[opensuse-project] openSUSE Guiding Principles - 2nd draft
Hi, Here is the next version of the guiding principles, the 2nd draft. Cornelius fixed some bugs and changed other stuff from your feedback. I guess it makes sense to start a new thread, the old one is at http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2007-05/msg00208.html If this is new for you, i suggest to read also the old thread. It's also available on the wiki: http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles Let's discuss the new version ... -- with kind regards, Martin Lasarsch, Core Services SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) martin.lasarsch@suse.de - http://www.opensuse.org
Martin Lasarsch wrote:
Hi,
Here is the next version of the guiding principles, the 2nd draft. Cornelius fixed some bugs and changed other stuff from your feedback.
I guess it makes sense to start a new thread, the old one is at http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2007-05/msg00208.html If this is new for you, i suggest to read also the old thread.
It's also available on the wiki: http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
Let's discuss the new version ...
We are... * the openSUSE community (this must come first!!!!!) (....) "integrate, polish, document, distribute, maintain and support the world's best Linux..." add "what we think is" (the world's best...) the original statement is excessively arrogant. I beg most distrib devs tink the same of they very own distro... the same assertion in the other parts don't have to change, they are not so direct their indiviudal goals (typo) the problem is that the only really important passage is: "Novell maintains and releases the openSUSE distribution" I think a hudge thinking should happen in Novell's side, understanding than no single sponsored system can be seen as independant (and can be). so the sentence should be written: "At present time, Novell maintains and releases the openSUSE distribution. The openSUSE community, including Novell, is seeking for other sponsors, able to give it more independance and survival garanty" and big companies (Novells partners, IBM, HP...) should be contacted, asking for help. This help could be done, for example, providing some devs, some server space and rewarded by a seat in an extended board. This could be a nearly free option for these companies (simply sligthly change some of they devs objectives, the ones that already work for Linux) think at the problems the new GPL3 will create with Novell/microsoft agreement. If Novell was _not_ the only openSUSE support, the problem would be definitively minor. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Thumbs up! El mié, 04-07-2007 a las 20:56 +0200, jdd escribió:
Martin Lasarsch wrote:
Hi,
Here is the next version of the guiding principles, the 2nd draft. Cornelius fixed some bugs and changed other stuff from your feedback.
I guess it makes sense to start a new thread, the old one is at http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2007-05/msg00208.html If this is new for you, i suggest to read also the old thread.
It's also available on the wiki: http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
Let's discuss the new version ...
We are...
* the openSUSE community (this must come first!!!!!) (....)
"integrate, polish, document, distribute, maintain and support the world's best Linux..."
add "what we think is" (the world's best...) the original statement is excessively arrogant. I beg most distrib devs tink the same of they very own distro... the same assertion in the other parts don't have to change, they are not so direct
their indiviudal goals (typo)
the problem is that the only really important passage is:
"Novell maintains and releases the openSUSE distribution"
I think a hudge thinking should happen in Novell's side, understanding than no single sponsored system can be seen as independant (and can be).
so the sentence should be written:
"At present time, Novell maintains and releases the openSUSE distribution. The openSUSE community, including Novell, is seeking for other sponsors, able to give it more independance and survival garanty"
and big companies (Novells partners, IBM, HP...) should be contacted, asking for help. This help could be done, for example, providing some devs, some server space and rewarded by a seat in an extended board. This could be a nearly free option for these companies (simply sligthly change some of they devs objectives, the ones that already work for Linux)
think at the problems the new GPL3 will create with Novell/microsoft agreement. If Novell was _not_ the only openSUSE support, the problem would be definitively minor.
jdd
-- HORARIO: Lunes a Viernes (09:30 a 13:30 h. y 15:00 a 17:00 h.) Gustavo Zapico NETAVANZA Nena Casas 42, Bajo 1 08017 Barcelona Tel: [+34] 93 205 13 63 Web: http://www.netavanza.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 04 July 2007 11:26, Martin Lasarsch wrote:
Hi,
Here is the next version of the guiding principles, the 2nd draft. Cornelius fixed some bugs and changed other stuff from your feedback.
