Hello bear in mind that the party that presented the idea (originally Andy F, in the end, backed up by Robert Sirchia, I'm excluding Richard as he originally wanted a separate talk) is not necessarily a contributor to openSUSE. From such a perspective, the second largest openSUSE event sounded like a great opportunity (after the Asia summit, based on presented attendance numbers), plus asking in person, responding, etc. The fact that we have this conversation on this platform tells me that some steps were taken to initiate further discussion with contributors. I don't dare to judge if the steps were good or bad, as we don't go through such a transition every day. What I know is that each individual can be either supportive, and constructive, and do the best on their part (helping to drive the effort, de/re-branding, foundation, sponsorship, positive marketing, docs, each to his own preferences). Or we can put obstacles in the way, so people can't do their best. I consider myself to be rather supportive, even when I'm not exactly happy to see a well-established brand go away. I see governance, and finding more contributors as an opportunity in the current situation. Leap 16 would not exist without the latter. I'm happy to see new faces in the Marketing channel and see that things are organically evolving forward. On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 2:07 PM Attila Pinter <adathor@protonmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 15th, 2024 at 2:22 PM, Richard Brown <rbrown@suse.de> wrote:
On 2024-07-15 04:25, Simon Lees wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:43 AM, Knurpht-openSUSE wrote:
Sources I will and cannot reveal. What was told to me confidebntially stays with me until I;m told I can share it. Don't blame the messenger for the message.
I'm also not sure who your source is, but the information they have given you does not reflect the information that was last given to the board from SUSE. Who to make it clear are not forcing us to rebrand the project.
I think anyone focusing on whether or not SUSE is, will, or could "force" openSUSE to do anything is missing the whole point
SUSE is an organisation that enables openSUSE to do far more than SUSE needs openSUSE to do. SUSE actively provides resources to openSUSE above and beyond what SUSE clearly needs to improve their business.
This status quo is built upon good will. Good will isn't fostered by either party throwing around threats or making firm demands.
The fact is, SUSE have formally, calmly, and quite nicely, asked openSUSE to stop using the SUSE brand.
If we as a community fail to work productively with that request, then we will be choosing to decrease the good will between SUSE and openSUSE.
I would expect that choice would not lead to SUSE escalating matters to get their own way, I don't see that as the "SUSE way" of doing things. What I would imagine is an outcome that's would actually far worse - Apathy and a tendency to put priorities elsewhere.
A huge amount of what openSUSE excels at is facilitated by SUSE either giving openSUSE more than SUSE would otherwise need, or SUSE turning a blind eye and supporting it's employees when they give extra contributions to openSUSE during work time than the business would otherwise need.
Any decrease in good will between SUSE and openSUSE puts those sort of contributions at risk.
And sure, there are policies like "Factory first" that do directly foster direct engineering links between openSUSE and SUSE. But I do not think openSUSE should take them for granteded.
It's not like openSUSE is the only Project/Community that SUSE fosters around it's products. SUSE Manager has Uyuni, Rancher has Rancher. If openSUSE demonstrates it's not aligned with SUSE's interests, then I expect SUSE to focus its efforts on open source projects that are aligned. SUSE will adapt to protect it's business, and this Project will need to adjust to a reality of less good will from all levels of the SUSE hierarchy.
The same goes for the discussions regarding Governance. At oSC you had SUSE senior managers, budget holders, speak up, in public, saying that they felt this Project's governance has issues that need to be addressed. One of them has even come to this list and elaborated on that view.
SUSE doesn't want history to record that it was the big mean corporation that forced its community to do something. But just because things are being said nicely doesn't mean they should be ignored.
Infact..aren't we meant to be a community? Aren't we meant to respond positively when people ask us to do stuff nicely?
Ultimately, I believe that if openSUSE continues to travel in a direction that hinders the SUSE brand, or ignores the need to address it's governance issues, we need to be prepared for history recording that openSUSE drove itself to obsolescence by failing to listen to the needs of one of its largest stakeholders.
I'd rather we avoid such a fate and refocus this discussion. Like Andy's presentation implied when it says "We're all grown up..", let's act like adults, we've got stuff to do.
This was pretty much my takeaway from the oSC presentation, 100% agree!
-- Br, A.
-- Best regards Luboš Kocman openSUSE Leap Release Manager