Questions for Board candidates
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent. I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member? Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board? Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years? (BTW: Simotek's 2020 platform links to category "Board election 2018" while category "Board election 2020" linked from other platforms doesn't exist. I know it's wiki, but I'm not sure if only election committee is allowed to manage these things or so.:) When reading plans of DocB [11], Knurpht [12], Mark [13] and bit also Neal [14] I have obsessive feeling that You all are touching, from Your personal perspective and experience, similar problem/group of problems regarding communication among (sub)groups of members etc., coordination, and even possible some leadership/governance. If my impression is correct, I wonder what are Your intersections, shared points, and what are discrepancies among You? It looks to me that You use different words to say very similar things. Is my impression correct? DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal mention creation of some sort of foundation, while Knurpht and m4u9 don't mention it. Knurpht and m4u9, do You think there should be no foundation at all? Or You just don't have strong opinion on that topic? DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition? All of You, what do You think are main threats and challenges for our dear Project in near future? How to be prepared? I'm looking forward fruitful discussion, V. [1] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_DocB> [2] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_Knurpht> [3] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_m4u9> [4] <https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_Mark_Stopka> [5] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_simotek> [6] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_-_Neal_Gompa> [7] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board> [8] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles#Governance> [9] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2018_platform_Knurpht> [10] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2018_platform_simotek> [11] <https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_DocB#Targets_for_the_next_season> [12] <https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_Knurpht#Aims.2C_Goals.2C_Thoughts> [13] <https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_Mark_Stopka#Agenda_for_the_current_board_member_term> [14] <https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2020_platform_-_Neal_Gompa#Objectives> -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 16:39:13 +0100 Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-)
Vojtěch, thanks a lot for these important questions, I will try to answer you the best I can.
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
I personally think that myself being a board member would help me have more legitimacy when trying to achieve my goals of inspiring new members to contribute but also when building bridges with other projects and distributions. I have done some of it already, but wearing the mantle of a true community representative has a completely different meaning and it's perceived a lot more positively.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I am not good at putting words about this other than what I already said in my platform. Leading in my opinion is not necessarily an authoritarian stance but an example that inspires people or in our case the community. The board is the governance of the project but by no means should rule the direction the project takes without proper scrutiny of what the community wants. The Board is elected by members of the project because it represents its best interests, not because it wants to impose its way of doint things.
Knurpht and m4u9, do You think there should be no foundation at all? Or You just don't have strong opinion on that topic?
I think there should be a foundation because as stated many times in the past it is an important legal step forward and focal point of the previous boards and current board. If elected I will continue the work along with the existing board members and learn more about it, in the development of this topic. I hope I answered in a satisfactory way, and feel free to develop further if necessary. Cheers, Maurizio -- Maurizio Galli (m4u9) Xfce Team https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Xfce
Dne čtvrtek 3. prosince 2020 17:01:53 CET, Maurizio Galli napsal(a):
On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 16:39:13 +0100 Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-)
Vojtěch, thanks a lot for these important questions, I will try to answer you the best I can.
Thank You very much :-)
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
I personally think that myself being a board member would help me have more legitimacy when trying to achieve my goals of inspiring new members to contribute but also when building bridges with other projects and distributions. I have done some of it already, but wearing the mantle of a true community representative has a completely different meaning and it's perceived a lot more positively.
I personally share Your feeling on this topic. Word of Board member should have some weight. On the other hand, it might be just feeling. I'm not sure.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I am not good at putting words about this other than what I already said in my platform. Leading in my opinion is not necessarily an authoritarian stance but an example that inspires people or in our case the community. The board is the governance of the project but by no means should rule the direction the project takes without proper scrutiny of what the community wants. The Board is elected by members of the project because it represents its best interests, not because it wants to impose its way of doint things.
I think I can agree with You. As such topic appeared in at least 4 out of 6 platforms IMHO it's worth of being discussed bit more. :-) I asked this and the above question specifically as to my feeling we have little bit schizophrenic situation as the Board has in its description vaguely worded leading, while we also have strong advocates of "do-ocracy" (with very strong and good arguments), and some candidates call at least for more coordination and communication. I'm far from any attempt to change governance model, but it seems the discussion opened itself anyway, so let's discuss it. :-) I'm sure no-one is in favour of any authoritative styles, but there are plenty of styles of democratic governance, where the Board would be rather coordination body, possibly proposing possible pathways, but never acting against community will (But how to judge this? IMHO not using this ML...). Might be we end up that most of people are fine with current state and no change is needed. :-) We'll see. Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:35:46 +0100 Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> wrote:
Dne čtvrtek 3. prosince 2020 17:01:53 CET, Maurizio Galli napsal(a):
I am not good at putting words about this other than what I already said in my platform. Leading in my opinion is not necessarily an authoritarian stance but an example that inspires people or in our case the community. The board is the governance of the project but by no means should rule the direction the project takes without proper scrutiny of what the community wants. The Board is elected by members of the project because it represents its best interests, not because it wants to impose its way of doint things.
I think I can agree with You. As such topic appeared in at least 4 out of 6 platforms IMHO it's worth of being discussed bit more. :-) I asked this and the above question specifically as to my feeling we have little bit schizophrenic situation as the Board has in its description vaguely worded leading, while we also have strong advocates of "do-ocracy"
There is something to be said here, "do-ocracy" is less about the board but more importantly about ALL the contributors of openSUSE. The ones who want to make a change and are willing to put hard work and be committed are the ones making the decisions. It is not about leading, it's the mantra of the project that I believe it's the strenght that motivates people to contribute because they know that their hard work isn't for nothing, but rather the opposite it means everything. This is what I mean by positive cycle, one person contribution is meaningful and makes them feel good, ultimately positively affecting the entire project growth.
some candidates call at least for more coordination and communication. I'm far from any attempt to change governance model, but it seems the discussion opened itself anyway, so let's discuss it. :-) I'm sure no-one is in favour of any authoritative styles, but there are plenty of styles of democratic governance, where the Board would be rather coordination body, possibly proposing possible pathways, but never acting against community will (But how to judge this? IMHO not using this ML...). Might be we end up that most of people are fine with current state and no change is needed. :-) We'll see.
