RE: Rebranding of the Project
(speaking as a board member.....) Richard, to "rescind" requires prior agreement. So you agreed. That board meeting lasted 2 days (crazy, I know). You presented to us on the first day. We discussed your presentation last, from memory - the next day, and voted on it. So it wasn't after the meeting after all. We reached out to you and informed you of the vote, and your response was: "Ok, I'll try not to take it personally. :)" No objection. You could have raised it as an issue with us then and there, but you didn't. You could have convinced us, but you didn't. Therefore, we thought that the matter was dealt with. Then you started accusing the board of "censorship", when there was no such thinking on the boards decision. - Were you able to give your presentation? (yes) - Did the board alter any content that was not part of the your original presentation? I know that we didn't. Things might have been changed by Robert - but that's on him (and SUSE, as he was speaking on their behalf), not the board. My recollection of events was that we just figured that it was better to clearly contrast a community opinion - yours - with SUSE's, originally was to be Andy Fitzsimon's presentation. Andy is not part of the community, and also couldn't make it. We saw Robert as a great substitution to achieve that aim. The best way to fix this whole issue would have been to raise it with us at the time, not say "ok" with a smiley emoji. Or even at the face to face with the board at the last session - but you weren't there either. BUT, we do agree that the priority should be on re-branding. Everything else will follow. So lets focus on that! /p (As for the heated discussion at the conference, I stand by every word.) -----Original message----- From: Richard Brown <rbrown@suse.de> Sent: Monday 8th July 2024 10:29 To: project@lists.opensuse.org Subject: Re: Rebranding of the Project On 2024-07-08 09:21, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
In regard to Richards proposal, I think that this is not a major priority and should be addressed down the line.
When presented the idea at the board meeting prior to the conference, I mentioned that to him and he agreed.
Since that meeting, the Board intervened and forcefully changed who was allowed to present the topic at oSC on behalf of SUSE. This was an act that I believe to be in contravention of the Board's own rules about directing contributors and grossly exceeded it's responsibility to "Community community interests to SUSE" This is at least the second time in recent memory where the Board had directly intervened and directed contributors - my previous example would be when the Board forced the continuation of "MicroOS Desktop KDE" after it was removed due to lack of maintainers after a year+ long deprecation period. I therefore want to make the following very clear: I rescind any agreement I may have had with your view that the governance issues are 'not a major priority' I currently hold no confidence in the current openSUSE Board and think it's absolutely essential the openSUSE project establishes a new governance model. Given the heated discussion we had at openSUSE Conference, I would have expected you to have implicitly understood that fact and not tried to make it sound like I supported your view that our governance problems are not a major priority. I had no intention to join this thread here, but your misrepresentation of my views had to be corrected. With all that said, I do believe the greater priority is the branding issue. SUSE's needs as the legal trademark holder cannot be ignored, whereas the openSUSE Board can be. So, both are important, but the Branding issue is the most urgent and pressing one that needs to be addressed. I think it might make sense to address it in the context of reworking our governance, it might not. But if we do not address our governance at the same time as the branding, it is something that needs to be resolved pretty quickly afterwards. -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
On 2024-07-08 16:49, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
No objection. You could have raised it as an issue with us then and there, but you didn't. You could have convinced us, but you didn't.
You voted to decide who would give the talk on behalf of SUSE. I consider this fact to be a dramatic overreach of your powers as a Board. The talk in question was originally intended to be given by Andy Fitzsimon When Andy could not attend, Andy requested I do the talk on behalf of SUSE, my employer. I had a separate talk, as a community member, where I was intended to share my views in a full length session. Given there was dramatic overlap between my community members views and SUSE's corporate request, it made sense to Andy and I to drop my talk and instead work it all into one presentation. As you confirm, the Board acted to replace the speaker of Andy's talk without consulting either Andy, or myself. As this was a result of a Board vote, I did not object, because there is no process to object to Board decisions. You voted, you decided, the decision was final. I informed my employer of your decision and did my duty and presented my community view in the curtailed timeslot that remained at the end of (now Robert's) presentation.
Then you started accusing the board of "censorship", when there was no such thinking on the boards decision.
- Were you able to give your presentation? (yes)
No, I was not able to give my presentation. I had lost my full length session that had been approved in the CFP and retained only a portion of the timeslot of Andy's (now Robert's) presentation
- Did the board alter any content that was not part of the your original presentation?
Not directly, but as I no longer had a full length session, my ability to communicate my total views as a community member were curtailed. I was willing to curtail that when I was pulling double-duty as an employee also representing SUSE, but the Board had no rights to meddle with who represented SUSE on stage.
I know that we didn't. Things might have been changed by Robert - but that's on him (and SUSE, as he was speaking on their behalf), not the board.