I guess it makes sense to start a new thread, the old one is at http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2007-05/msg00208.html If this is new for you, i suggest to read also the old thread.
It's also available on the wiki: http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
Let's discuss the new version ...
# This is mostly text compression with the same meaning. This document is addressing the openSUSE community and the occasional visitors of this site, providing documentation of the common understanding how the project works and describes the project guiding principles. [Alt#1:This document describes the guiding principles which drive the openSUSE project. It is addressing the openSUSE community and outside world providing documentation of the common understanding how the project works.] [Alt#2:This document describes the guiding principles which drive the openSUSE project. It provides documentation of the common understanding how the project works for the openSUSE community and the outside world.] # In both alternatives "outside world" sounds strange. openSUSE Guiding Principles (short version) =========================================== We are the community that: - provides easy access to the Free and Open Source Software. - innovate, integrate, polish, document, distribute, maintain and support one of the world's best Linux distributions. - is working together in an open, transparent and friendly manner as part of the worldwide Free and Open Source community. We value: - our users - others and their work. - freedom and openess in software, development, standards and choice, We want to: - create the world's best Linux distribution - make users happy - foster innovation - be open and work transparently - work together with other projects - collaborate with other communities - have a lot of fun! ... Governance ---------- The board of maintainers is created to lead the project and has the following tasks: ... # The statement about initial board creation can be dropped from Guiding Principles as a permanent document. -- Regards, Rajko. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Den Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:26:35 skrev Martin Lasarsch:
Let's discuss the new version ...
Do we really need both a short and a long version? The long version is not that long.
"We value... - free software..."
Perhaps use "software freedom" here to avoid the common confusion a lot of people have about free as in freedom vs. free as in free beer.
"We value..... the ideals of free software: the freedoms to use, share, modify and share modified versions."
The freedom to study how a program works and what it does is forgotten here - of course it's somewhat implicit that you cannot modify without also having the freedom to study, but still I'd like to see it added for clarity and the principle. I'd like it to be clearer what the board can and cannot decide. It says the chairman has veto-power, I guess that means he can *reject* proposals. How about in a situation where, say, someone proposes to include some pre-alpha package management system late in development phase. Would the chairman's veto-power empower him to *force* proposals through? What kind of transparency would there be for the board? Say, it's decided to include some extremely harmful pre-alpha package management system late in development phase, would it be public who voted for and against on the board? Or perhaps just the numbers (3 yays, 2 nays, for example) Perhaps we could add something like: "The board decides on the general direction of the project/distro. But not on day to day technical decisions."
Novell appoints the initial members of the board with participation of the community.
This is of course the very tricky part. It would be nice if a procedure could be specified. And does "initial" mean that Novell won't appoint the next board? For how long are board members elected anyway? 2 years? 5 years? Perhaps a few substitutes should be appointed initially also - so we don't have strange decisions in case someone is hit by a bus and needs to be replaced. Generally it's looking very good. And I think it's a very good initiative. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Martin Schlander wrote:
Den Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:26:35 skrev Martin Lasarsch:
Let's discuss the new version ...
Do we really need both a short and a long version? The long version is not that long.
"We value... - free software..."
notice that sometime translation can be easy. Richard (Stalmann) begins always his french show by "Le logiciel libre s'explique en trois mots: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" these three words are the french motto, so this is prone to be applauded each time :-))) (in english: Free software define itself by three words: Freedom, equality, fraternity) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hello, (sorry for my late answer - and feel free to visit the events that have "stolen" my time in the last days, see .sig for details) on Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007, Martin Schlander wrote:
Den Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:26:35 skrev Martin Lasarsch:
Let's discuss the new version ...
Do we really need both a short and a long version? The long version is not that long.
In comparison, it is. I'm afraid that the long version won't be read by much people, so we have the choice of "read short version" and "don't read it". I like the short version more ;-) Two minor issues: We want to... ... live the SUSE motto at work and leisure: "Have a lot of fun ...". IMHO, there shouldn't be a dot at the end of the line. We value... ... quality by striving [...] providing thorough solutions to problems "thorough" looks like a typo... BTW: Did anyone notice what apokryphos has added on the discussion page? Mainly typos and minor text changes, but they should be fixed.
