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

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 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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