What's important in what you say here is that we talk about it openly. I don't think we need to set everything on stone, I would rather see healthy discussions in the future. -- Maurizio Galli (m4u9) Xfce Team https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Xfce
Hi Vojtěch, thanks, much appreciated. Op donderdag 3 december 2020 16:39:13 CET schreef Vojtěch Zeisek:
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
Short answer: I don't need to be on the board. I can do what I want to do in the openSUSE community anyway. Long version: The openSUSE Board is a body we once agreed upon should exist. Of elected contributors. Which makes board membership just another job that needs to be done in the community. In a team setup, wiith members from various areas of the project. Who do what they do anyway. The extras are in the Board's role tasks. And if the community wants to me to be part of that team I'd happily do that again.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
Re: "Lead the overall project": Board playes an active role in f.e. elections, making project wide announcements, conflict resolution, external contacts, sponsorship requests ( yes, we sponsor others too ). Call it the team that tries to connect the teams to the rest of the teams and the rest of the world. This board is not some corporate business board. It has no authorative power whatsoever. Which IMHO in a community like ours is good. Then again: during the F2F Board meeting in Prague the Board (me) presented an idea about having a one-app-serves-all-chat solution. Community members have since then made that happen, incl. briidges to Discord, Telegram.
Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years?
Not much. I still like to rejoin our efforts to get some kind of foundation going, my aims and goals are not bound to a single board term. FWIW Simon ran last year. He's not up for re-election and not next year either since he's done two terms in a row.
When reading plans of DocB [11], Knurpht [12], Mark [13] and bit also Neal [14] I have obsessive feeling that You all are touching, from Your personal perspective and experience, similar problem/group of problems regarding communication among (sub)groups of members etc., coordination, and even possible some leadership/governance. If my impression is correct, I wonder what are Your intersections, shared points, and what are discrepancies among You? It looks to me that You use different words to say very similar things. Is my impression correct?
I can't speak for the others, but I know Axel, Neal and Maurizio pretty well, and we have spoken many times about these subjects. On Discord/Matrix/ Telegram, in real life, on openSUSE Summit and oSLO.
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal mention creation of some sort of foundation, while Knurpht and m4u9 don't mention it. Knurpht and m4u9, do You think there should be no foundation at all? Or You just don't have strong opinion on that topic?
My ideas/opinions there have not changed. If it can be done properly, I'm in full support of some sort of foundation, and looking at f.e. TDF that can be done. I might have put "Rejoin investigating our options on the foundation item".
All of You, what do You think are main threats and challenges for our dear Project in near future? How to be prepared?
I think the threats and challenges will always be the same in projects like this: people and with orher people and their own ideas and plans. How to be prepared? Listen, discuss, try to learn from others. Thanks again :-) -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team
Dne čtvrtek 3. prosince 2020 20:12:03 CET, Knurpht-openSUSE napsal(a):
Hi Vojtěch, thanks, much appreciated.
I thank You, Knurpht. :-)
Op donderdag 3 december 2020 16:39:13 CET schreef Vojtěch Zeisek:
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
Short answer: I don't need to be on the board. I can do what I want to do in the openSUSE community anyway. Long version: The openSUSE Board is a body we once agreed upon should exist. Of elected contributors. Which makes board membership just another job that needs to be done in the community. In a team setup, wiith members from various areas of the project. Who do what they do anyway. The extras are in the Board's role tasks. And if the community wants to me to be part of that team I'd happily do that again.
Thank You for the openness. Board is definitely needed and I'm glad there are good people. :-)
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
Re: "Lead the overall project": Board playes an active role in f.e. elections, making project wide announcements, conflict resolution, external contacts, sponsorship requests ( yes, we sponsor others too ). Call it the team that tries to connect the teams to the rest of the teams and the rest of the world. This board is not some corporate business board. It has no authorative power whatsoever. Which IMHO in a community like ours is good.
I think so, I don't call for corporate-like board. I have seen several concepts in various NGOs, with lower or higher importance of the Board (or whatever similar body). I just think bit more coordination and bit more active role of the Board in strategical directions (of course discussed with community, Board can't command) wouldn't hurt.
Then again: during the F2F Board meeting in Prague the Board (me) presented an idea about having a one-app-serves-all-chat solution. Community members have since then made that happen, incl. briidges to Discord, Telegram.
I think Vinz mentioned this recently. Great job.
FWIW Simon ran last year. He's not up for re-election and not next year either since he's done two terms in a row.
Ah, thank You for correcting me. Sorry, Simon.
When reading plans of DocB [11], Knurpht [12], Mark [13] and bit also Neal [14] I have obsessive feeling that You all are touching, from Your personal perspective and experience, similar problem/group of problems regarding communication among (sub)groups of members etc., coordination, and even possible some leadership/governance. If my impression is correct, I wonder what are Your intersections, shared points, and what are discrepancies among You? It looks to me that You use different words to say very similar things. Is my impression correct?
I can't speak for the others, but I know Axel, Neal and Maurizio pretty well, and we have spoken many times about these subjects. On Discord/Matrix/ Telegram, in real life, on openSUSE Summit and oSLO.
Might You be bit more specific, please? :-) -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
I can't speak for the others, but I know Axel, Neal and Maurizio pretty well, and we have spoken many times about these subjects. On Discord/Matrix/ Telegram, in real life, on openSUSE Summit and oSLO.
Might You be bit more specific, please? F.e. the Foundation, current discussions in the community, exchanging ideas. We are all aware of how important good ( and friendly ) communication is in
Op donderdag 3 december 2020 22:02:49 CET schreef Vojtěch Zeisek: the sense that it keeps the fun in it. With Axel and Maurizio I even discussed whether to run. We simply got in touch. And have some but not all thoughts in common. -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team
Hi Vojtěch, This is a pretty impressive list of questions, thank you for that. I noticed that, compared to previous years, there is much more interest in the candidates and in the election in general, and I consider this as a good sign. Am Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2020, 16:39:13 CET schrieb Vojtěch Zeisek:
dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent.
No doubt. We have a very strong group this time. Personally I would have loved to have a non-male candidate as well, but...we cant force anyone to step up.
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
To not repeat myself, I think I have answered most of this already in an early RFI [1]
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
The role of the board is described in the wiki and, as others have already pointed out, it is not a body like in a commercial company. openSUSE is a do-ocracy, so most of the activites - and direction to go - comes from the community. The board may be involved a bit earlier in some developments - like Closing the leap gap - but the board will not drive the direction. The board may seed ideas, or pick up opinions (should we rename openSUSE?) and do the necessary to come to a conclusion. But it is not imparative or directive.
Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years?