"We value... - free software..."
Perhaps use "software freedom" here to avoid the common confusion a lot of people have about free as in freedom vs. free as in free beer.
"free software" is the wording which is usually used. I'm afraid that people are more confused if you invent a new term. OK, now to the board.
I'd like it to be clearer what the board can and cannot decide.
It says the chairman has veto-power, I guess that means he can *reject* proposals. How about in a situation where, say, someone proposes to include some pre-alpha package management system late in development phase. Would the chairman's veto-power empower him to *force* proposals through?
"with veto power over any decision" probably means he can override any _decision_, which could also mean to force proposals through. I understand that the chairperson should have some veto power, but I'd like to soften it so that he can't become a "dictator" ;-) Proposal: At least one of the other board members needs to agree with the veto.
What kind of transparency would there be for the board?
Say, it's decided to include some extremely harmful pre-alpha package management system late in development phase, would it be public who voted for and against on the board? Or perhaps just the numbers (3 yays, 2 nays, for example)
Good question. Public votes have the advantage that you know who you need to call names, but they also have the disadvantage that everybody will call a specific board member names in case of problematic decisions... I'm not sure what is better here. (In other words: I prefer public votes unless I'm elected as a board member ;-)) Opinions? BTW: How do the boards of other open source projects handle this?
Perhaps we could add something like: "The board decides on the general direction of the project/distro. But not on day to day technical decisions."
Hmm, the existing text more or less contains this information ("shouldn't direct or control development"). Do you think this is unclear?
Novell appoints the initial members of the board with participation of the community.
This is of course the very tricky part. It would be nice if a procedure could be specified. And does "initial" mean that Novell won't appoint the next board? For how long are board members elected anyway? 2 years? 5 years?
Yes, this should be clarified. IMHO the board members should be elected for max. 2 years, maybe 1 year is better. Or do something between: elect half the board every year, so that people stay there for 2 years, but some new people can come in every year.
Perhaps a few substitutes should be appointed initially also - so we don't have strange decisions in case someone is hit by a bus and needs to be replaced.
I hope that we never need a substitute for such a reasen ;-) but we can still have some. Related question: Should the substitutes only become active if someone is permanently unavailable or also if he is on vacation for some days/weeks? Another question: With 5 persons in the board, we have probably "only" 2 persons from outside Novell in the board. Do we need more? [1] I know this is also a controversial question: with more persons, you get more ideas and knownledge in - but you also make discussions and decisions slower if everybody has a differrent opinion. Opinions?
Generally it's looking very good. And I think it's a very good initiative.
ACK. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] based on the weak feedback here, there are two possibilities a) there aren't many people interested in the guidlines and/or the board, so we won't find more than two anyways b) the proposed guidelines are accepted as is by nearly everybody, so no feedback is needed ;-)) -- 1225 Jahre Insheim - wir feiern weiter: - 14.-15.7.2007 Boxenluder-Party und Seifenkisten-Rennen - 21.-22.7.2007 24-Stunden-Grillen Infos: www.Landjugend-Insheim.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:19:55PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
Public votes have the advantage that you know who you need to call names, but they also have the disadvantage that everybody will call a specific board member names in case of problematic decisions...
I'm not sure what is better here. (In other words: I prefer public votes unless I'm elected as a board member ;-))
Opinions? BTW: How do the boards of other open source projects handle this?
If you need to do a significant amount of your decisions in such a project based on voting instead of getting consensus without voting then your project is practically dead anyway. Thus I don't understand why this is such an issue. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
On Friday 13 July 2007 05:08, Robert Schiele wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:19:55PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
Public votes have the advantage that you know who you need to call names, but they also have the disadvantage that everybody will call a specific board member names in case of problematic decisions...
I'm not sure what is better here. (In other words: I prefer public votes unless I'm elected as a board member ;-))
Opinions? BTW: How do the boards of other open source projects handle this?
