[opensuse-project] Should/could the guiding principles be more than just guiding?
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:37:56 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
But if there's no meaning to agreeing to those principles, then why have them?
To indicate intent and direction.
I agree this discussion is overall for another time and place.
But as food for thought for when that conversation does take place, consider that if someone isn't following that guidance, they're probably not (in some way) following that intent/direction, which would seem to me to be problematic.
There is room for quite a bit of debate here - take the topic that started this, the expulsion of an openSUSE member for violating the _guiding_ principles. That in itself is very problematic. Wrt time and place, now is as good as any and this list is quite appropriate, albeit in a new thread. Let me start with saying that I think the guiding principles are fine and I don't think they need changing. However, IMHO, they are not formulated in a way that makes it possible to expel someone for not following them. They are worded in terms of "We are ..., we want to ... , we value ...". That's perfectly fine for a set of "guiding principles", but doesn't even come close to e.g. a code of conduct. There is no need to discuss the current "case" any further, but I think we need to ask ourselves this - are the guiding principles really good/clear enough to form the base of someone being expelled? To me, they're guidance only and nowhere near clear enough to form the base of any kind of punitive action. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-3.7°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
You're not expelling someone from school, or sacking them from their job. It's simply 'you keep behaving like an ass, and we're fed up with it. Go find someone else to play with.' Why create a bureaucratic nightmare? When people start obsessing about the letter of the law, instead of the spirit, you end up with dogma. regards, Helen
are the guiding principles really good/clear enough to form the base of someone being expelled? To me, they're guidance only and nowhere near clear enough to form the base of any kind of punitive action.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 22 January 2011 11:06:42 Helen wrote:
You're not expelling someone from school, or sacking them from their job.
It's simply 'you keep behaving like an ass, and we're fed up with it. Go find someone else to play with.'
Why create a bureaucratic nightmare?
When people start obsessing about the letter of the law, instead of the spirit, you end up with dogma.
True. On the other hand, as the huge discussion about this action has shown, people are concerned with the openness of openSUSE. And that's something I see as a positive thing. See the discussion about a closed mailinglist for members. So, as the Foundation ml is public, join it if you have thoughts about this. Surely we first have to get some basics done but at some point we can move on to things like this. Should there be a force in openSUSE which can kick out poisonous contributors? What rules are needed for that force to follow? What kind of oversight do we have to set up? How public does it need to be? Should there be a closed mailinglist for members only? Should we require the members to not disclose anything on that list? How do we enforce that? What should be discussed there and what should be public? Again, if you want to discuss the points above, patience - we'll get there. Believe me, I have opinions on the questions above and I imho we need to make decisions on that before we finish the work on the Foundation. It's part of openSUSE growing up. And there is a place where we should discuss them - the foundation ML :D
regards,
Helen
are the guiding principles really good/clear enough to form the base of someone being expelled? To me, they're guidance only and nowhere near clear enough to form the base of any kind of punitive action.
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
Should there be a force in openSUSE which can kick out poisonous contributors? What rules are needed for that force to follow? What kind of oversight do we have to set up? How public does it need to be?
Being the umpire is a job for the board. Apart from Pascals long email and the silliness about not wanting to name the individual, I think the board did what was necessary in this case (I don't need to know the details). All we need to do now is put this in writing in <whatever describes the duties/powers of the board>.
Again, if you want to discuss the points above, patience - we'll get there. Believe me, I have opinions on the questions above and I imho we need to make decisions on that before we finish the work on the Foundation.
Hmm, I think they're actually separate, mostly independent topics. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-3.7°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Helen wrote:
You're not expelling someone from school, or sacking them from their job.
It's simply 'you keep behaving like an ass, and we're fed up with it. Go find someone else to play with.'
Why create a bureaucratic nightmare?
I completely agree, there is absolutely no need for that. However, without it we have to have an authority (the board for instance) empowered to e.g. kick somebody out. In the current situation, it appears the board took this upon themselves although it isn't actually in line with the guiding principles. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-3.7°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:37:29 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
are the guiding principles really good/clear enough to form the base of someone being expelled? To me, they're guidance only and nowhere near clear enough to form the base of any kind of punitive action.