As it was already pointed out, Simon has another year to go and is not due for re-election. The last election period was clearly split in half: First part was productive, while last year was...difficult. But I'm positive that the next two years will be better, otherwise I would not have stepped up for reelection. From my past experience - I have co-founded three companies and served nearly 20years as GmbH-Geschäftsführer (some kind of CEO) - I could bring in some experience in the Founation/e.V./Trademark discussion, and I hope to continue working on this. Goals achieved where networking with organizations, creating positive perception of openSUSE and working on software freedom. The current market situation, with pre-installed spyware systems on PC and Mac platforms, with the refusal of major brands to sell a system without those operating systems is clearly a blocker for free systems in the market. This will even get worse in the long run [4]. I triggerd an initiative - internally called OpenLetterEU - and we were able to join forces and ask some questions [2,3] to the EU commission (via a member of the European Parliament), targeting the monopolistic structure in the PC market with regard to preinstalled spyware systems. Answers were just posted and need evaluation.
When reading plans of DocB [11], Knurpht [12], Mark [13] and bit also Neal [14] I have obsessive feeling that You all are touching, from Your personal perspective and experience, similar problem/group of problems regarding communication among (sub)groups of members etc., coordination, and even possible some leadership/governance. If my impression is correct, I wonder what are Your intersections, shared points, and what are discrepancies among You? It looks to me that You use different words to say very similar things. Is my impression correct?
Yes
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal mention creation of some sort of foundation, while Knurpht and m4u9 don't mention it. Knurpht and m4u9, do You think there should be no foundation at all? Or You just don't have strong opinion on that topic? DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
As written before, I feel a legal structure could be beneficial. In the free software world we see a variety of solutions: Fedora is set-up similar as we now are, TheDocumentFoundation is (surprise) a foundation, and KDE is a e.V. We need to continue the discussion with SUSE, and depending on the outcome we can take next steps.
All of You, what do You think are main threats and challenges for our dear Project in near future? How to be prepared?
I see openSUSE in a good, stable condition. BUT if we do not get the attention the project deserves, which can lead to an erosion of the user base. Need to work against this by marketing and use of press contacts, presence on events and good talks about our key-advantages. Everyone is encouraged to contribute! And, as we see in the current, ongoing discussion, the community needs to become a bit more empathic about what to say and how to say. Sad to see hat we are losing users [5] on those kind of discussions... Cheers Axel [1] https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/ message/75AE3VWLI4KUKT5ONHTZWJ64CRABFK6R/ [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-005058_EN.html [3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-005059_EN.html [4] https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/ [5] https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/ message/3TZVOEJ5VNIFFIYQZAV35BNJBLTRZ5VO/
Dne sobota 5. prosince 2020 9:08:04 CET, Axel Braun napsal(a):
Hi Vojtěch, This is a pretty impressive list of questions, thank you for that.
Thank You for Your time with answering.
I noticed that, compared to previous years, there is much more interest in the candidates and in the election in general, and I consider this as a good sign.
Definitely.
Am Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2020, 16:39:13 CET schrieb Vojtěch Zeisek:
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
The role of the board is described in the wiki and, as others have already pointed out, it is not a body like in a commercial company. openSUSE is a do-ocracy, so most of the activites - and direction to go - comes from the community. The board may be involved a bit earlier in some developments - like Closing the leap gap - but the board will not drive the direction. The board may seed ideas, or pick up opinions (should we rename openSUSE?) and do the necessary to come to a conclusion. But it is not imparative or directive.
I agree with You. I ask because this topic has been returning in various forms at least for a year.
Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years?
The last election period was clearly split in half: First part was productive, while last year was...difficult. But I'm positive that the next two years will be better, otherwise I would not have stepped up for reelection. From my past experience - I have co-founded three companies and served nearly 20years as GmbH-Geschäftsführer (some kind of CEO) - I could bring in some experience in the Founation/e.V./Trademark discussion, and I hope to continue working on this. Goals achieved where networking with organizations, creating positive perception of openSUSE and working on software freedom. The current market situation, with pre-installed spyware systems on PC and Mac platforms, with the refusal of major brands to sell a system without those operating systems is clearly a blocker for free systems in the market. This will even get worse in the long run [4]. I triggerd an initiative - internally called OpenLetterEU - and we were able to join forces and ask some questions [2,3] to the EU commission (via a member of the European Parliament), targeting the monopolistic structure in the PC market with regard to preinstalled spyware systems. Answers were just posted and need evaluation.
I think everyone here supports this. So do You think openSUSE (or some kind of its foundation) should play in such effort more active role than "just" making good product as an alternative? Advertising definitely helps.
When reading plans of DocB [11], Knurpht [12], Mark [13] and bit also Neal [14] I have obsessive feeling that You all are touching, from Your personal perspective and experience, similar problem/group of problems regarding communication among (sub)groups of members etc., coordination, and even possible some leadership/governance. If my impression is correct, I wonder what are Your intersections, shared points, and what are discrepancies among You? It looks to me that You use different words to say very similar things. Is my impression correct?
Yes
:-) So most likely we can expect new interesting discussions with the updated Board. ;-)
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal mention creation of some sort of foundation, while Knurpht and m4u9 don't mention it. Knurpht and m4u9, do You think there should be no foundation at all? Or You just don't have strong opinion on that topic? DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
As written before, I feel a legal structure could be beneficial. In the free software world we see a variety of solutions: Fedora is set-up similar as we now are, TheDocumentFoundation is (surprise) a foundation, and KDE is a e.V. We need to continue the discussion with SUSE, and depending on the outcome we can take next steps.
I don't argue contrary. Just there are different forms/legal structures. "Foundation" can have plenty of meanings and practical consequences.
[1] https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/ message/75AE3VWLI4KUKT5ONHTZWJ64CRABFK6R/ [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-005058_EN.html [3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-005059_EN.html [4] https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/ [5] https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/ message/3TZVOEJ5VNIFFIYQZAV35BNJBLTRZ5VO/ -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/
Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
Hello Vojtěch, Am Montag, 7. Dezember 2020, 12:29:30 CET schrieb Vojtěch Zeisek: ...
Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years?
The last election period was clearly split in half: First part was productive, while last year was...difficult. But I'm positive that the next two years will be better, otherwise I would not have stepped up for reelection. From my past experience - I have co-founded three companies and served nearly 20years as GmbH-Geschäftsführer (some kind of CEO) - I could bring in some experience in the Founation/e.V./Trademark discussion, and I hope to continue working on this. Goals achieved where networking with organizations, creating positive perception of openSUSE and working on software freedom. The current market situation, with pre-installed spyware systems on PC and Mac platforms, with the refusal of major brands to sell a system without those operating systems is clearly a blocker for free systems in the market. This will even get worse in the long run [4]. I triggerd an initiative - internally called OpenLetterEU - and we were able to join forces and ask some questions [2,3] to the EU commission (via a member of the European Parliament), targeting the monopolistic structure in the PC market with regard to preinstalled spyware systems. Answers were just posted and need evaluation.