If you need to do a significant amount of your decisions in such a project based on voting instead of getting consensus without voting then your project is practically dead anyway. Thus I don't understand why this is such an issue.
Yes, I don't expect that the board will take many decisions. The dynamics of an open source project don't need that. It's certainly better for example to take decisions by consensus or by letting those decide who do the actual work. Robert is completely right. If board decisions shouldn't be an issue otherwise we have much bigger problems. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi, On Thursday 12 July 2007 23:19, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
--snip--
OK, now to the board.
I'd like it to be clearer what the board can and cannot decide.
It says the chairman has veto-power, I guess that means he can *reject* proposals. How about in a situation where, say, someone proposes to include some pre-alpha package management system late in development phase. Would the chairman's veto-power empower him to *force* proposals through?
"with veto power over any decision" probably means he can override any _decision_, which could also mean to force proposals through.
I understand that the chairperson should have some veto power, but I'd like to soften it so that he can't become a "dictator" ;-) Proposal: At least one of the other board members needs to agree with the veto.
The chairman with veto power is a kind of fuse for Novell to avoid that somehow the project goes into totally different ways than Novell is interested in. But no one can be interested that the chairman becomes a kind of dictator or uses his power to often. If that's the case the community will run away anyway. And this is well understood by Novell as well. Michael
What kind of transparency would there be for the board?
Say, it's decided to include some extremely harmful pre-alpha package management system late in development phase, would it be public who voted for and against on the board? Or perhaps just the numbers (3 yays, 2 nays, for example)
Good question.
Public votes have the advantage that you know who you need to call names, but they also have the disadvantage that everybody will call a specific board member names in case of problematic decisions...
I'm not sure what is better here. (In other words: I prefer public votes unless I'm elected as a board member ;-))
Opinions? BTW: How do the boards of other open source projects handle this?
Perhaps we could add something like: "The board decides on the general direction of the project/distro. But not on day to day technical decisions."
Hmm, the existing text more or less contains this information ("shouldn't direct or control development"). Do you think this is unclear?
Novell appoints the initial members of the board with participation of the community.
This is of course the very tricky part. It would be nice if a procedure could be specified. And does "initial" mean that Novell won't appoint the next board? For how long are board members elected anyway? 2 years? 5 years?
Yes, this should be clarified.
IMHO the board members should be elected for max. 2 years, maybe 1 year is better. Or do something between: elect half the board every year, so that people stay there for 2 years, but some new people can come in every year.
Perhaps a few substitutes should be appointed initially also - so we don't have strange decisions in case someone is hit by a bus and needs to be replaced.
I hope that we never need a substitute for such a reasen ;-) but we can still have some. Related question: Should the substitutes only become active if someone is permanently unavailable or also if he is on vacation for some days/weeks?
Another question: With 5 persons in the board, we have probably "only" 2 persons from outside Novell in the board. Do we need more? [1]
I know this is also a controversial question: with more persons, you get more ideas and knownledge in - but you also make discussions and decisions slower if everybody has a differrent opinion.
Opinions?
Generally it's looking very good. And I think it's a very good initiative.
ACK.
Regards,
Christian Boltz
[1] based on the weak feedback here, there are two possibilities a) there aren't many people interested in the guidlines and/or the board, so we won't find more than two anyways b) the proposed guidelines are accepted as is by nearly everybody, so no feedback is needed ;-))
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nuremberg SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 7/13/07, Michael Loeffler <michl@novell.com> wrote:
The chairman with veto power is a kind of fuse for Novell to avoid that somehow the project goes into totally different ways than Novell is interested in. But no one can be interested that the chairman becomes a kind of dictator or uses his power to often. If that's the case the community will run away anyway. And this is well understood by Novell as well.
