement [1] and therefore would consider myself unbiased. Additionally I don't know in detail what happened.
I know that you are in a somewhat strange situation because you joined the board after these events. Even if you are a board member now, I'll assume and hope that you are still mostly unbiased.
Yet I could only see three options to handle that situation:
1) Go full public 2) Let go and leave the community with their open questions 3) The board's chosen midway
All of them are shitty somehow, just the amount of shittyness varies imho. So I'm curious with all seriousness: Which one would you have picked?
I agree that none of these options is perfect. Option 1 is what you call "doing the laundry". It should be more than obvious that I don't want to do this in public - in the best interest of _everybody_ involved. (Some recent mails probably include hints what "everybody" includes.) (As a sidenote - popcorn dealers probably disagree with avoiding option 1, but making them happy is not the job of the board or the openSUSE community.) If you re-read my resignation mail, it should be clear that I'd probably pick option 2 or (also not perfect) 3.2) send out a mail that contains only publicly known facts, and ask the community not to ask further questions - basically repeating what I wrote in my resignation mail. I know this didn't work 100% [1] and never expected not to get any questions, but I'm quite sure it would have worked with a few reminders. 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. Maybe the board would have looked a bit bad by refusing to publish details, but OTOH, I doubt if it looks better by publishing things they had promised to keep confidential [2]. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] Somewhat related: Did you ever play the chicken game? ;-) https://twitter.com/9gag/status/701564572042399748 [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. -- Wenn die deutsche und europäische Politik es könnte, würde sie das Internet noch heute abschalten, durch einen sauber kontrollierten Datendienst ersetzen, bei dem jedes Byte vor dem Versand ein Formular in drei Durchschlägen ausfüllen muss, und die Uhr 25 Jahre zurückdrehen. [http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Contra-Google-Entflechtung-Ein-politi...] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org