On 2024-04-16 11:49, Douglas DeMaio wrote:

...

Absolutely nothing has been heard from Douglas (besides wishing Gertjan well) or Patrick.

The most generous assessment of their involvement in the Board is that they are currently empty chairs. If I was to speculate, based on Gertjan's decision to resign, it would be reasonable to assume that they lean more towards the Simon-side of the debate, making Gertjan's position for strong moderation clearly untenable as a minority opinion.

Then don't start a thread based on speculation and resort to belittlement and name calling. I shared my views with those I felt needed to hear it.

The fact you didn't think the community needed to hear your views underlines my greater concern. If the Board isn't operating as a cohesive group (and currently it is not) then the community deserves, and requires, to always hear your views as an individual. As I clearly state, I believe the better operating model would be one where the Board works as group, makes tough decisions, and supports them without every decision becoming a melee where individual Board members repeatedly undermine and muddy the waters of what the group decided. But in the absence of that, currently, I think your silence is inexcusable. Speculation is the only option we voting members have as a result.

Hi Andreas, Am 16.04.24 um 13:28 schrieb Andreas Jaeger:

Hi Richard,

the current board is different than when you where chair person - and different doesn't mean better or wrong, just different.

Your comments are based on speculation and the way you're addressing the whole discussing is something that looks toxic to me.

Thank you. I could not have said this in such a polite way.

openSUSE should be a welcoming community and the way you attack individuals is not fostering a welcoming environment.

The whole witch hunt / kindergarten show which is performed here for the last days is pretty off-putting if not to name it "disgusting" and certainly does not look like "a welcoming environment" to me, too. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman

El martes, 16 de abril de 2024 13:28:04 (CEST), Andreas Jaeger escribió:

Hi Richard,

the current board is different than when you where chair person - and different doesn't mean better or wrong, just different.

Your comments are based on speculation and the way you're addressing the whole discussing is something that looks toxic to me.

openSUSE should be a welcoming community and the way you attack individuals is not fostering a welcoming environment.

Well said, Andreas. Polite and brief. Thanks, -- Javier Llorente

On 2024-04-16 13:28, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

Hi Richard,

the current board is different than when you where chair person - and different doesn't mean better or wrong, just different.

Your comments are based on speculation and the way you're addressing the whole discussing is something that looks toxic to me.

openSUSE should be a welcoming community and the way you attack individuals is not fostering a welcoming environment.

Hi AJ I do not judge the Board by any past standard. I find that suggestion baseless and am offended you choose to invent this attack line rather than consider my actions from the place they actually come from - as an active community member. I am asking the Board to take one of two approaches- A) act as a cohesive unit, deciding together and supporting their collective decisions. Or B) alternatively, acting as an active bunch of individuals where each member is visible and their opinions are clearly communicated on topics being addressed by the Board. I’d prefer A), as I think that’s both the easiest for the community and supports the Board to operate with both more extrovert and introverted characters. However, the Board has been currently acting far more like B). Its messy, it’s also unfair on the community as it becomes effectively impossible for community members to address deficiencies in the Board without naming individuals. An act you clearly characterise as an attack. The understandable inability for people to seperate critique of individuals from personal attacks is probably a good reason to eliminate B) as a suggestion.. but I still wanted to propose it.. else you or folk like you would probably accuse me of railroading the Board I don’t really see much room for an alternative approach to A) or B) The community need to be able to hold either the whole Board accountable, or each member. That’s just basic good governance.

Am 18.04.24 um 13:49 schrieb Attila Pinter:

Anyhow, characterizing Richard's suggestions as an attack on the Board is just wrong. Attacking him for his efforts to better the situation is also wrong.

This is your (and obviously Richard's) opinion. Others (me included) might think / feel otherwise. Touting absolute truths ("This is right!!!", "That is wrong!!") is often (not always) possible when discussing scientific or technological subjects, but in this thread this feels wrong to me.

Me, and quite a few others could be attacked for the same reason as well. I was very clearly, and publicly asking the Board for their stand on the situation for a while now.

There's a german saying "Der Ton macht die Musik". That might be the difference between "you and quite a few others" and Richard. Just thinking loud. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman

On 2024-04-18 13:49, Attila Pinter wrote:

This is very well put, Richard! I know that I personally was expecting to see a united front on the matter from the Board, and a swift explanation of the situation for the community. What we've seen is the opposite, and indeed suits option B.) best from the option you've described. We all see where this option leads to.

