As long as we can look up our amazing work (docs, images, packages, project pages), easily via search engines (looking up "download Leap" on google is not exactly useful), avoid fragmentation of teams (such as dedicated artwork, or infra team for X or Y), and put a stop to any further renaming madness, and I'm supportive. The price at stake is high, openSUSE was a well established brand, timing is not good (renaming madness everywhere where I look). I'm also against using SUSE prefix for Leap (raised as a possibility on the talk), although SLES product management insists on re-using binaries so it would kinda make sense. I'm afraid that project would not have a long lasting, as there would be an expectation to get many resources from SUSE, while the trend is exactly the opposite. Cheers Lubos On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 10:29 AM Richard Brown <rbrown@suse.de> wrote:
On 2024-07-08 09:21, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
In regard to Richards proposal, I think that this is not a major priority and should be addressed down the line.
When presented the idea at the board meeting prior to the conference, I mentioned that to him and he agreed.
Since that meeting, the Board intervened and forcefully changed who was allowed to present the topic at oSC on behalf of SUSE. This was an act that I believe to be in contravention of the Board's own rules about directing contributors and grossly exceeded it's responsibility to "Community community interests to SUSE" This is at least the second time in recent memory where the Board had directly intervened and directed contributors - my previous example would be when the Board forced the continuation of "MicroOS Desktop KDE" after it was removed due to lack of maintainers after a year+ long deprecation period.
I therefore want to make the following very clear:
I rescind any agreement I may have had with your view that the governance issues are 'not a major priority'
I currently hold no confidence in the current openSUSE Board and think it's absolutely essential the openSUSE project establishes a new governance model.
Given the heated discussion we had at openSUSE Conference, I would have expected you to have implicitly understood that fact and not tried to make it sound like I supported your view that our governance problems are not a major priority.
I had no intention to join this thread here, but your misrepresentation of my views had to be corrected.
With all that said, I do believe the greater priority is the branding issue.
SUSE's needs as the legal trademark holder cannot be ignored, whereas the openSUSE Board can be.
So, both are important, but the Branding issue is the most urgent and pressing one that needs to be addressed. I think it might make sense to address it in the context of reworking our governance, it might not. But if we do not address our governance at the same time as the branding, it is something that needs to be resolved pretty quickly afterwards.
-- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
-- Best regards Luboš Kocman openSUSE Leap Release Manager