The only reason Robert was speaking on SUSE's behalf was because the Board installed him to do so. This was done without consultation with myself, nor Andy, the original speaker who's session we're discussing here.
My recollection of events was that we just figured that it was better to clearly contrast a community opinion - yours - with SUSE's, originally was to be Andy Fitzsimon's presentation. Andy is not part of the community, and also couldn't make it. We saw Robert as a great substitution to achieve that aim.
The fact that you (the Board) think you have the right to decide who represents SUSE without consulting either Andy or myself is the crux of the issue here.
The best way to fix this whole issue would have been to raise it with us at the time, not say "ok" with a smiley emoji. Or even at the face to face with the board at the last session - but you weren't there either.
Indeed, I left early after enjoying all of the remaining parts of the openSUSE conference I wished to enjoy. As I have stated, first in discussions with you at the Conference and now on this list, I currently hold no confidence in the openSUSE Board. I cannot expect how you expect contributors who hold no confidence in the Board to want to engage with the Board.
BUT, we do agree that the priority should be on re-branding. Everything else will follow. So lets focus on that!
(As for the heated discussion at the conference, I stand by every word.)
As do I, though obviously I am doing a lousy job of following through with my intention to avoid the openSUSE Board entirely. I would have appreciated it if you didn't misrepresent my views to support your point of view or else this entire matter could have remained more discreet. -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
On Monday, July 8, 2024 8:16:49 AM PDT Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-07-08 16:49, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
No objection. You could have raised it as an issue with us then and there, but you didn't. You could have convinced us, but you didn't.
You voted to decide who would give the talk on behalf of SUSE. I consider this fact to be a dramatic overreach of your powers as a Board.
The talk in question was originally intended to be given by Andy Fitzsimon When Andy could not attend, Andy requested I do the talk on behalf of SUSE, my employer.
I had a separate talk, as a community member, where I was intended to share my views in a full length session. Given there was dramatic overlap between my community members views and SUSE's corporate request, it made sense to Andy and I to drop my talk and instead work it all into one presentation.
As you confirm, the Board acted to replace the speaker of Andy's talk without consulting either Andy, or myself.
As this was a result of a Board vote, I did not object, because there is no process to object to Board decisions. You voted, you decided, the decision was final. I informed my employer of your decision and did my duty and presented my community view in the curtailed timeslot that remained at the end of (now Robert's) presentation.
Patrick, as you decided to make this an official statement, as a Board Member, I really feel like I have no choice but to respond here. So just to be clear, I am responding in this e-mail as a "Member of the openSUSE Board" I was unable to attend oSC this year, due to personal issues, so much of what happened there was happening 9 hours ahead of me. I don't actually know why the board was given a "presentation" of Richards talk in the first place, I assume as a courtesy. I was unable to attend that meeting, due having had a late flight the day before, and basically being tired and shagged out due to the personal issues, and that presentation having happened very early for me, localtime on 28-June. So I have no idea what was said in this meeting on 28-June, other than having had Richard helpfully send me a copy of his presentation before the conference for my review, and whatever was relayed to me, in the Board Meeting on 29- June. The way this was presented to *me* in the board meeting, to the best of my recollection, was that this had already been discussed with the principle's in question, and it had been agreed that Robert would present SUSE's side of things. I apologize for not digging a little more and really asking the question "Decided by whom?"
Then you started accusing the board of "censorship", when there was no such thinking on the boards decision.
- Were you able to give your presentation? (yes)
No, I was not able to give my presentation. I had lost my full length session that had been approved in the CFP and retained only a portion of the timeslot of Andy's (now Robert's) presentation
- Did the board alter any content that was not part of the your original presentation?
Not directly, but as I no longer had a full length session, my ability to communicate my total views as a community member were curtailed. I was willing to curtail that when I was pulling double-duty as an employee also representing SUSE, but the Board had no rights to meddle with who represented SUSE on stage.
I know that we didn't. Things might have been changed by Robert - but that's on him (and SUSE, as he was speaking on their behalf), not the board.
The only reason Robert was speaking on SUSE's behalf was because the Board installed him to do so. This was done without consultation with myself, nor Andy, the original speaker who's session we're discussing here.
My recollection of events was that we just figured that it was better to clearly contrast a community opinion - yours - with SUSE's, originally was to be Andy Fitzsimon's presentation. Andy is not part of the community, and also couldn't make it. We saw Robert as a great substitution to achieve that aim.
I take a lot of offense at this statement "Andy is not part of the community". It's dead wrong. I have no idea if Andy is actually holds an "openSUSE Membership" as a contributor, but if he was given a slot to speak at the "openSUSE Conference" that damn sure makes him a "Member of the Community" to me, regardless of who signs his paycheck. And as a board member, I reject this line of thinking, that the board can just decide who are, and aren't members of the community, absent extreme circumstance (and by extreme circumstance, I mean serious CoC violations, Legal Issues, etc.)