And just to better defend myself and explain WHY I'm even speaking up, I'd also like to share my observation as to how the status quo leads to such an unacceptable situation. Even though this is all based on recent events, I will do my best to illustrate without mentioning names, but this is a concentrated summary of recent events for those who might not have been fully up to speed and just dived in to respond to my call for action. 1) Board makes a decision, decision is minuted, minute mentions a single board member 2) Community expresses concerns, especially moderators who feel undermined by the minuted decision 3) Single board member mentioned in the minutes appears on the mailinglists defending the view related to the minuted decision 4) 3 other board members appear expressing individual opinions that run counter to the decision 5) 1 of the 3 board members mentioned in 4) resigns, with their resignation indicating a strong support for the impacted moderators In my view, this example illustrates that Community members can't hold the Board accountable as a whole. Half of them are all on record expressing views that differ from the decisions being recorded. Community members also can't hold the Board accountable as individuals. 1/3rd of them are absent from the discussion. Expressing negative views about the actions, views or absence of individual Board members is far too easily (often invalidly IMO) characterised as personal attacks. Such discussions therefore descend into a melee and the actual problem (the Board decision at 1)) gets lost in the muddle of calls of personal attacks and bad feelings. Furthermore, our rules only have provision for replacing the entire Board, an ultimate sanction which is obviously undermined when the Board doesn't stand by their decisions as a group. This is an unacceptable situation which needs to be addressed. Forget CoC's, toilet humour, IRC, Foundations, Membership, Bugzilla or anything else. Any decision, good or bad, made by the Board isn't worth the effort they put into making it if the community can't hold the Board to account in some form. Because ultimately, their power as a Board only lasts as long as all of us as community members have faith that it's a good idea, that the Board model is good enough, and that the processes they follow can be trusted. My view is that the observable status quo is undermining that faith. And I say that when I'm obviously on record with agreeing with all 3 of the recent Board members who spoke up as individuals.

you don't see a problem. and while I (and others) disagree with you, rather strongly, that neither invalidates your position, nor mine (ours). But to continue to make, what feels to me, like an argument that this isn't a conversation that needs to occur, that the people that disagree with you have bad intentions, or an ax to grind, or that it's nothing but noise, FUD, personal attacks, or otherwise is extremely disappointing. Being as I was one of the early participants in the conversation that got this current discussion/argument/fight/whatever kicked off, do I wish that it could have been done in a quieter or less confrontational manner? Absolutely. Do I regret or feel bad, or ashamed of myself for having done it? Absolutely not. I'm absolutely with Richard, in that this doesn't have jack to do with any specific communication platform, user, subproject, or channel, and to do with what part of the membership perceives as a governance issue. I can't speak for others with any authority, but we're not ok with the status quo, and we're not going to shut up about it. This is just as much our project and our community, as it is anybody else's, and we have every right, and even responsibility, to speak up, when we find things that are perceived as problems, ask questions, and even demand answers, just as much as anybody else. On April 18, 2024 7:47:58 AM CDT, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

Am 18.04.24 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Brown:

...

Because ultimately, their power as a Board only lasts as long as all of us as community members have faith that it's a good idea, that the Board model is good enough, and that the processes they follow can be trusted.

s/all/the majority/ You'll always find someone who disagrees. -- Stefan Seyfried

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman

All, Speaking as an individual, not as a board member: Given the time zones that board has to work in, that we all have full-time jobs that require considerable attention to detail, plus some of us travel extensively, I think it is unreasonable to assume that all members of the board can drop everything, meet, discuss, and then present a united front to defend their actions. I say that as a stakeholder in many businesses over the years. It just would not happen. But there is a board meeting next Thursday. This will be discussed. Can everyone have the patience to wait until then? Because every email that is added to this topic just adds more for the board to read in advance of discussion, andmakes the entire project appear more dysfunctional to be to everyone. You reap what you sow, and all that. The board meeting's dates and times are public, even though Richard, you've already stated that you won't attend, others might wish to. Having said all that, we will get over this, learning and growing as a community. Remember, members: Have a lot of fun. /p On 18/04/2024 14:30, Richard Brown wrote:

On 2024-04-18 13:49, Attila Pinter wrote:

...

This is very well put, Richard! I know that I personally was expecting to see a united front on the matter from the Board, and a swift explanation of the situation for the community. What we've seen is the opposite, and indeed suits option B.) best from the option you've described. We all see where this option leads to.

And just to better defend myself and explain WHY I'm even speaking up, I'd also like to share my observation as to how the status quo leads to such an unacceptable situation.

