I find it very interesting you took my observations as 'accusations'. After all, I feel my observations are easily justifiable.

Observations might be justifiable but sometimes the way and methods chosen are questionable.

In your platform, the "Why you shoud vote for me.." section ONLY states the No-Confidence Vote. There is no mention of the Foundation in that section at all.

This section is maybe incomplete, that is fair enough - therefore I now edited that part. I am now stating in it that you should also vote for me because of my goals. Somehow I thought that would only be logical... That mentioned "My Goals" section btw. puts up numerous other reasons why you should vote for me. Maybe you should also have a look at the goals of a candidate to make a reasonable decision whom you'd vote for.

The "Current Issues" section dedicates a large paragraph to the No- Confidence Vote. That paragraph calls the work of your potential teammates 'unncessary' and 'disgraceful'.

Please give me a cite where you read that out or rather read that into. That's exactly one of those points you'd call "justifiable observations" but in fact are nothing more but untrue and unprovable / unproven accusations. But, only to stress it out just in case my words made the impression I had only criticism for the current board and potential teammates to others as well: That's definitely not the case! There sure are things regarding their work that I have to criticise and that is what I have to focus on because those are the points that I see need improvement. That on the other hand does not implicate that they are only delivering "unnecessary or disgraceful" work. Words by the way you would not be able to find anywhere in my mails for good reasons.

In the same section you only provide a single sentance to the foundation. There are no details as how you'd support the topic or what you'd expect the foundation to look like.

And of your goals 3 of them are clearly related to your no-confidence motion, 1 is related to the foundation, and 1 is somewhat more generic.

Considering the above, I think it's very easy for any reasnoble reader to feel that your primary motivation for running is to re-hash the no- confidence vote and there is a significant lack of substance beyond that.

If the perception I got from that is incorrect, fine, then my first reply was a clear opportunity to clear up that misperception on my part.

I find it exceptionally telling that, once realising that we had a difference in opinion regarding the content of your platform, that the discussion has evolved the way it has.

A discussion consists of two parties. And regarding the point that I can't see much more than accusations from your side, it is really hard to still call it a real discussion where I'd be able not to be put into bad light by the way you formulate your questions and the way you do your "observations". Maybe we got each other on the wrong foot. I don't see that continuing this discussion on the current way it is, therefore I am open to anyone asking me further questions but for this thread I will leave it at that. @Richard: A proposal: please let's get in personal touch to maybe clear out at least some of our misunderstandings and difficulties we are seeming to have with this style of communication. Maybe another and more personal communication channel like a call is able to improve our mutual understanding.

I would have hoped a Board member would have taken the opportunity to look inward, and ask themselves how a voting Member like myself got such an impression.

I am a thoughtful and considerate person, at least thinking twice or rather more than twice about what I write and how I write it, always thinking about how the words might be received and understood by the reader. I am sorry if that failed you.

You have instead taken the route you have, even going so far to use rhetorical deflections to suggest that my words are more telling about my motives than yours.

I think it's important for you to realise, my motives don't matter.

I'm not the one running for the Board, I'm just a voter like several hundred others who's support you will need.

Who's support I need and highly appreciate indeed.

You are the one running for the Board, and I suspect this thread has done a good job of showing what sort of Board member you could be.

This again feels like having some negative connotation, but I agree on that point nonetheless - this thread shows quiet well that I stand up for my opinions and advocate what I think is best for all of us and stay respectful of other persons and their opinions and keep listening and answering. Therfore: my offer still holds, reach out to me for a personal call if you like, so we could avoid the difficulties we are having here as it seems. I promise you'll find it's easy to get on well with me. If you don't believe me, ask Gerald. :-) Additionally you will definitely find I am only a human being, making mistakes but you'll see, too, I am always happy to learn and improve myself through those mistakes and the honest criticism of those from whom I might be able to learn one thing or another.

I'd like to thank you for all the responses in this thread. I have found it very insightful and helpful in deciding where my vote will go.

Regards,

Kind regards Pierre -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Le 12/08/2020 à 17:35, Richard Brown a écrit : Hello, Richard :-) I read with care all what you wrote (including other threads). I agree with most of the content (thanks), but was a bit worried by the tone, bit harsh IMHO, but it may be due to my poor English :-(.