Some perhaps moreso than others. For example, the statement: "We value respect for other persons and their contributions, for other opinions and beliefs. We listen to arguments and address problems in a constructive and open way. We believe that a diverse community based on mutual respect is the base for a creative and productive environment enabling the project to be truly successful. We don't tolerate social discrimination and aim at creating an environment where people feel accepted and safe from offense." Pretty clearly outlines a code of conduct to me. If I agree to the guiding principles, and then I start disparaging someone's contributions, opinions, or beliefs, then it would be very hypocritical of me to say I agree with the guiding principles. I think most of the principles (particularly under "we value") could be similarly viewed. Now if someone's agreed to those principles and then shows a complete lack of respect for other persons and their contributions, opinions, and/ or beliefs, it seems to me that that person isn't really a good fit into the membership, and they could (a) give up their membership voluntarily, or (b) if it becomes excessive, have it revoked. After all, if we say these are the things we value, but we don't do something about someone who *repeatedly* and egregiously violates those things we value, what does it say to the world if we just ignore it? It says that we don't really value it. If we place a value on something, and we want that something to mean something, we have to do something when someone consistently shows that even though they've agreed to it that they don't really mean it. I'm not suggesting that someone sit and watch for individual "violations" - but if there's a trend in a member's behaviour that's inconsistent with the spirit of the guiding principles, then we have to at least ask ourselves if that person really belongs here - and at most, ask the person to leave - which would be the board's responsibility to do, as elected representatives of the membership who, under the governance section of the principles, are charged with conflict resolution and making decisions. Bottom line: Actions speak louder than words. If we have a set of principles that we say we value, but we do nothing when someone repeatedly violates those principles, then what we're telling the world is that we really don't value those things after all. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:37:29 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
are the guiding principles really good/clear enough to form the base of someone being expelled? To me, they're guidance only and nowhere near clear enough to form the base of any kind of punitive action.
Some perhaps moreso than others.
For example, the statement:
"We value respect for other persons and their contributions, for other opinions and beliefs. We listen to arguments and address problems in a constructive and open way. We believe that a diverse community based on mutual respect is the base for a creative and productive environment enabling the project to be truly successful. We don't tolerate social discrimination and aim at creating an environment where people feel accepted and safe from offense."
Pretty clearly outlines a code of conduct to me. If I agree to the guiding principles, and then I start disparaging someone's contributions, opinions, or beliefs, then it would be very hypocritical of me to say I agree with the guiding principles.
I think most of the principles (particularly under "we value") could be similarly viewed.
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO. I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..." Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers. I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-1.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Per Jessen <per@opensuse.org> wrote:
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:37:29 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
are the guiding principles really good/clear enough to form the base of someone being expelled? To me, they're guidance only and nowhere near clear enough to form the base of any kind of punitive action.
Some perhaps moreso than others.
For example, the statement:
"We value respect for other persons and their contributions, for other opinions and beliefs. We listen to arguments and address problems in a constructive and open way. We believe that a diverse community based on mutual respect is the base for a creative and productive environment enabling the project to be truly successful. We don't tolerate social discrimination and aim at creating an environment where people feel accepted and safe from offense."
Pretty clearly outlines a code of conduct to me. If I agree to the guiding principles, and then I start disparaging someone's contributions, opinions, or beliefs, then it would be very hypocritical of me to say I agree with the guiding principles.
I think most of the principles (particularly under "we value") could be similarly viewed.
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO.
I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..."
Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers.
I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive.
I haven't been following this thread, but remember: about 15,000 people have opensuse user accounts about 5,000 of those have agreed to the guiding principles only 500 of those are members So you might want the members to say they explicitly agree .... But I don't think it is appropriate to change the guiding principles themselves. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> [01-24-11 14:55]:
I haven't been following this thread, but remember:
about 15,000 people have opensuse user accounts
about 5,000 of those have agreed to the guiding principles
only 500 of those are members
So you might want the members to say they explicitly agree ....
My point: agreement *is* explicit or there is no agreement :^)
But I don't think it is appropriate to change the guiding principles themselves.
I don't suggest this. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Per Jessen <per@opensuse.org> [01-24-11 14:33]:
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO.
I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..."
Ahhhh. Agreeing to the "Guiding Principles" is not "explicit"? Agreeing is "Agreeing", there is no splitting hairs here!
Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers.
The does not need "arbitrary" powers, but *must* be empowered to enforce the standards/principles we attribute, lacking some other entity which to my knowledge has not been formed. Until the formation of *that* entity, the board is the only enabled/empowered agent/umpire we have.
I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive.
Without the existence of an "empowered" agent, we, openSUSE, are only words, ie: Guiding Principles. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Per Jessen <per@opensuse.org> [01-24-11 14:33]:
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO.
I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..."
Ahhhh. Agreeing to the "Guiding Principles" is not "explicit"? Agreeing is "Agreeing", there is no splitting hairs here!
Haha, I'm sure you realise the wording would have to change too.
Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers.
The does not need "arbitrary" powers, but *must* be empowered to enforce the standards/principles we attribute, lacking some other entity which to my knowledge has not been formed. Until the formation of *that* entity, the board is the only enabled/empowered agent/umpire we have.
But they clearly don't even themselves think so. Look at Pascals loooong email about the expulsion. Had the board felt empowered and in charge, the two lines I suggested would have sufficed.