Even though this is all based on recent events, I will do my best to illustrate without mentioning names, but this is a concentrated summary of recent events for those who might not have been fully up to speed and just dived in to respond to my call for action.

1) Board makes a decision, decision is minuted, minute mentions a single board member 2) Community expresses concerns, especially moderators who feel undermined by the minuted decision 3) Single board member mentioned in the minutes appears on the mailinglists defending the view related to the minuted decision 4) 3 other board members appear expressing individual opinions that run counter to the decision 5) 1 of the 3 board members mentioned in 4) resigns, with their resignation indicating a strong support for the impacted moderators

In my view, this example illustrates that Community members can't hold the Board accountable as a whole. Half of them are all on record expressing views that differ from the decisions being recorded.

Community members also can't hold the Board accountable as individuals. 1/3rd of them are absent from the discussion. Expressing negative views about the actions, views or absence of individual Board members is far too easily (often invalidly IMO) characterised as personal attacks.

Such discussions therefore descend into a melee and the actual problem (the Board decision at 1)) gets lost in the muddle of calls of personal attacks and bad feelings.

Furthermore, our rules only have provision for replacing the entire Board, an ultimate sanction which is obviously undermined when the Board doesn't stand by their decisions as a group.

This is an unacceptable situation which needs to be addressed. Forget CoC's, toilet humour, IRC, Foundations, Membership, Bugzilla or anything else. Any decision, good or bad, made by the Board isn't worth the effort they put into making it if the community can't hold the Board to account in some form.

Because ultimately, their power as a Board only lasts as long as all of us as community members have faith that it's a good idea, that the Board model is good enough, and that the processes they follow can be trusted.

My view is that the observable status quo is undermining that faith. And I say that when I'm obviously on record with agreeing with all 3 of the recent Board members who spoke up as individuals.

-- <br/> <b>Patrick Fitzgerald</b> <h3>i-Layer Limited</h3> <hr/> All Support queries to: isupport@i-layer.com

* Attila Pinter [04-18-24 10:22]:

On Thursday, April 18th, 2024 at 8:53 PM, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:

...

All,

Speaking as an individual, not as a board member:

...

...

The board meeting's dates and times are public, even though Richard, you've already stated that you won't attend, others might wish to.

I had to verify with a Board member to make sure that the next meeting's time was not set to the time it is set to (10pm for me, 5pm in CEST) just to avoid the better part of the audience to show up. They confirmed that this was set earlier and has nothing to do with the current situation, but this is just to show how much trust I have in the Board after all this.

...

Having said all that, we will get over this, learning and growing as a community.

You sound extremely optimistic. Almost cocky. Maybe you should start reading the mails.

you are being abusive and should cease your attacks. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

* Attila Pinter [04-18-24 07:51]:

On Thursday, April 18th, 2024 at 1:52 PM, Richard Brown wrote:

...

On 2024-04-16 13:28, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

Hi Richard,

the current board is different than when you where chair person - and different doesn't mean better or wrong, just different.

Your comments are based on speculation and the way you're addressing the whole discussing is something that looks toxic to me.

openSUSE should be a welcoming community and the way you attack individuals is not fostering a welcoming environment.

Hi AJ

I do not judge the Board by any past standard.

I find that suggestion baseless and am offended you choose to invent this attack line rather than consider my actions from the place they actually come from - as an active community member.

I am asking the Board to take one of two approaches-

A) act as a cohesive unit, deciding together and supporting their collective decisions.

Or

B) alternatively, acting as an active bunch of individuals where each member is visible and their opinions are clearly communicated on topics being addressed by the Board.

I’d prefer A), as I think that’s both the easiest for the community and supports the Board to operate with both more extrovert and introverted characters.

However, the Board has been currently acting far more like B). Its messy, it’s also unfair on the community as it becomes effectively impossible for community members to address deficiencies in the Board without naming individuals.

An act you clearly characterise as an attack.

The understandable inability for people to seperate critique of individuals from personal attacks is probably a good reason to eliminate B) as a suggestion.. but I still wanted to propose it.. else you or folk like you would probably accuse me of railroading the Board

I don’t really see much room for an alternative approach to A) or B)

The community need to be able to hold either the whole Board accountable, or each member.

That’s just basic good governance.

This is very well put, Richard! I know that I personally was expecting to see a united front on the matter from the Board, and a swift explanation of the situation for the community. What we've seen is the opposite, and indeed suits option B.) best from the option you've described. We all see where this option leads to.