For example, my evaluation of an individuals attitude and character is a huge aspect I consider.

Yes, you are true. But in a virtual world where we live as openSUSE members (annual meetings are not likely to allow real friendship, even when my best memory is the dinner near openSUSE beer factory on first one - 2011). Knowing who is who is extremely difficult. I faced that often as membership team member, how can we know what is a membership candidate only with virtual evidence I noticed specially the following part:

I've seen far too many Board members of the Project say one thing and mean another. I've been deeply and personaly hurt by the deceptive actions of past Board members.

this is painful... board members where elected on the basis of what the members knows of them... I only want to give my vote to Board members I feel I can trust, and

trust can't come from only one post on a wiki page.

Discussions like this certainly help to paint a fully picture, and I appreciate that opportunity and the time you've given in replying so far.

yes, it's a good part and I thank you for having started this kind of discussion (with same questions from the two candidates), but I have to say I'm a bit concerned by the little valuable answer you received, given we have only two candidates and so obviously one of the two have to be a future board member. and on the same time, I asked me: "I could have been a candidate, and what could have I found to answer?". And I dunno. A large part of the board work is under the hood, for very good reasons, but then how can I know how I could give an answer, don't knowing the question?? I may see only one answer to such questioning: a two steps/level ballot. Just an example as support for a future foundation bylaws... We could have "regionaly" elected "super members", possibly elected on face to face meeting based on country (think of US Senators) - expecting local people to know better candidates to have seen them here and there. Then, second level, these regional super members could elect a board among them, hoping they can better know each others. by the way this could allow a better regional representation, I know for sure that we have many people in Asia (China, India...), but don't see them is the present the board (fact, no offense to be taken). You see how I try to work: when something get wrong, try to fix the problem, not to blame anybody but myself... not always successful, of course :-( thanks for your commitment jdd -- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

What possibly could be questionable about the 'way and method' chosen?

I read your platform and commented about the contents of it on the very mailinglist where discussions about elections are meant to take place.

What 'way and method' would you have preffered a contributor like me to have taken?

I can't remember that your "observations" were that aggressive and picky on other candidates this election or before - except for some rare occasions. But I will not continue that thought as I don't want to turn this into yet another point for discussion or argument. Take it as an "observation" I made. So what I had preferred is quiet easy and simple: a bit fairer treatment. I am always happy if someone is critical about what I say and does question it. What I am not happy and ok with is when somebody twists my every word or takes statements out of context constructing a complete different meaning from what I said and obviously meant originally. But that's only subjective and how I experience it, everyone is free to interpret the "observation style" differently. I don't want that to be received as an accusation as it only is how I feel about some of your questions. Just to stress that out.

That is good advice, but I can assure you I consider far more than just what a Board candidate says when deciding how I vote.

For example, my evaluation of an individuals attitude and character is a huge aspect I consider.

I've seen far too many Board members of the Project say one thing and mean another. I've been deeply and personaly hurt by the deceptive actions of past Board members.

I only want to give my vote to Board members I feel I can trust, and trust can't come from only one post on a wiki page.

Discussions like this certainly help to paint a fully picture, and I appreciate that opportunity and the time you've given in replying so far.

I am honestly sorry that you made so bad experiences with former board members and that you have been personally hurt. That should never happen, no matter how passionate a discussion becomes on opposing opinions. Helping others is one of my strong aspects of my character and attitude, so I am always happy when I am able to help. And if it does even help some others that's great - the more the better. I never had and never will have the wish to hurt anyone. If this happens accidentally - talk to me. I am always eager to learn from mistakes.

In your platform there is a clear reference reference to "The unnecessary and disgraceful retaliation against a former board member is not what I want to see from an elected institution..."

https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Ad_hoc_Board_election_2020_platform_crowbyt e

The actions you refer to in that sentance as "unnecessary and disgraceful" are actions taken by the whole Board after significant consideration and much effort by the very individuals you wish to call team mates. Hence my observation. There is nothing 'untrue', 'unprovable' or 'unproven'. You said those things. There is nothing accusatory in my obsevation. I don't even include my opinion on the actions.