This is pretty understandable. Vetos by their nature are not exercised much, so it sounds good to me. The only thing I was wondering was the reasoning behind having 3 Novell employees on the board instead of 2 (similar to Fedora). I'm not really against it at all, just interested here. 2nd draft looks good to me =) Kind thoughts, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 13 July 2007 12:27, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On 7/13/07, Michael Loeffler <michl@novell.com> wrote:
The chairman with veto power is a kind of fuse for Novell to avoid that somehow the project goes into totally different ways than Novell is interested in. But no one can be interested that the chairman becomes a kind of dictator or uses his power to often. If that's the case the community will run away anyway. And this is well understood by Novell as well.
This is pretty understandable. Vetos by their nature are not exercised much, so it sounds good to me. The only thing I was wondering was the reasoning behind having 3 Novell employees on the board instead of 2 (similar to Fedora). Fedora has 5 Red Hats and 4 community members [There are nine Board members: five Red Hat members and four Fedora community members. ] see also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board#head-862e63c892c7b803665086ee3d023db42f6...
So our Board is one step to open up the project to the community and give a kind of offical way for community influence outside of Novell. Michael
I'm not really against it at all, just interested here.
2nd draft looks good to me =)
Kind thoughts,
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management Email: michael.loeffler@suse.de Phone: +49 911 74053-376 SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg SUSE® Linux Enterprise 10 Your Linux is ready http://www.novell.com/linux SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 12 July 2007 23:19, Christian Boltz wrote:
BTW: Did anyone notice what apokryphos has added on the discussion page? Mainly typos and minor text changes, but they should be fixed.
Yes, they are already reflected in the second draft. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hello all, I would like to say that these guiding principles are a well written and enlightened document. BRAVO one suggestion. change- We want to... - create the world's best Linux distribution to- We want to... - maintain the world's best Linux distribution The change in wording exudes more pride ;) A position this team has a right to claim! as for the lack of feedback... I have been running the EDU project here for a while now and although many people have expressed an interest and even adopted it as a pet project, not so many have taken on any real leadership roles. There is an old adage that says "for every person who complains about you 100 agree with them, for every person that speaks well of you 1000 sit silently" It's odd that human nature makes us more worried about the 100 then we are proud of the 1000. -- James Tremblay Director of Technology Newmarket School District Newmarket,NH http://en.opensuse.org/Education "let's make a difference" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Christian Boltz wrote:
(sorry for my late answer
Heh, I managed to beat that. :-(
Public votes have the advantage that you know who you need to call names, but they also have the disadvantage that everybody will call a specific board member names in case of problematic decisions...
I'm not sure what is better here. (In other words: I prefer public votes unless I'm elected as a board member ;-))
Opinions? BTW: How do the boards of other open source projects handle this?
I think you'll find the whole range. The FreeBSD core and portmgr teams, for example, have private discussions but minutes that are posted to all FreeBSD committers including the voting behavior of the core and portmgr members. Core is elected every two years. GCC has a steering committee which serves as the primary interface between the FSF (RMS mostly) and the technical GCC leads and operates behind closed doors. Membership is pretty much frozen, but the idea there is to realy have as much as possible in terms of discussions and decisions on the public lists. Cornelius probably is the best person to provide some insights into KDE. Most Open Source or Free Software projects don't have a board, though, it seems the formation of a board is usually a matter of age or size or a combination thereof. Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer E gp@novell.com SUSE Linux Products GmbH Director Inbound Product Mgmt T +49(911)74053-0 HRB 16746 (AG Nuremberg) openSUSE/SUSE Linux Enterprise F +49(911)74053-483 GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 14:09, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Cornelius probably is the best person to provide some insights into KDE.
The KDE e.V. mostly does representation and support of the project. Development decisions are taken by the community in the open. That leaves mostly administrative stuff to the board of the e.V. The board-internal decision making process is private, results are published to the members and in most cases also to the general public. Individual board votes are not public, but as decisions are almost always taken unanimously this doesn't really matter. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
participants (12)
-
Christian Boltz -
Cornelius Schumacher -
Francis Giannaros -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Gustavo Zapico ＠ NETAVANZA -
James Tremblay -
jdd -
Martin Lasarsch -
Martin Schlander -
Michael Loeffler -
Rajko M. -
Robert Schiele