Anyhow, characterizing Richard's suggestions as an attack on the Board is just wrong. Attacking him for his efforts to better the situation is also wrong. Me, and quite a few others could be attacked for the same reason as well. I was very clearly, and publicly asking the Board for their stand on the situation for a while now. Don't try and portray these messages for something that they're not. Those who put in the effort to create something in the community, those who vote for the members of the board. are rightfully turning to the Board for guidance. After all that is the main purpose of the Board. And yes, the Board can and should be held accountable for their actions or inactions in this case. Seeing the suggested options for governance is a nice bonus tho. Also, just a friendly reminder, personal attacks are a violation of the CoC.

A.

now Children, it is time to stop throwing stones and act like adults (sorry for tossing in that assumption). -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

Op dinsdag 16 april 2024 21:15:12 CEST schreef Alexander Orlovsky:

Hi folks!

So if one openSUSE board member goes, another must come in, is there any new elections planned, what is yours community regulation process?

I would like to participate, i love Linux it runs on my company and my clients servers, my work most time be intermediary between Distros and the clients who use Linux. Still i try to be helpful and provide solutions to problem or issues.

If anyone interested, let me know what you need for official board member application . Consider this as my official application.

Best Regards Alexander CEO Orlovsky Consulting GbR Germany - Nuremberg

https://en.opensuse.org/User:Aorlovsky

-- ------------------------- CEO Orlovsky Consulting GbR , orlovskyconsulting.de , ocgforum.javaprofide.de Oracle Certified Professional, Java EE Web Component Developer Oracle Certified Professional, Java SE 6 Programmer Why software project fail? Here is why https://youtu.be/agHGCWl8D4s?list=PLozDg-R9qcqQT9xhKtWRmUVLkcF6FljNC

Kostenlos Immobilien inserieren!!!http://ocgforum.javaprofide.de/

-- Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avg.com Hi Alexander,

On the info re. the Board: https://en.opensuse.org/Board The rules etc. are there too There are many ways to contribute, a good place to start is here: https://contribute.opensuse.org/en#infrastructure[1] -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team openSUSE Mods Team -------- [1] https://contribute.opensuse.org/en#infrastructure

First you would have to become an official openSUSE Member. The Board is not something that you can just apply for.

Attila Pinter - 1:18 17.04.24 wrote:

On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 3:03 PM, Richard Brown wrote:

...

Dear Project, The latest incident on this list has me questioning the efficacy of the openSUSE Board

While I am not yet at the point of joining the calls for their full re-election, I do feel the Board as a whole and as individuals need to do more to justify the trust we put in them as a Project.

The entire operation of the Board can only ever work if the Project trusts its Board. I do not see how Project members with integrity can do so at the moment. This fact undermines any decision, guidance or conflict resolution action of the Board and leads to a perverse situation where the morally & ethically “right” action could well be to ignore the Board and its decisions.

Before I highlight concerns regarding individual Board members, I think the biggest issue is one they need to address as a whole - how the Board communicate and defend their decisions as a Board.

I strongly believe that the Board should defend its decisions as a group.

Once a decision is made, I feel the Board should all, collectively, own it and defend it. I do not think Board decisions can be defended individually. The whole point of the Board is to decide on topics (eg. conflict resolution) where individual empowerment has failed and an independent body is needed to step in and chart a course, often a controversial one. Easy decisions shouldn't need the Board. It is an imperfect model - In my time on the Board I certainly hated repeatedly defending decisions I disagreed with, but it is the role the Project requires.

If the Board does not wish to operate under this model, then I think the only way forward is for each individual Board member to be far more active and visible than most of them currently are.

Taking this recent incident as an example. I've been able to clearly take away the following from the recent incident:

Simon has continued his mindset of "tolerating intolerance" and advocating for the support and inclusion of people who breach our community standards. This is consistent with his views during the "Rainbow flag" discussions of 9 months ago. His views do not appear to have evolved over those 9 months and I feel should disqualify them from being a Board member. I expressed this view both in my vote and in my campaigning for any-other-candidate in the last election, and intend to continue to do so.

Neal and Gerald have been quietly supportive of the concept of consistent moderation, but I'd characterise their engagement with the thread as 'diplomatically attempting to avoid conflict', sometimes at the expense of addressing what needs to be addressed. I cannot say that I am wholly confident that I know where either of them stand or whether they believe very strongly on this topic.

