Hi Gerald, On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:05 AM Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> wrote:
On Thu 2020-12-10, Mark Stopka wrote:
Why should current and former Board members be held to a different standard than any other contributor? Why should a former head of FDA not become a CEO of a BigPharma he just approved a controversial drug off of 3 years ago you meant? Or why former parliament members / ministers should not serve on the supervisor board of state-owned enterprises?
I believe there's a bit of a difference in that there's potentially huge monetary and other benefits in the cases you describe (which are very real).
I think we both know it was sort of a hyperbole, just to demonstrate that former function in many cases may / and sadly in case of my country only *should* restrict those who held positions of power from holding some other positions of power that may represent a conflict of interest. Person A was kind enough to be generic enough, I have used that genericity to provide obvious enough counter-examples where / when such restrictions do make A LOT of sense, reductio ad absurdum... :-)
Serving on the openSUSE Board is a privilege in a way, but first and foremost a service, and generally not very thankful at that. If there are perks of the job (or for former members) I have yet to see them. ;-)
Yes it does, it does matter when, where and how you say things, we call it context and there is an entire department at your company called the PR department that thinks about what to say,when to say it, where to say it, and how to say it.
Let's keep our employers out of the conversation here, please. We all contribute to openSUSE as individuals, exclusively or to a good extent in our spare time.
I could as well use *any sufficiently large company that does a lot of communications with the ouside*, but you can see 13 words against 1 more relatable example, you can replace that with any organization of a reasonable size really... The point was communication is a tricky business, and it does influence views of projects / people / organizations in the eyes of both the internal and external stakeholders. I admit, that *certain company* established internal comms department between *certain company* Business Services - Global Infrastructure Services and rest of the company after I have during *program name* transition & transformation have communicated some changes in the structure of company data storage infrastructure to the rest of the company that were considered too bold without the proper softeners, for some. Example: I would communicate to Local IT and the L-team of a specific local subsidiary that as part of the transformation we would be migrating their IT assets to a different location, as part of a streamlining effort (we were going from 90+ DCs to about 50), but I have omitted those in my eyes at the time unimportant details like "there will likely be no changes to the structure of human resources associated with this on-going and important effort that strengthens our company leading position in our industry". I hope that does provide some clarity on what I meant by that.
In case you are curious, all communications of mine around openSUSE and on social media are mine, and mine alone. PR is involved when I officially represent SUSE towards the press, yet even then how I say things and what I say is not prescribed by anyone.
Beyond that I agree with you *and* Richard (the way I understand the core of what you are saying ;-).
Gerald _______________________________________________ openSUSE Project mailing list -- project@lists.opensuse.org To unsubscribe, email project-leave@lists.opensuse.org List Netiquette: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette List Archives: https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org
-- Best regards / S pozdravem, BSc. Mark Stopka, BBA Managing Partner @ PERLUR Group mobile: +420 704 373 561 website: www.perlur.cloud