I think everyone here supports this. So do You think openSUSE (or some kind of its foundation) should play in such effort more active role than "just" making good product as an alternative? Advertising definitely helps.
Advertising, as long as we don't consider it some viral campaigns, needs money. Which the project does not have. Advertising in the form of 'Stand up and remind you government on privacy and digital sovereignty' - or other activities that promote Free Software and openSUSE in special - are of course welcome. Not just from the board or a foundation, but of every individual that feels the need to do so. ....
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal mention creation of some sort of foundation, while Knurpht and m4u9 don't mention it. Knurpht and m4u9, do You think there should be no foundation at all? Or You just don't have strong opinion on that topic? DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
As written before, I feel a legal structure could be beneficial. In the free software world we see a variety of solutions: Fedora is set-up similar as we now are, TheDocumentFoundation is (surprise) a foundation, and KDE is a e.V. We need to continue the discussion with SUSE, and depending on the outcome we can take next steps.
I don't argue contrary. Just there are different forms/legal structures. "Foundation" can have plenty of meanings and practical consequences.
Thats why I mostly speak about a legal structure :-) Cheers Axel
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:39 AM Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent.
Of that, I'm definitely sure. Everyone who has stepped up has excellent platforms.
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
In my platform, I tried to make it clear that most of what I do in openSUSE today does *not* require me to be a member of the Board. In fact, I have been tremendously successful doing technical and non-technical work as a regular community member. In this regard, I consider becoming a member of the Board another avenue in which I can help drive a different (somewhat underappreciated) aspect of the Project to be better.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I've worked in projects where the governance model has hard powers (explicit ability to direct) and soft powers (only ability to persuade). The openSUSE Board is pretty much in the latter camp. So from this angle, being a member of the Board is about leveraging "soft power" leadership: being a model contributor, working with others to support the community, and setting the tone for the community. Additionally, as we transition to independent ownership, we are going to have to restructure the governance so that the Board has additional explicit powers to manage the Foundation and support the Project in that capacity. What that looks like is unknown right now, but I feel that my perspective can help us figure that out.
When reading plans of DocB [11], Knurpht [12], Mark [13] and bit also Neal [14] I have obsessive feeling that You all are touching, from Your personal perspective and experience, similar problem/group of problems regarding communication among (sub)groups of members etc., coordination, and even possible some leadership/governance. If my impression is correct, I wonder what are Your intersections, shared points, and what are discrepancies among You? It looks to me that You use different words to say very similar things. Is my impression correct?
Based on my reading of the platforms, I think DocB and Knurpht are both touching on similar points to myself, though from different angles. DocB and I have mentioned that we need to finalize details on the structure for the Foundation and start working to establish it. Knurpht and I align more on our stated goal to help supercharge advocacy for openSUSE as members of the Board. As for Mark's platform, I think the only things we distinctly agree on are that the Foundation should be created and we should improve our marketing. I'm not sure what to make of the rest of it, to be honest. My personal opinion is that as the project stands today, I don't know how the Board would even help with most of the things Mark wants to do.
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
Organizationally, the Foundation is going to need more explicit governance of the Project than what the Board does today, because the Foundation will be responsible for everything produced by the Project. We're going to need to grow organs that can market the Foundation and the Project to drive regular donations to support the community and the development of everything under the Foundation's aegis. We'll need to manage a real budget, too. These are things we do not have to do because we do not exist as a free-standing entity. Once we are, we need to be set up for success so that we don't collapse within a year or two. And that underlies the very real risk around this effort: there may simply not be enough continual community support to *keep* the Foundation alive. Depending on the rules that we elect to impose on ourselves by where and how we incorporate the legal entity, we could be involuntarily dissolved due to lack of solvency. However, that risk can also be a potential advantage: with an independent legal entity able to accept donations and sponsorships, we can more actively pursue activities to get more resources to support activities in the project, such as getting POWER and RISC-V hardware to contributors with proven track records to help support the community port if they can't afford it themselves. The goal here is to supercharge the Project, and so everything we're doing here should be taken under that lens to determine how we structure this to best support that.
All of You, what do You think are main threats and challenges for our dear Project in near future? How to be prepared?
The main threat to our community is more or less the same as it has always been: people who lack empathy and are unable to work with each other. As a community project, we only thrive when we come together to build a better future for the Project. If we are unable to keep doing that, we will fall apart and fail. How do we prepare against that? By assuming the best in people and striving to help others be more successful than they would be alone. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Hi, I'm asking Neal the following questions because they flow well from what he has already written, however i'd be keen to hear all candidates answers. As some background i've spent much of the last 3 years looking into the question of an "openSUSE Foundation", Our initial conclusion was it was too risky, but then we had some indication SUSE maybe willing to help us make it work so we put together the proposal That was presented to the community on this list and at the openSUSE Conference in 2019. That experience has lead to me having the following questions. On 12/6/20 1:22 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:39 AM Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent.
Of that, I'm definitely sure. Everyone who has stepped up has excellent platforms.
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
In my platform, I tried to make it clear that most of what I do in openSUSE today does *not* require me to be a member of the Board. In fact, I have been tremendously successful doing technical and non-technical work as a regular community member. In this regard, I consider becoming a member of the Board another avenue in which I can help drive a different (somewhat underappreciated) aspect of the Project to be better.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I've worked in projects where the governance model has hard powers (explicit ability to direct) and soft powers (only ability to persuade). The openSUSE Board is pretty much in the latter camp. So from this angle, being a member of the Board is about leveraging "soft power" leadership: being a model contributor, working with others to support the community, and setting the tone for the community.
Additionally, as we transition to independent ownership, we are going to have to restructure the governance so that the Board has additional explicit powers to manage the Foundation and support the Project in that capacity. What that looks like is unknown right now, but I feel that my perspective can help us figure that out.
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground? I guess as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
Organizationally, the Foundation is going to need more explicit governance of the Project than what the Board does today, because the Foundation will be responsible for everything produced by the Project. We're going to need to grow organs that can market the Foundation and the Project to drive regular donations to support the community and the development of everything under the Foundation's aegis. We'll need to manage a real budget, too. These are things we do not have to do because we do not exist as a free-standing entity. Once we are, we need to be set up for success so that we don't collapse within a year or two.