Gertjan was obviously strongly supportive of the concept of consistent moderation, to the point where he has clearly resigned over his perceived lack of support from his Board colleagues on the topic.

Absolutely nothing has been heard from Douglas (besides wishing Gertjan well) or Patrick.

The most generous assessment of their involvement in the Board is that they are currently empty chairs. If I was to speculate, based on Gertjan's decision to resign, it would be reasonable to assume that they lean more towards the Simon-side of the debate, making Gertjan's position for strong moderation clearly untenable as a minority opinion.

But we just cannot be sure, because they are effectively absent. If the Board is not going to defend its decisions collectively (and this whole debate was triggered by a Board decision, it was even minuted), then the Board must all be active as individuals.

If the Board fails to step up, either as a collective or as individuals, I do not see how they can effectively serve the Project.

It is difficult to read these words and not agree with it. Many of you interpreted Richard's message as a personal attack on Doug and Patrick, but I fail to see that. The Board supposed to "provide guidance" which in this last incident it failed at doing so miserably well. In the conversation that triggered all this I called on the Board to make a stand on multiple occasions which still not happened. I called Simon's view the Board's view which Neal, and Gerald disagreed with, yet there is still no official stand on the matter from the Board, other than an awkward, long message from Simon which supposed to be an apology? Couldn't tell really...

I don't see it as failure of the board, I think some moderation could take place to stop unjustified attacks and all the FUD going on in that thread, but I understand that given it was a response to the board mail, there is more leniency towards people attacking them as they opted in to be a public figure. If you ask for a board to take a unified stance, it has to take some time. There are several people and to coordinate takes time. Especially if you know that you have to be prepared for another troll attack. I think Simons mail wasn't supposed to be apology as I don't see what he should apologize for. He clearly summarized facts that were spread through the highly noisy thread.

Anyhow, your choice for standing idly by, while a board member resigns, while the community fight over the CoC, the enforcement of it, and the standards of the project is a strange choice.

While community fights over CoC where everybody says that they support it and nobody is against it and it's enforcement 🤷 -- Michal Hrusecky 📧 michal@hrusecky.net 🔗 https://michal.hrusecky.net 🐘 @michal@hrusecky.net

Shawn W Dunn - 6:29 17.04.24 wrote:

On 4/17/24 00:03, Michal Hrusecky wrote:

...

Attila Pinter - 1:18 17.04.24 wrote:

...

On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 3:03 PM, Richard Brown wrote:

...

Dear Project, The latest incident on this list has me questioning the efficacy of the openSUSE Board

...

...

It is difficult to read these words and not agree with it. Many of you interpreted Richard's message as a personal attack on Doug and Patrick, but I fail to see that. The Board supposed to "provide guidance" which in this last incident it failed at doing so miserably well. In the conversation that triggered all this I called on the Board to make a stand on multiple occasions which still not happened. I called Simon's view the Board's view which Neal, and Gerald disagreed with, yet there is still no official stand on the matter from the Board, other than an awkward, long message from Simon which supposed to be an apology? Couldn't tell really...

I don't see it as failure of the board, I think some moderation could take place to stop unjustified attacks and all the FUD going on in that thread, but I understand that given it was a response to the board mail, there is more leniency towards people attacking them as they opted in to be a public figure.

I've been staying out of this thread, as I'm one of the folks involved, and doing my best to not see individual responses from board members, as "The Boards Position" But I take issue with your (and others) assertion that this is nothing but unjustified attacks and FUD.

This is anything but.

As a moderator on a number of our "Communication Platforms" (Discord, Matrix, IRC, and tangentially the kbin.social magazine), I can tell you that if this were just a complaint about a single instance, or even the odd use of $expletive_of_choice now and then, I don't care, and wouldn't consider that to be something actionably under the CoC, and haven't in the past. And I have no intention of doing so in the future.

This issue has popped up because of a repeated pattern of behavior, language and/or conduct, on multiple of our communication platforms that obviously makes some of our community members uncomfortable. This isn't speculation on my part, or spreading FUD, and some of those members have spoken up in the threads over the last week or so. And to just discount this all as FUD is disingenuous at best.

And from the thread was obvious that board was investigating the issue, taking it very seriously and trying to collect the evidence before acting. And the whole thread hopefully helped to gather some more.

...

If you ask for a board to take a unified stance, it has to take some time. There are several people and to coordinate takes time. Especially if you know that you have to be prepared for another troll attack.

Again, you call anybody that doesn't agree with your stance a troll. And I don't appreciate it.

