On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:40:08 +0100, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
Actually I respect you greatly for responding the way you did to him, I would've put his mail on ignore (as I bet many others already have done). There's no excuse for the rudeness he displayed.
I agree there's no excuse for it, but I find often that there is a reason for it, and after some consideration, I thought there would be value in trying to understand what was unlocking such a passionate response.
Yes, becoming openSUSE Member is something you got because you contributed. That contribution doesn't go away, hence you shouldn't be kicked out. Yet the problem is real - some don't care about participating as member. That is, they don't vote, which is the major thing a member does. There is nothing else a member can do that a non-member can not.
So, I propose that those who don't care about the vote for 2 years become non- voting members. I think it respects their wishes. Of course they keep their mail address (the only perk of being member) and nothing else changes. They just don't count in the statistic and don't vote. If they want to change their status they can ask the membership committee to re-instate them as voting members.
There is a marked difference between someone who doesn't vote and someone who doesn't care to vote. Also, the IRC cloak is a perk of being a member, for those that use IRC.
This makes clear what members are interested in the governance of openSUSE. Others are members just as much and through contributions they influence openSUSE on a technical level. But the voting procedure is about governance - things like the conference and travel money and sponsorship. I get it completely if you don't care about that but you should still be able to be member. But that membership should count as part of those who vote. If and when we transition to a Foundation we need to have this procedure in any case - you can't make certain decisions lawfully if you have only 30% of your members vote... So having 'non-voting' members solves that problem.
Part of me thinks that it's good to look forward to if/when the foundation is set up, but part of me also thinks that we need to focus on the need we have now. Of course both are true, and there needs to be a migration path from one to the other. I think something that the project needs as well is a clear definition of what 'governance' is. What you've described here is the first time I can recall seeing that this is what voting for the board is specifically about. I also thought that that included things like overall direction for the project, but the recent 'steering committee' discussions made me question that understanding.
And if you don't vote out of protest, I'm sure we can add a "I don't like anything" as option to votes to solve that part. At least then we know who doesn't vote for a reason (protest) or because he/she doesn't care and it'll be actually meaningful.
There probably isn't an ideal solution for the "no vote as a protest" option. The Pareto principle probably applies here.
All in all I think this way we can have our cake and eat it too: we know who regularly votes; it's clear who doesn't care or protests; our numbers are actually meaningful; yet we don't take anything from anyone (membership depends on contributions, yet if you don't want to be bothered by the voting stuff that's fine).
Acceptable compromise?
Overall, yes, I think it is, with the caveats I've listed above. I do think it's important to the project to try to be as inclusive of the concerns as possible. Obviously we can't get to a 100% solution for resolving everyone's concerns (as some will undoubtedly conflict), but I do think it's important not to dismiss concerns that are poorly expressed. That's not to say it isn't incumbent upon those expressing concerns to do their best to express them in a way that's constructive. We're all here because we want the project to succeed (at least I certainly hope that's what those who have taken the time to contribute and become project members want), so we have a common goal we're starting from. As a group, let's not lose sight of that. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org