And that underlies the very real risk around this effort: there may simply not be enough continual community support to *keep* the Foundation alive. Depending on the rules that we elect to impose on ourselves by where and how we incorporate the legal entity, we could be involuntarily dissolved due to lack of solvency.
Previous boards who drafted the last foundation proposal shared this concern, the proposal we came to the community with involved asking SUSE to provide a part time staff member to look after the foundations books and reporting obligations as this role would be an essential part of the project and SUSE has committed to providing all the essential things openSUSE requires. We believed that this would be reasonable as there is a number of ways that SUSE could use a foundation to save some money, for example a foundation would allow us to have proper sponsorships for the openSUSE Conference so SUSE wouldn't have to pay as much. It should also be noted that SUSE has employed staff to help manage the 2 main parts of openSUSE's budget in the past, Namely conference sponsorships and the travel support program, we envisioned this as being a similar arrangement although the person in this case would report more directly to the foundation board. We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? If you don't believe it would be too great a risk how do you think we can best manage the risk? And as an aside do you believe there will be any other ongoing costs that a foundation will need to cover? A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea? Thank you all for your time. 1. https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2019-06/msg00233.html -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Op zondag 6 december 2020 07:28:26 CET schreef Simon Lees:
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground? I still hope some middle ground might be possible. That has not changed. I guess as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? No. For obvious reasons. Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
snip ....
We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? I think I need to catch up on the current status, to give a decent answer to
I have not given up hope that that would be possible. that.
Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? Yes, definitely too much of a risk. A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea? A sane decision.
Thank you all for your time. Thank you for asking, Simon
-- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team
On 12/8/20 12:43 PM, Knurpht-openSUSE wrote:
Op zondag 6 december 2020 07:28:26 CET schreef Simon Lees:
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground? I still hope some middle ground might be possible. That has not changed. I guess as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? No. For obvious reasons. Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
snip ....
We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? I think I need to catch up on the current status, to give a decent answer to
I have not given up hope that that would be possible. that.
Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? Yes, definitely too much of a risk. A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea? A sane decision.
Thank you all for your time. Thank you for asking, Simon
Thanks for taking the time to reply -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:31 AM Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
I'm asking Neal the following questions because they flow well from what he has already written, however i'd be keen to hear all candidates answers. As some background i've spent much of the last 3 years looking into the question of an "openSUSE Foundation", Our initial conclusion was it was too risky, but then we had some indication SUSE maybe willing to help us make it work so we put together the proposal That was presented to the community on this list and at the openSUSE Conference in 2019. That experience has lead to me having the following questions.
On 12/6/20 1:22 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:39 AM Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent.
Of that, I'm definitely sure. Everyone who has stepped up has excellent platforms.
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
In my platform, I tried to make it clear that most of what I do in openSUSE today does *not* require me to be a member of the Board. In fact, I have been tremendously successful doing technical and non-technical work as a regular community member. In this regard, I consider becoming a member of the Board another avenue in which I can help drive a different (somewhat underappreciated) aspect of the Project to be better.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I've worked in projects where the governance model has hard powers (explicit ability to direct) and soft powers (only ability to persuade). The openSUSE Board is pretty much in the latter camp. So from this angle, being a member of the Board is about leveraging "soft power" leadership: being a model contributor, working with others to support the community, and setting the tone for the community.
Additionally, as we transition to independent ownership, we are going to have to restructure the governance so that the Board has additional explicit powers to manage the Foundation and support the Project in that capacity. What that looks like is unknown right now, but I feel that my perspective can help us figure that out.
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground?
When I said that, I was referring to the technical and legal nature of how this would be structured. This would have to be structured such that it doesn't look like SUSE is using it as a tax haven. Obviously, we all know that's not what they are planning to do this for, but it's all about making the regulators happy about the setup. In practice, I would prefer for SUSE and openSUSE to maintain a strong, mutually beneficial relationship. I've tried to stay away from commenting too much about the legal nature around this, because assuming last year's proposal is what we go with (a Siftung in Germany) is a much more complicated affair than a 501(c)(3) in the United States (which is what I'm familiar with and is generally what I see for projects). I'm also not a lawyer, so I'd rather not publicly speculate too much about it if I don't have to.
I guess as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
Previous discussions I've had as a member of the openSUSE Heroes has not ruled out SUSE continuing to run and support the openSUSE Build Service and the SUSE Bugzilla as services for the openSUSE community. However, there are complexities around community user data that are in the process of being resolved. The determined resolution for this is the full transition of the so-called "SUSE community accounts" to the upcoming openSUSE Accounts system that Stasiek and I have been working on. There are also a few other things that need to be tackled, but that's the bigger first step. There will also need to be a formal agreement worked out between SUSE and the Foundation about the provision of those services, which is a whole separate matter in itself...
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
Organizationally, the Foundation is going to need more explicit governance of the Project than what the Board does today, because the Foundation will be responsible for everything produced by the Project. We're going to need to grow organs that can market the Foundation and the Project to drive regular donations to support the community and the development of everything under the Foundation's aegis. We'll need to manage a real budget, too. These are things we do not have to do because we do not exist as a free-standing entity. Once we are, we need to be set up for success so that we don't collapse within a year or two.
And that underlies the very real risk around this effort: there may simply not be enough continual community support to *keep* the Foundation alive. Depending on the rules that we elect to impose on ourselves by where and how we incorporate the legal entity, we could be involuntarily dissolved due to lack of solvency.
Previous boards who drafted the last foundation proposal shared this concern, the proposal we came to the community with involved asking SUSE to provide a part time staff member to look after the foundations books and reporting obligations as this role would be an essential part of the project and SUSE has committed to providing all the essential things openSUSE requires. We believed that this would be reasonable as there is a number of ways that SUSE could use a foundation to save some money, for example a foundation would allow us to have proper sponsorships for the openSUSE Conference so SUSE wouldn't have to pay as much. It should also be noted that SUSE has employed staff to help manage the 2 main parts of openSUSE's budget in the past, Namely conference sponsorships and the travel support program, we envisioned this as being a similar arrangement although the person in this case would report more directly to the foundation board.