Not really. I understand that there were some people concerned and that there was some factual discussion in the thread as well. But it was kinda blurred by people screaming in panic that Board wants to abolish the CoC while it was repeatedly written that the opposite is the truth.

I haven't been engaging with the threads, because I am in fact waiting for the board to meet, and decide what the official response is going to be, and I haven't wanted to pour more fuel onto this fire.

...

While community fights over CoC where everybody says that they support it and nobody is against it and it's enforcement 🤷

This is actually patently untrue, as I know from personal experience, and can go back through the mail archive and find the evidence, if required, that there are project members, that do oppose the existence of a Code of Conduct, and pop up basically every time the CoC has to be enforced.

In general yes, in this case Simon was defending it, Richard was defending it and everybody was defending it but I haven't noticed CoC opposer joining the thread yet :-)

For the CoC to mean anything, it has to be something thats applied to the community equally, and it has to actually be applied, not just held as some sort of stick to threaten people with. And yes, not all of us are always going to agree with every facet of the Code of Conduct, or any other official stance of the Project. That's how communities work, and it's perfectly valid to have community discussions, about the Code, and to review it over time, to make sure it's still serving the community.

In communities, as in compromises, nobody is ever fully happy with things when they have to be written down and enforced, and that's kind of the point.

But if the lack of enforcement of the CoC and/or community standards is something that is making a not insignificant portion of the community uncomfortable in project spaces, or dissuading people from becoming members and/or contributors, then *I* have a problem with that.

Equally, if our lack of enforcement of that same CoC and/or community standards is something that makes the project *attractive* to some people, well, those are largely people that *I* don't personally want to "work" with.

But this is all academic at this point, until such time as I see a unified policy response on the matter from the board. I'm trying very hard to not read any of the individual responses from board members as any sort of indicator of which way the board is going to decide, and only as the board members individual opinions as project members.

-- Michal Hrusecky 📧 michal@hrusecky.net 🔗 https://michal.hrusecky.net 🐘 @michal@hrusecky.net

* Emily Gonyer [04-17-24 10:42]: ...

+1

I have taken a huge step away from the project over the last couple of years, because as far as I can tell the CoC doesn't seem to matter to most of the project.

openSUSE, like the rest of the tech world would love to pretend and believe it is open and welcoming. But, it's not. It is, of course, if you're the right kind of person.

most of the WORLD has no idea of your character until you have interacted with them. perhaps you have failed to make a positive impression.

If you're not? Well then. The project will accept your contributions, if it must. It'll accept you as a member... After a LOT of questioning. But, no, it doesn't really want you around.

odd that. only question I was presented was how I contributed. perhaps I should take that a being intrusive and objectionable. a glowing recommendation if I have ever heard one. wearing chips instead of epaulets? the chips do not help. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

* Bill Schouten [04-17-24 11:51]:

Patrick,

I take issue with your comments towards Emily for the reason that Emily and I have been put into compromising situations by members of the board where a standard was applied to one of us but not the other. Emily has been a contributor as a community member, packager, and helping with documentation. I’m not here to attack you, just only to provide some additional insight into why she might feel jaded as I know Emily very well and can empathize with her a bit regarding the project at the moment.

if that is not communicated, how is anyone else to know. I *only* addressed Emily's post. your issue is noted but unfounded with the knowledge that was available. issues with the "elected" board have to be communicated or they "do not exist". -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

Hence why I said I’m not attacking or accusing and was just providing context. Nothing more. Sent from Gmail Mobile On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 1:44 PM Shawn W Dunn wrote:

On 4/17/24 07:54, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Emily Gonyer [04-17-24 10:42]:

...

...

+1

I have taken a huge step away from the project over the last couple of years, because as far as I can tell the CoC doesn't seem to matter to most of the project.

openSUSE, like the rest of the tech world would love to pretend and believe it is open and welcoming. But, it's not. It is, of course, if you're the right kind of person.

most of the WORLD has no idea of your character until you have interacted with them. perhaps you have failed to make a positive impression.

...

If you're not? Well then. The project will accept your contributions, if it must. It'll accept you as a member... After a LOT of questioning. But, no, it doesn't really want you around.

odd that. only question I was presented was how I contributed. perhaps I should take that a being intrusive and objectionable.

a glowing recommendation if I have ever heard one. wearing chips instead of epaulets? the chips do not help.

Thanks Patrick, I'm glad that you're able to decide that only your personal experiences and/or perspective are valid, and anybody that has seen things otherwise is just a whiner, or has a chip on their shoulder.

