On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:34:35 +0100, Pierre Böckmann wrote:
I honestly don't know if I'd vote for removal of the board, but the question on my mind is this: If we have a process whereby the board could be removed by the membership (as we do), but some predict the demise of the project over the potential use of that option - then why did we put the option in place?
I don't think it's been put in place "by an optimist" that made false assumptions about how the community will develop as was stated by Stasiek. Guessing here I'd say it was put in place because of good reasons and involved a lot of careful consideration beforehand.
I think Stasiek's view is a valid one, but I also think that the inclusion of such a rule is more complex than just if someone was an optimist or a pessimist. It's a common practice to have a way to recall the board in the event there are concerns about the board making decisions that the membership thinks are questionable. I am concerned about the idea "this is the only board we have, and with nobody else willing to step up, we should just stay the course". On the one hand, it makes logical sense; if there is nobody to fill in the board, what then? On the other hand, it creates a situation where a board with specific bad intent (and I want to be absolutely clear that I do not think that this is the case here; I am speaking purely in hypothetical terms) could create a situation where their positions are assured by making sure that nobody *wants* to stand for the board. That would be a very dangerous situation indeed.
And some other thought: maybe it is even the wrong question.
Maybe we should rather ask, why should such a rule lead to the demise of a whole. Is that claim really true or rather fearmongering to keep the community calm and make them refrain from executing their rights to protect the own position or the position of those that are making decision in favor of the own opinion.
I personally think the project is strong enough to survive a board recall. If it's not, things are far worse than they may seem to some. One thing that I am extremely concerned with is, for all the talk about "respect" being one of our guiding principles, those of us who are raising concerns are not being given the courtesy of being asked (by some, not all - see the next paragraph for a specific example) why we think what we think. The presumption that those of us who have concerns are specifically trying to *destroy* the project and assumption of malicious intent is extremely disheartening to me. To have individuals contact me off-list with wild accusations rather than asking "so, we've known each other for a really long time - help me understand where you're coming from" really upset me, and is part of the reason I have been silent. It's also the reason why I decided I had to say something here - I couldn't let that effort to silence my concerns be successful. (I am specifically not naming names because it's not useful or helpful in this case to do so, and I do still respect the individual in question in spite of that, and their private communication with me will remain private unless they decide to make a public issue out of it. I hope that they will not.) I would, however, like to specifically thank Gerald publicly for demonstrating true leadership in reaching out to learn more, rather than making the assumption of bad intent and acting based on that assumption.
But, please keep in mind that is a lot of speculation and i would like to rather reduce speculations instead spreading even more of them. We should really focus on a solution and the process and less on blaming who has done something right or is responsible for the current situation as too much things are kept secret here. Don't get me wrong here, I am fine with protecting members and not dragging them through the mud. But in case it's true what I think, then the community has lost confidence in the current board as it stands and then we should take action.
I agree. And I think you and I both think it's not a simple question to answer, either. There's a balance that needs to be achieved - the goals of maintaining privacy for those involved in conflicts are laudable. It needs to be possible for *everyone* to take advantage of the board's role in conflict resolution, and to know that those matters will be handled appropriately. But oversight and accountability are also important in any good governance model. As others have pointed out, when we elect a board, we need to be able to know that they're doing the things that they were elected to do. I'm not saying that we don't know anything that goes on - but finding the right balance is important, and I'm not sure that we're there yet.
As I already pointed out: I am absolutely fine when - according to our rules - there are no 20% of the community backing my intentions of a re-election. In such case community confirms the board in office and that is almost as good as a re-election for me.
Same here.
But somehow, in some peoples' minds, that's not enough to be "qualified" to ask critical questions about the project governance. Recognizing that one cannot commit the time to be directly involved in that governance would seem to me to be a valuable recognition. (I further recognize that were I to offer to step up now, as divisive as some people seem to think I am - well, that would be bad for the project as a whole - so I emphatically would *not* stand for a board position, nor would I take it if someone nominated me - I don't think it would be healthy for the project, and I fully expect some might even look to undermine my involvement *because* they see my involvement as a bad thing).
The community is voting for the board positions. So I see it that way: If you are nominated, there is at least one other member seeing you as a member with the skill-set needed for that position. As soon as the community votes you into that position at least the needed majority of the members confirm that view.
Sure, but the person making the nomination is making it based on their knowledge of the nominee's skills and ability to lead. It's (obviously) up to the nominee to decide if they can take on the additional responsibility. I know my workload during the day, and over the past few years, my ability to be involved in the areas I already volunteer in has been diminished due to other commitments. And yes, a nomination isn't the same as being elected - but declining the nomination is the responsible thing to do if, should one be elected, it's known that time would be an issue. It's better to leave the spot open for someone who can commit the time and energy to that role. My point was to highlight that there are reasons why people don't stand for the board that go beyond the current situation - and it's disrespectful to assume that nobody wants to stand because of the current situation. There are plenty of other reasons not to stand, and we need to respect that people know their own capabilities and availability, and if someone doesn't stand, their reasons are their own. But that they don't stand doesn't mean their voices should be ignored, nor their concerns dismissed. -- 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