I would personally suggest the goal here would not be to have SUSE reduce contributions to support various openSUSE programs, but to expand what we can do by having a larger pool of supporters and contributors. For example, the openSUSE community is vastly under-represented in the Americas and Asia (excluding the Indonesia and CJK regions, which are doing well). Having more sponsors who could contribute to this would help beef up the mindshare and community presence in these regions. That said, one thing that I wish we as a Project did was actually *manage* our resources directly and publicly. We could do this even without the Foundation, and adding that transparency also can help raise the confidence of the Project as a whole. Our friends in the Fedora Project do this[1][2] despite not having an independent legal entity, and it would be good practice for us to do the same before it becomes legally required. [1]: https://budget.fedoraproject.org/ [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/
We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? If you don't believe it would be too great a risk how do you think we can best manage the risk? And as an aside do you believe there will be any other ongoing costs that a foundation will need to cover?
There is no way a Foundation can be created without SUSE as a founding sponsor and member of the new entity as an ongoing sponsor. Bar none, it's just not going to work. If we don't have buy-in from SUSE, we should shelve this and figure out where we've gone wrong.
A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea?
I think this is fine, but we would need to do something to ensure other sponsors have a chance to be on good footing too. This is one of those really complicated governance questions that I don't know how to answer with finer detail until I have a better idea of how we want membership to the Foundation to work. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Hi Neal Am Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2020, 03:56:45 CET schrieb Neal Gompa: ...
That said, one thing that I wish we as a Project did was actually *manage* our resources directly and publicly. We could do this even without the Foundation, and adding that transparency also can help raise the confidence of the Project as a whole. Our friends in the Fedora Project do this[1][2] despite not having an independent legal entity, and it would be good practice for us to do the same before it becomes legally required.
[1]: https://budget.fedoraproject.org/ [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/
This is really interesting, and I would be interested in this setup. Fedora has no legal strcture and is issuing financial statements (Budget Reports). Do you have own (bank) accounts? If so, who owns the accounts (in germany it is a person if you are not a legal organisation)? We may take this discussion offline Thanks Axel
Thanks for your replies, they certainly help clarify alot of things. On 12/8/20 1:26 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:31 AM Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
I'm asking Neal the following questions because they flow well from what he has already written, however i'd be keen to hear all candidates answers. As some background i've spent much of the last 3 years looking into the question of an "openSUSE Foundation", Our initial conclusion was it was too risky, but then we had some indication SUSE maybe willing to help us make it work so we put together the proposal That was presented to the community on this list and at the openSUSE Conference in 2019. That experience has lead to me having the following questions.
On 12/6/20 1:22 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:39 AM Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent.
Of that, I'm definitely sure. Everyone who has stepped up has excellent platforms.
I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member?
In my platform, I tried to make it clear that most of what I do in openSUSE today does *not* require me to be a member of the Board. In fact, I have been tremendously successful doing technical and non-technical work as a regular community member. In this regard, I consider becoming a member of the Board another avenue in which I can help drive a different (somewhat underappreciated) aspect of the Project to be better.
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I've worked in projects where the governance model has hard powers (explicit ability to direct) and soft powers (only ability to persuade). The openSUSE Board is pretty much in the latter camp. So from this angle, being a member of the Board is about leveraging "soft power" leadership: being a model contributor, working with others to support the community, and setting the tone for the community.
Additionally, as we transition to independent ownership, we are going to have to restructure the governance so that the Board has additional explicit powers to manage the Foundation and support the Project in that capacity. What that looks like is unknown right now, but I feel that my perspective can help us figure that out.
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground?
When I said that, I was referring to the technical and legal nature of how this would be structured. This would have to be structured such that it doesn't look like SUSE is using it as a tax haven. Obviously, we all know that's not what they are planning to do this for, but it's all about making the regulators happy about the setup.
In practice, I would prefer for SUSE and openSUSE to maintain a strong, mutually beneficial relationship.
I've tried to stay away from commenting too much about the legal nature around this, because assuming last year's proposal is what we go with (a Siftung in Germany) is a much more complicated affair than a 501(c)(3) in the United States (which is what I'm familiar with and is generally what I see for projects).
I'm also not a lawyer, so I'd rather not publicly speculate too much about it if I don't have to.
I guess as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
Previous discussions I've had as a member of the openSUSE Heroes has not ruled out SUSE continuing to run and support the openSUSE Build Service and the SUSE Bugzilla as services for the openSUSE community. However, there are complexities around community user data that are in the process of being resolved. The determined resolution for this is the full transition of the so-called "SUSE community accounts" to the upcoming openSUSE Accounts system that Stasiek and I have been working on. There are also a few other things that need to be tackled, but that's the bigger first step.
There will also need to be a formal agreement worked out between SUSE and the Foundation about the provision of those services, which is a whole separate matter in itself...
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
Organizationally, the Foundation is going to need more explicit governance of the Project than what the Board does today, because the Foundation will be responsible for everything produced by the Project. We're going to need to grow organs that can market the Foundation and the Project to drive regular donations to support the community and the development of everything under the Foundation's aegis. We'll need to manage a real budget, too. These are things we do not have to do because we do not exist as a free-standing entity. Once we are, we need to be set up for success so that we don't collapse within a year or two.
And that underlies the very real risk around this effort: there may simply not be enough continual community support to *keep* the Foundation alive. Depending on the rules that we elect to impose on ourselves by where and how we incorporate the legal entity, we could be involuntarily dissolved due to lack of solvency.
Previous boards who drafted the last foundation proposal shared this concern, the proposal we came to the community with involved asking SUSE to provide a part time staff member to look after the foundations books and reporting obligations as this role would be an essential part of the project and SUSE has committed to providing all the essential things openSUSE requires. We believed that this would be reasonable as there is a number of ways that SUSE could use a foundation to save some money, for example a foundation would allow us to have proper sponsorships for the openSUSE Conference so SUSE wouldn't have to pay as much. It should also be noted that SUSE has employed staff to help manage the 2 main parts of openSUSE's budget in the past, Namely conference sponsorships and the travel support program, we envisioned this as being a similar arrangement although the person in this case would report more directly to the foundation board.
I would personally suggest the goal here would not be to have SUSE reduce contributions to support various openSUSE programs, but to expand what we can do by having a larger pool of supporters and contributors. For example, the openSUSE community is vastly under-represented in the Americas and Asia (excluding the Indonesia and CJK regions, which are doing well). Having more sponsors who could contribute to this would help beef up the mindshare and community presence in these regions.
That said, one thing that I wish we as a Project did was actually *manage* our resources directly and publicly. We could do this even without the Foundation, and adding that transparency also can help raise the confidence of the Project as a whole. Our friends in the Fedora Project do this[1][2] despite not having an independent legal entity, and it would be good practice for us to do the same before it becomes legally required.