I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive.
Without the existence of an "empowered" agent, we, openSUSE, are only words, ie: Guiding Principles.
And that is status quo. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:32:53 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
I think most of the principles (particularly under "we value") could be similarly viewed.
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO.
I don't entirely disagree. However, they are (and should be) enough to support punitive action if it is taken - which of course is different than what you've said above.
I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..."
Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers.
I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive.
I'm happy with #2 so long as it's understood that that's the case. I do have a fundamental problem with electing a board that isn't trusted. Personally, I trust the board, so I'm fine with it myself. Indeed, that's why I've not had a lot to say about the actions taken, because I believe the board is there to do what's in the best interests of the project, and I trust them to do that. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 24/01/2011 22:40, Jim Henderson a écrit :
of the project, and I trust them to do that.
problem is that we know little of everybody around here... we are trusting shadows... jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:32:09 +0100, jdd wrote:
Le 24/01/2011 22:40, Jim Henderson a écrit :
of the project, and I trust them to do that.
problem is that we know little of everybody around here... we are trusting shadows...
I'm happy to trust until I feel the trust has been violated. I think it's a fair assumption that those who are on the board are looking out for the project, and if they aren't, they won't be re-elected. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:32:53 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
I think most of the principles (particularly under "we value") could be similarly viewed.
Perhaps, but that's not enough to form a base for punitive action, IMHO.
I don't entirely disagree. However, they are (and should be) enough to support punitive action if it is taken - which of course is different than what you've said above.
I see two ways out - we rephrase or amend the guiding principles and include something like: "As a member, you explicitly agree to ..."
Or we empower the board to act as umpire with arbitrary powers.
I don't mind either one, but I do appreciate that not everyone might see option #2 as very attractive.
I'm happy with #2 so long as it's understood that that's the case.
I do have a fundamental problem with electing a board that isn't trusted. Personally, I trust the board, so I'm fine with it myself.
I think part of the issue might be that the board is not exactly very public. It's due to the nature of the project, but when most communication happens via irc, email, fora etc, trust doesn't come easy. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011, à 08:06 +0100, Per Jessen a écrit :
I think part of the issue might be that the board is not exactly very public. It's due to the nature of the project, but when most communication happens via irc, email, fora etc, trust doesn't come easy.
Can you clarify what you mean with "is not exactly very public"? The board has been doing efforts to be public, by opening its irc meetings to everyone, writing blog posts, and being available on the mailing lists (and at events). More could certainly be done, but that's certainly a good start, I'd say. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011, à 08:06 +0100, Per Jessen a écrit :
I think part of the issue might be that the board is not exactly very public. It's due to the nature of the project, but when most communication happens via irc, email, fora etc, trust doesn't come easy.
Can you clarify what you mean with "is not exactly very public"? The board has been doing efforts to be public, by opening its irc meetings to everyone, writing blog posts, and being available on the mailing lists (and at events).
I wasn't complaining, just stating fact - you can't be very public to people with whom you only communicate over email, irc etc. Like jdd said, it's like trusting shadows. I doubt if much can be done about it, but it doesn't wrt building trust. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
I wasn't complaining, just stating fact - you can't be very public to people with whom you only communicate over email, irc etc. Like jdd said, it's like trusting shadows. I doubt if much can be done about it, but it doesn't wrt building trust.
... but it doesn't help wrt building trust. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (2.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 26/01/2011 10:18, Per Jessen a écrit :
I wasn't complaining, just stating fact - you can't be very public to people with whom you only communicate over email, irc etc. Like jdd said, it's like trusting shadows. I doubt if much can be done about it, but it doesn't wrt building trust.
trust can only come with time. Meeting sometime pysically, working with the same person for a long time. For exemple I'm like I know Pascal for a long time :-), I only met Vincent for a couple of minutes, but we will make better next time :-)) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:06:55 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
I do have a fundamental problem with electing a board that isn't trusted. Personally, I trust the board, so I'm fine with it myself.
I think part of the issue might be that the board is not exactly very public. It's due to the nature of the project, but when most communication happens via irc, email, fora etc, trust doesn't come easy.
I would personally disagree, but I do understand my view isn't the only valid view on this topic. Some people prefer to trust first unless/until the trust is violated, other people want to trust once trust is proven. That said, I have recently read an awful lot about granting trust in business environments (and even though this is an OSS project, I think the business principles still apply). I don't see any reason not to trust the board to do what's in the best interests of the project; since OSS is a meritocracy, those who are elected to board positions have generally earned (through merits of participating in the project) the respect of the larger portion of the community. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
participants (8)
-
Greg Freemyer -
Helen -
jdd -
Jim Henderson -
Jos Poortvliet -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Vincent Untz