On 6/24/19 9:40 PM, Simon Lees wrote:
On 24/06/2019 22:46, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 6/19/19 9:25 AM, Simon Lees wrote:
Hi All,
<snip>
*Proposal Summary* - The Board request that SUSE provide capital stock and help to setup the foundation - The Board request that SUSE provide 1 or 2 FTE staffing to handle the admin work of the foundation alongside the existing work it does managing the TSP etc - The Board is open to any discussion regarding bylaws or statues to codify and guarantee the ongoing productive relationship between SUSE & openSUSE - The openSUSE Foundation board will take over the role of the current openSUSE Board - The makeup and election / removal of the openSUSE Foundation board will remain the same as the current openSUSE board as documented in https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_rules
That, IMHO, would create a problem. The current rules contain "....and a chairperson is separately appointed by SUSE."
My underlying assumption is that with the foundation there will be some formal agreement that states SUSE gives the foundation $$$ and people. That also appears what this proposal appears to imply.
In this case SUSE is a sponsor of the foundation, like any other entity would be that gives to the foundation. However, if we follow the current rules then SUSE gets to appoint the board chairperson, i.e. "pay to play". Therefore, this will inevitably raise the question, how much any other entity would have to "pay to play", i.e. how much does it cost to get a person onto the board?
Under the current proposal, the answer to this is really quite simple, if you can convince 2/3rds of members that the project would function better with a representative from your company on the board then we can change the rules. Currently the board believes that SUSE's unique relationship with openSUSE warrants such a position, hence us including it in the current proposal.
However, what I see as a more likely scenario which I don't see happening with SUSE's current management is overtime openSUSE doing more on its own independently and relying on SUSE less and then maybe if SUSE's management was to ever change and start to pull back from there involvement then the board / someone else might suggest removing SUSE's chairperson role. As I said I don't see that happening under SUSE's current management but who knows what it will look like in another 10 or 15 years.
Another approach that could be considered is maybe that "Major" partners could have a non voting seat on the board to make collaboration easier, they could decide whether this seat is held buy an employee voted to the board by openSUSE's members (and would then still have voting rights) or whether they appoint someone without voting rights to act as the official relay of information between the board and the partner. The board hasn't really looked at options like this because so far from the feedback we have had from the openSUSE conference and the feedback on this list (mostly the lack of people complaining about keeping the chairperson beyond 1 or 2) most people seem to be fine with keeping the status quo in regards to the make up of the board and membership. If that wasn't the case i'd strongly push for something like this, because there are many things where life is alot easier if SUSE management and the board both know that there is one person who is relaying stuff between the 2 groups and if that person has access to SUSE's internal systems.
Well in this case you have certainly secured my "no" vote on the foundation. Sorry I can not vote for something where we start out with building problem right into the basis of where we start from. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Architect LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org