[1]: https://budget.fedoraproject.org/ [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/
We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? If you don't believe it would be too great a risk how do you think we can best manage the risk? And as an aside do you believe there will be any other ongoing costs that a foundation will need to cover?
There is no way a Foundation can be created without SUSE as a founding sponsor and member of the new entity as an ongoing sponsor. Bar none, it's just not going to work. If we don't have buy-in from SUSE, we should shelve this and figure out where we've gone wrong.
A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea?
I think this is fine, but we would need to do something to ensure other sponsors have a chance to be on good footing too.
This is one of those really complicated governance questions that I don't know how to answer with finer detail until I have a better idea of how we want membership to the Foundation to work.
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Hi Simon, Tough questions, and I am a bit out my depth with this topic but I will try to answer you the best I can :). On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 16:58:26 +1030 Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground?
I do not believe that we need nor can afford to severe ties with SUSE for the reasons you have also explained. I agree with the course that the board has taken so far and I believe we have to make sure that SUSE remains involved in the process and that the creation of such foundation is beneficial for our community and SUSE both.
as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
IF we could afford it maybe, however looking at the changelogs alone one can see that the involvement of SUSE employees in openSUSE is significant. I am not convinced that there are the means nor man power to work on such infrastructure without SUSE involvement. For everyone's sake, I would certainly prefer to have an agreement that can strengthen the relationship rather than compromise it.
Previous boards who drafted the last foundation proposal shared this concern, the proposal we came to the community with involved asking SUSE to provide a part time staff member to look after the foundations books and reporting obligations as this role would be an essential part of the project and SUSE has committed to providing all the essential things openSUSE requires. We believed that this would be reasonable as there is a number of ways that SUSE could use a foundation to save some money, for example a foundation would allow us to have proper sponsorships for the openSUSE Conference so SUSE wouldn't have to pay as much. It should also be noted that SUSE has employed staff to help manage the 2 main parts of openSUSE's budget in the past, Namely conference sponsorships and the travel support program, we envisioned this as being a similar arrangement although the person in this case would report more directly to the foundation board.
We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? If you don't believe it would be too great a risk how do you think we can best manage the risk? And as an aside do you believe there will be any other ongoing costs that a foundation will need to cover?
The same as Neal said, I do not think is wise not to have SUSE as founding sponsor. Not only because of the funding needed for the different activities but also because it would really not look good. The intention here is to create a foundation to give openSUSE a legal entity, not fork the entire project.
A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea?
I agree in principle for the reasons stated above however the overall framework would need to be clearly defined on what sort of role those appointed positions would have and if and how such positions need to be distributed among other major sponsors too. I hope my answers so far were satisfactory, in all honesty I need to educate myself on this subject more. Cheers, Maurizio -- Maurizio Galli (m4u9) Xfce Team https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Xfce
On 12/8/20 6:43 PM, Maurizio Galli wrote:
Hi Simon,
Tough questions, and I am a bit out my depth with this topic but I will try to answer you the best I can :).
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 16:58:26 +1030 Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
Currently the proposals for an "openSUSE Foundation" have not had a goal of Independence from SUSE, rather as a entity that sits somewhat alongside our existing partnership with SUSE that would allow us to do more things. Do you believe that a foundation needs to result in complete independence of SUSE, or is there some middle ground?
I do not believe that we need nor can afford to severe ties with SUSE for the reasons you have also explained. I agree with the course that the board has taken so far and I believe we have to make sure that SUSE remains involved in the process and that the creation of such foundation is beneficial for our community and SUSE both.
as an extreme example to gain a better understanding do you believe an independent openSUSE should end up maintaining and running assets such as openSUSE's build service? Or do you believe that an arrangement where an openSUSE Foundation exists, but SUSE continues to own and maintain openSUSE assets such as the build service should exist?
IF we could afford it maybe, however looking at the changelogs alone one can see that the involvement of SUSE employees in openSUSE is significant. I am not convinced that there are the means nor man power to work on such infrastructure without SUSE involvement. For everyone's sake, I would certainly prefer to have an agreement that can strengthen the relationship rather than compromise it.
Previous boards who drafted the last foundation proposal shared this concern, the proposal we came to the community with involved asking SUSE to provide a part time staff member to look after the foundations books and reporting obligations as this role would be an essential part of the project and SUSE has committed to providing all the essential things openSUSE requires. We believed that this would be reasonable as there is a number of ways that SUSE could use a foundation to save some money, for example a foundation would allow us to have proper sponsorships for the openSUSE Conference so SUSE wouldn't have to pay as much. It should also be noted that SUSE has employed staff to help manage the 2 main parts of openSUSE's budget in the past, Namely conference sponsorships and the travel support program, we envisioned this as being a similar arrangement although the person in this case would report more directly to the foundation board.
We saw this as the one major recurring cost that the foundation would have to have and agreed as a board at the time that we couldn't recommend a foundation to the community without such sponsorship (At the time SUSE saw this as possible enough that we continued discussions around a foundation, however since then SUSE's leadership has changed significantly). How do you and the other candidates think about this? Do you believe it would be too much of a risk to the community to create a foundation without such ongoing sponsorship either from SUSE or a different party? If you don't believe it would be too great a risk how do you think we can best manage the risk? And as an aside do you believe there will be any other ongoing costs that a foundation will need to cover?
The same as Neal said, I do not think is wise not to have SUSE as founding sponsor. Not only because of the funding needed for the different activities but also because it would really not look good. The intention here is to create a foundation to give openSUSE a legal entity, not fork the entire project.
A final question to all candidates, In our last foundation proposal [1] we proposed continuing to allow SUSE to appoint someone to the board in some form (We didn't propose concrete details). We believed that this would continue to be important as SUSE would continue to provide openSUSE with a significant number of things, atleast until the point where by far the most significant sponsor of openSUSE if that ever happened. What is everyone's opinion on that idea?
I agree in principle for the reasons stated above however the overall framework would need to be clearly defined on what sort of role those appointed positions would have and if and how such positions need to be distributed among other major sponsors too.
I hope my answers so far were satisfactory, in all honesty I need to educate myself on this subject more.
Cheers, Maurizio
Thanks for taking the time to answer. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Thank You for Your answers and time. Dne sobota 5. prosince 2020 15:52:59 CET, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:39 AM Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board?
I've worked in projects where the governance model has hard powers (explicit ability to direct) and soft powers (only ability to persuade). The openSUSE Board is pretty much in the latter camp. So from this angle, being a member of the Board is about leveraging "soft power" leadership: being a model contributor, working with others to support the community, and setting the tone for the community. Additionally, as we transition to independent ownership, we are going to have to restructure the governance so that the Board has additional explicit powers to manage the Foundation and support the Project in that capacity. What that looks like is unknown right now, but I feel that my perspective can help us figure that out.