The fact that you (the Board) think you have the right to decide who represents SUSE without consulting either Andy or myself is the crux of the issue here.
The best way to fix this whole issue would have been to raise it with us at the time, not say "ok" with a smiley emoji. Or even at the face to face with the board at the last session - but you weren't there either.
Indeed, I left early after enjoying all of the remaining parts of the openSUSE conference I wished to enjoy. As I have stated, first in discussions with you at the Conference and now on this list, I currently hold no confidence in the openSUSE Board. I cannot expect how you expect contributors who hold no confidence in the Board to want to engage with the Board.
BUT, we do agree that the priority should be on re-branding. Everything else will follow. So lets focus on that!
(As for the heated discussion at the conference, I stand by every word.)
As do I, though obviously I am doing a lousy job of following through with my intention to avoid the openSUSE Board entirely. I would have appreciated it if you didn't misrepresent my views to support your point of view or else this entire matter could have remained more discreet.
I have no idea what the content of this heated discussion was, as I was unable to be there for it. But I also didn't get the "memo" that there *was* any heated discussion surrounding the issue, for the pre-conference (29-June) board meeting I was able to attend. The discussion that I was a party to, mostly made things sound like everybody was basically content (If not exactly happy) with the decision being made. I will conclude, by saying, that part of the reason I *did* run for the most recent board election (even though I wasn't successful, in that bid), and my reasons for accepting the appointment to the vacant position, is because I *haven't* been happy with the way things have been going over the past number of years with the project, from a governance perspective. And on this particular issue, I want to say that I probably fell down in my duty to the community to speak up louder, when this decision was made. That's on me, and I take accountability for that. I wasn't *happy* with the decision at the time, but the way the entire thing was presented to me, it was presented in a manner that made me believe this was just a change being made, and less a "The Board is deciding to step in" sort of thing. I will do better.
On 7/9/24 12:46 AM, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-07-08 16:49, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
No objection. You could have raised it as an issue with us then and there, but you didn't. You could have convinced us, but you didn't.
You voted to decide who would give the talk on behalf of SUSE. I consider this fact to be a dramatic overreach of your powers as a Board.
The talk in question was originally intended to be given by Andy Fitzsimon When Andy could not attend, Andy requested I do the talk on behalf of SUSE, my employer.
I had a separate talk, as a community member, where I was intended to share my views in a full length session. Given there was dramatic overlap between my community members views and SUSE's corporate request, it made sense to Andy and I to drop my talk and instead work it all into one presentation.
As you confirm, the Board acted to replace the speaker of Andy's talk without consulting either Andy, or myself.
As this was a result of a Board vote, I did not object, because there is no process to object to Board decisions. You voted, you decided, the decision was final. I informed my employer of your decision and did my duty and presented my community view in the curtailed timeslot that remained at the end of (now Robert's) presentation.
Then you started accusing the board of "censorship", when there was no such thinking on the boards decision.
- Were you able to give your presentation? (yes)
No, I was not able to give my presentation. I had lost my full length session that had been approved in the CFP and retained only a portion of the timeslot of Andy's (now Robert's) presentation
- Did the board alter any content that was not part of the your original presentation?
Not directly, but as I no longer had a full length session, my ability to communicate my total views as a community member were curtailed. I was willing to curtail that when I was pulling double-duty as an employee also representing SUSE, but the Board had no rights to meddle with who represented SUSE on stage.
I know that we didn't. Things might have been changed by Robert - but that's on him (and SUSE, as he was speaking on their behalf), not the board.
The only reason Robert was speaking on SUSE's behalf was because the Board installed him to do so. This was done without consultation with myself, nor Andy, the original speaker who's session we're discussing here.
My recollection of events was that we just figured that it was better to clearly contrast a community opinion - yours - with SUSE's, originally was to be Andy Fitzsimon's presentation. Andy is not part of the community, and also couldn't make it. We saw Robert as a great substitution to achieve that aim.
The fact that you (the Board) think you have the right to decide who represents SUSE without consulting either Andy or myself is the crux of the issue here.
I had hoped that this discussion wouldn't continue but as it has I feel I should make one thing clear, I as a Board Member never voted to Replace or change someones talk at a conference and never would as you say that is not our role. On Monday when you presented to the Board and Robert, you offered Robert the opportunity to present Andy's part of the slide deck. On the Tuesday Robert approached the board and asked for our opinion on whether we thought it was a good idea for him to give Andy's part of the talk. In that context that you had offered and Robert was willing I and others expressed an opinion that I was ok with it. As Doug said elsewhere in this thread the issue was that what was communicated to you was different to this. -- 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 (4)
-
Patrick Fitzgerald -
Richard Brown -
sfalken＠cloverleaf-linux.org -
Simon Lees