Very constructive and helpful.

* Tony Walker [04-17-24 14:17]:

On 4/17/24 13:59, Bill Schouten wrote:

...

Hence why I said I’m not attacking or accusing and was just providing context.  Nothing more.

Sent from Gmail Mobile

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 1:44 PM Shawn W Dunn mailto:sfalken@cloverleaf-linux.org> wrote:

On 4/17/24 07:54, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Emily Gonyer mailto:emilyyrose@gmail.com> [04-17-24 10:42]: > >   ... > >> +1 >> >> I have taken a huge step away from the project over the last couple of >> years, because as far as I can tell the CoC doesn't seem to matter to most >> of the project. >> >> openSUSE, like the rest of the tech world would love to pretend and believe >> it is open and welcoming. But, it's not. It is, of course, if you're the >> right kind of person. > > most of the WORLD has no idea of your character until you have interacted > with them.  perhaps you have failed to make a positive impression. > >> If you're not? Well then. The project will accept your contributions, if it >> must. It'll accept you as a member... After a LOT of questioning. But, no, >> it doesn't really want you around. > > odd that.  only question I was presented was how I contributed. perhaps I > should take that a being intrusive and objectionable. > > > > > a glowing recommendation if I have ever heard one. > wearing chips instead of epaulets?  the chips do not help. > >

Thanks Patrick, I'm glad that you're able to decide that only your personal experiences and/or perspective are valid, and anybody that has seen things otherwise is just a whiner, or has a chip on their shoulder.

Very constructive and helpful.

Patrick, your responses leave me with many questions. Here are a few, ...

Do questions or assertions lead to more insight and understanding?

usually

Had you asked Emily about her experiences, would what you don't know have become our problem?

the onus is not mine to relate others experiences. an accusation of abuse was made without foundation. how would you have one to understand? and how would that make me to have become "our problem"?

Have you ever told someone to RTFM, find the list guidelines, or use Google? Would simply and quickly Googling Emily have helped you?

you have lost it. certainly when information is obvious and readily available, the solution, RTFM is pertinent and applicable. googling "Emily" and "Emily's tech world experiences" provide voluminous information but none that readily appear relevant.

If you don't care how anyone else thinks or feels, why should any of us care what you think or feel?

you are assuming facts not in evidence. you have assumed the position speaking for the entire list while only a few have even participated. and she presented a very negative appearance of my chosen distro, which your ?questions?, perhaps personal attack on me show little concern for my "feelings". Emily is free to offer explanation of her claimed affront. better we simply return to supporting our chosen distro. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

* Knurpht-openSUSE [04-17-24 22:54]:

Op woensdag 17 april 2024 23:49:29 CEST schreef Patrick Shanahan:

...

better we simply return to supporting our chosen distro. Which one would that be for you? I cannot remember seeing you supportive on openSUSE, to put it mildly.

ah, expected. very supportive of openSUSE, but not so much the bullshix which apparently must accompany. if you fall off, you should get right back on. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

* Knurpht-openSUSE [04-17-24 23:15]:

Op donderdag 18 april 2024 05:04:01 CEST schreef Patrick Shanahan:

...

* Knurpht-openSUSE [04-17-24 22:54]:

...

Op woensdag 17 april 2024 23:49:29 CEST schreef Patrick Shanahan:

...

better we simply return to supporting our chosen distro.

Which one would that be for you? I cannot remember seeing you supportive on openSUSE, to put it mildly.

ah, expected.

very supportive of openSUSE, but not so much the bullshix which apparently must accompany. if you fall off, you should get right back on. What is your issue with the CoC?

I have none. I agree with it.

If you are a decent, civilized person you'd have not problems.

you are making assumptions again.

If you decide not to be, then the CoC and enforcement of it will protect others.

and again.

As simple as that. And, if some person attacks you, you will benefit from that as well.

haven't so far. but I guess that comes from who determines the definition of "attack". Also, there is a typo in your message, please don't hide behind

misspelling words.

you mean to call bullshit bullshit. I consider that inappropriate in an intelligent conversation. I guess that explains a lot. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

* Shawn W Dunn [04-17-24 13:45]:

On 4/17/24 07:54, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Emily Gonyer [04-17-24 10:42]:

...

...

+1

I have taken a huge step away from the project over the last couple of years, because as far as I can tell the CoC doesn't seem to matter to most of the project.

openSUSE, like the rest of the tech world would love to pretend and believe it is open and welcoming. But, it's not. It is, of course, if you're the right kind of person.

most of the WORLD has no idea of your character until you have interacted with them. perhaps you have failed to make a positive impression.

