On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:33:35 +0200 Richard Brown <RBrownCCB@opensuse.org> wrote: <snip>
That doesn't mean whole independence is the solution either - governance can be tricky, who'll controls such bank accounts? who will have access to it? will there always be access in time for situations like the narrow-window we often have for things like arranging GSoC mentorship summit? Even then, banks fail, currencies fluxuate, credit limits exist, currency transfers can be limited, taxes need to be paid...
The way I see it, every option, from the status quo, to an umbrella, to full independence, doesn't guarantee openSUSE will never have a repeat of last years GSoC mentorship sponsorship problems.
In short, shit happens.
The question is, which shit are we as a community most happy to have?
My vote at the moment would be the status quo, not only because it's the 'devil we know' - but it's the least work for openSUSE, and there is the cathartic benefit of being able to blame SUSE when SUSE make mistakes..and such hiccups have always led to SUSE making improvements for openSUSE long term. There's benefits to having a multi-billion dollar company so close and caring for a community. The amount of times SUSE dives in and goes above and beyond to shift money, staff, hardware, influence in other organisations/conferences, or other things to benefit openSUSE is far more than the one or two examples where SUSE's business/processes/etc gets in the projects way.
The umbrealla/SPI option is not one I'm opposed to, but in many respects it brings many of the same risks, just under a different name. It might be worth while - diversifying and spreading the risk across two organisations might mean the openSUSE project always has a plan B. But I'm only most comfortable with the idea on the premise that we keep almost everything we have with SUSE right now the same; I think we should just be pursuing joining an umbrella like SPI -in-addition- to our current relationship with SUSE, not instead of.
I'm least keen on the fully independent, all-on-our-own foundation model. It's the most work, with the most risk, and if/when anything gets screwed up it will be all our own fault, with the least options for rectifying it. SUSE won't be able to do as much as they can today to dive in and help when things go wrong, so we'll have less of a safety net. I don't see how any of the perceived or practical benefits of that model would justify taking that sort of risk with the Project.
Regards,
Richard Brown openSUSE Chairman
I have not yet done a deep dive into my board email archive, but these sentiments pretty closely match what I remember I agreed with from our internal discussions on the board. In other words, let's not try to fix something which is not broken. Let's not lose site for a moment how good SUSE has been as a very benevolent sponsor to openSUSE. I applaud the current board for correctly managing its fiduciary duty to explore ways to improve the financial capabilities of the project. Moreover, close coupling of SLE and Leap/TW, has been a _huge_ win technically for both SUSE and openSUSE. The status quo is working very very well IMO, just as a normal openSUSE member and contributor. Nothing from the recent announcements about EQT gives me any concern about a negative impact on the community. To the converse, I think openSUSE may very well benefit over the long term. Just my humble opinion... Thanks, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org