DocB, Mark, simotek and Neal, do You have any particular idea how that foundation should look like? What are main advantages and risks of this transition?
Organizationally, the Foundation is going to need more explicit governance of the Project than what the Board does today, because the Foundation will be responsible for everything produced by the Project. We're going to need to grow organs that can market the Foundation and the Project to drive regular donations to support the community and the development of everything under the Foundation's aegis. We'll need to manage a real budget, too. These are things we do not have to do because we do not exist as a free-standing entity. Once we are, we need to be set up for success so that we don't collapse within a year or two. And that underlies the very real risk around this effort: there may simply not be enough continual community support to *keep* the Foundation alive. Depending on the rules that we elect to impose on ourselves by where and how we incorporate the legal entity, we could be involuntarily dissolved due to lack of solvency. However, that risk can also be a potential advantage: with an independent legal entity able to accept donations and sponsorships, we can more actively pursue activities to get more resources to support activities in the project, such as getting POWER and RISC-V hardware to contributors with proven track records to help support the community port if they can't afford it themselves. The goal here is to supercharge the Project, and so everything we're doing here should be taken under that lens to determine how we structure this to best support that.
Here are very interesting and important points which will have to be opened one day. If we create some sort of Foundation, would we need some changes of role of the Board and/or governance model? -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
Hello again Vojtěch, I realized I missed one of your questions, I'm sorry it was not intentional :).
All of You, what do You think are main threats and challenges for our dear Project in near future?
I don't think we are in a place we should worry about "threats" however there are challenges :). Same as the other candidates have already said in different forms, as a community we can certainly do better at empathy and at not alienate our user base. I think that one thing that can be quite challenging is to keep a shared vision of our "dear Project" and not let personal egos get in the way. It is difficult for any open source community, and I am not pointing fingers. In general terms I think it happens that we forget that we have common goals and that we need to do whats best for the project to progress.
How to be prepared?
By thinking about it and discussing it as a community :) Cheers, -- Maurizio Galli (m4u9) Xfce Team https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Xfce
Dne sobota 5. prosince 2020 19:03:02 CET, Maurizio Galli napsal(a):
Hello again Vojtěch, I realized I missed one of your questions, I'm sorry it was not intentional :).
Of course I can't insist on anyone answering everything. :-)
All of You, what do You think are main threats and challenges for our dear Project in near future?
I don't think we are in a place we should worry about "threats" however there are challenges :). Same as the other candidates have already said in different forms, as a community we can certainly do better at empathy and at not alienate our user base. I think that one thing that can be quite challenging is to keep a shared vision of our "dear Project" and not let personal egos get in the way. It is difficult for any open source community, and I am not pointing fingers. In general terms I think it happens that we forget that we have common goals and that we need to do whats best for the project to progress.
How to be prepared?
By thinking about it and discussing it as a community :)
Thank You :-) -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
Hi On 12/4/20 2:09 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent. I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member? Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board? Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years? (BTW: Simotek's 2020 platform links to category "Board election 2018" while category "Board election 2020" linked from other platforms doesn't exist. I know it's wiki, but I'm not sure if only election committee is allowed to manage these things or so.:)
openSUSE board members have a 2 year term, I ran and was elected in last years election so this year I am not up for reelection, but will remain on the board until 2021, at which point I am required to have a break from running as I will have been on the board for close enough to 4 years. Vinz will also be on the board for another year before he is up for re election. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Dne neděle 6. prosince 2020 6:05:06 CET, Simon Lees napsal(a):
On 12/4/20 2:09 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent. I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member? Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board? Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years? (BTW: Simotek's 2020 platform links to category "Board election 2018" while category "Board election 2020" linked from other platforms doesn't exist. I know it's wiki, but I'm not sure if only election committee is allowed to manage these things or so.:)
openSUSE board members have a 2 year term, I ran and was elected in last years election so this year I am not up for reelection, but will remain on the board until 2021, at which point I am required to have a break from running as I will have been on the board for close enough to 4 years. Vinz will also be on the board for another year before he is up for re election.
I'm sorry, I got bit confused by seeing Your platform in the same category as the others, 2020 election [1]... No intention to harm. :-) [1] https://en.opensuse.org/Category:Board -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
On 12/7/20 8:57 PM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Dne neděle 6. prosince 2020 6:05:06 CET, Simon Lees napsal(a):
On 12/4/20 2:09 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Hello, dear candidates, I'd have few questions. :-) First of all, it's pleasure to see platforms of such a good candidates. Regardless results, I'm sure the updated Board will be excellent. I'd like to ask all of You (platforms [1-6]) for which of Your activities (read ways You help to improve the Project) do You need (or is highly helpful) to be Board member? I mean for which of Your targets, aims, goals, thoughts, agendas or objectives You need to be in Board, why is it necessary or helpful? Or asking from the opposite side, what of Your aims You can't do as any other community member? Second, how do You understand the sentence "The purpose of the openSUSE Board is to lead the overall project." ([7], bit longer version at [8]) regarding the "main tasks" listed there and lack of any sort of executive power? Which kind of leadership (or governance), if any, do You have in mind in association with our Board? Current members of the Board who would like to be re-elected (AFAIK simotek and DocB) I'd like to ask what are their major successes in the ending tenure. Regarding Your 2018 platforms [9-10], are there any aims, goals or thoughts You were planning, but for whatever reason rethink or failed? How did Your point of view developed in past 2 years? (BTW: Simotek's 2020 platform links to category "Board election 2018" while category "Board election 2020" linked from other platforms doesn't exist. I know it's wiki, but I'm not sure if only election committee is allowed to manage these things or so.:)
openSUSE board members have a 2 year term, I ran and was elected in last years election so this year I am not up for reelection, but will remain on the board until 2021, at which point I am required to have a break from running as I will have been on the board for close enough to 4 years. Vinz will also be on the board for another year before he is up for re election.
I'm sorry, I got bit confused by seeing Your platform in the same category as the others, 2020 election [1]... No intention to harm. :-)
All good I think we used 2020 last year because it was for election to the board for 2020-2021 rather then because it was the election happening in 2020 -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
participants (6)
-
Axel Braun -
Knurpht-openSUSE -
Maurizio Galli -
Neal Gompa -
Simon Lees -
Vojtěch Zeisek