You made that statement in your election platform about work done by the same individuals you wish to call teammates if you are elected.

That is a fact.

The fact you now seem to be suggesting that you never made such statements in your platform does somewhat undermine any effort you might be making here to establish my trust in you.

How is anyone meant to trust a Board member who publicly declares a contributors view to be "untrue" when its precisely based on exact statements made by that candidate in their election platform?

And it's a fact, too, that you took that out of context and therefore I am absolutely right with saying I never said that in general about the board. The cite you did of my words demonstrates that perfectly as my statement is referring to a specific action and not meant as a general judgement of the boards overall work.

I never said nor meant to imply that you declared _all_ of the work the Board does as unnecessary or disgraceful.

But the decisions you were referring to were most certainly _work_, of the very type of dispute resolution that is the _core responsibilty_ of the openSUSE Board.

And I am criticising those actions. I never generalized anything but referred to a specific event or action.

The public record on that is clear and has been shared in exhausting detail.

I do not challenge your right to declare that dispute resolution work done by the Board to be "unnecessary or disgraceful".

Actually, as you stigmatize it as an act of calling the work - no limitation made here in your mail and therefore a generalization of all work - of the board as "unnecessary or disgraceful". That is a perfect description for taking statements out of context.

I do feel however that if you're going to make such statements regarding any actions of other contributors to the Project, the least you should is having such a statement noted in a respectful manner as I did.

Furthermore I would expect that someone running so forcefully on their opinion of past decisions by the current Board would be sharing a more fleshed out vision of how they intend to build bridges with the people they wish to work with.

If you are elected I think you are going to need more than a self- declared "passion for openSUSE" to be able to establish a working rapport with the team you'll be joining.

I think Gerald has a good and well established idea of my passion for openSUSE as well as some decent insights into my ability to build bridges. Otherwise I don't think he had taken the risk to suggest me as a candidate after all. Especially not after me calling for a Non-Confidence Vote.

The purpose of posting your platform is to invite comment on it from potential voters.

Like the other candidate, I commented on the content of your platform and gave feedback on areas I felt were deficient and areas I had been hoping for more detail from the outset.

I am always open to constructive criticism. It helps me to grow and learn. Therefore I encourage everyone to bring those up.

I asked you the same questions I asked the other Candidate.

I do not think there is much ground to suggest I'm going out to cast you in a bad light.

You started this discussion on exactly the same foot as your competitor.

It started on the same food but ended much elsewhere. Anyhow, I always pointed out what aspects of the follow up questions I disliked. I will leave it at that, my offer holds, we can discuss that between us both to clear up misunderstandings that might have occurred. Continuing here will get us nowhere productive or constructive.

Unfortunately, events over the last years have taught me that individuals sometimes call for such a personal communication and then later misrepresent the contents of such private discussions in a public forum to further their own goals.

It's a technique I have seen used to my detriment on more than one occation.

While I have no substantive reason to suspect you might be wishing to act in such a way, I wish to avoid placing myself in such a compromisable position.

As said, my offer holds. Nonetheless I fully respect your decision not to talk in person because of bad experiences. I only want to add for consideration that I am in the same situation and would be in a comparable compromisable situation - maybe even more than you, as for me it had the potential to hurt my campaign, while you should have nothing to loose here. However, it was only an offer with good intent to "meet in person" to ease the communication and learn from each other by having the opportunity to clear our misunderstandings. And again, I fully respect if that is not what you desire.

Therefore I insist that any discussion we have on the topic of your potential election to the Board is conducted in this public manner so there is an unambiguous record of exactly what we both said to each other.

If you are not willing to continue talking to me in a public venue, I will respect your decision.

I do not see much grounds for a continued back and forth anyhow, especially if this email successed in clearing up any remaining confusion regarding my statements todate.

...

...

I would have hoped a Board member would have taken the opportunity to look inward, and ask themselves how a voting Member like myself got such an impression.

I am a thoughtful and considerate person, at least thinking twice or rather more than twice about what I write and how I write it, always thinking about how the words might be received and understood by the reader. I am sorry if that failed you.

I appreciate that sentiment, thank you.

You are welcome. As said and honestly felt: I only wish the best for all of us. Kind regards Pierre -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org