...

If you're not? Well then. The project will accept your contributions, if it must. It'll accept you as a member... After a LOT of questioning. But, no, it doesn't really want you around.

odd that. only question I was presented was how I contributed. perhaps I should take that a being intrusive and objectionable.

a glowing recommendation if I have ever heard one. wearing chips instead of epaulets? the chips do not help.

Thanks Patrick, I'm glad that you're able to decide that only your personal experiences and/or perspective are valid, and anybody that has seen things otherwise is just a whiner, or has a chip on their shoulder.

my "personal" EXPERIENCE was only provided and my personal feelings have not every been the subject of conversation here past others speculation and are really not anyone's business. and your assumptions are just that and you own them.

Very constructive and helpful.

as was the OP's statement without validation or explanation! -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

* Knurpht-openSUSE [04-18-24 20:30]:

...

* Emily Gonyer [04-17-24 10:42]:

...

...

+1

I have taken a huge step away from the project over the last couple of years, because as far as I can tell the CoC doesn't seem to matter to most of the project.

openSUSE, like the rest of the tech world would love to pretend and believe it is open and welcoming. But, it's not. It is, of course, if you're the right kind of person.

most of the WORLD has no idea of your character until you have interacted with them. perhaps you have failed to make a positive impression.

...

If you're not? Well then. The project will accept your contributions, if it must. It'll accept you as a member... After a LOT of questioning. But, no, it doesn't really want you around.

odd that. only question I was presented was how I contributed. perhaps I should take that a being intrusive and objectionable.

a glowing recommendation if I have ever heard one. wearing chips instead of epaulets? the chips do not help. I will and shall not accept this dequalifying of any person. Let alone of a

Op woensdag 17 april 2024 16:54:27 CEST schreef Patrick Shanahan: person that actually made substantial contributions. And will not ever.

odd, your statment makes no sense. there is no dictionary content for "dequalifying". is that similar to bullshix? and your attribution is incorrect. and I have failed to capitalize the first word of several sentences. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

On 4/17/24 10:41, Emily Gonyer wrote:

I have taken a huge step away from the project over the last couple of years, because as far as I can tell the CoC doesn't seem to matter to most of the project.

openSUSE, like the rest of the tech world would love to pretend and believe it is open and welcoming. But, it's not. It is, of course, if you're the right kind of person.

If you're not? Well then. The project will accept your contributions, if it must. It'll accept you as a member... After a LOT of questioning. But, no, it doesn't really want you around.

Emily, your contributions and experiences matter to me. I would be happy to listen and understand. When I think about it, it seems that is all any of us really want. -- Tony Walker PGP Key @ https://tonywalker1.github.io/pgp 9F46 D66D FF6C 182D A5AC 11E1 8559 98D1 7543 319C

+1 Op wo 17 apr 2024 15:30 schreef Shawn W Dunn :

On 4/17/24 00:03, Michal Hrusecky wrote:

...

Attila Pinter - 1:18 17.04.24 wrote:

...

On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 3:03 PM, Richard Brown wrote:

...

Dear Project, The latest incident on this list has me questioning the efficacy of the openSUSE Board

...

...

It is difficult to read these words and not agree with it. Many of you interpreted Richard's message as a personal attack on Doug and Patrick, but I fail to see that. The Board supposed to "provide guidance" which in this last incident it failed at doing so miserably well. In the conversation that triggered all this I called on the Board to make a stand on multiple occasions which still not happened. I called Simon's view the Board's view which Neal, and Gerald disagreed with, yet there is still no official stand on the matter from the Board, other than an awkward, long message from Simon which supposed to be an apology? Couldn't tell really...

I don't see it as failure of the board, I think some moderation could take place to stop unjustified attacks and all the FUD going on in that thread, but I understand that given it was a response to the board mail, there is more leniency towards people attacking them as they opted in to be a public figure.

I've been staying out of this thread, as I'm one of the folks involved, and doing my best to not see individual responses from board members, as "The Boards Position" But I take issue with your (and others) assertion that this is nothing but unjustified attacks and FUD.

This is anything but.

As a moderator on a number of our "Communication Platforms" (Discord, Matrix, IRC, and tangentially the kbin.social magazine), I can tell you that if this were just a complaint about a single instance, or even the odd use of $expletive_of_choice now and then, I don't care, and wouldn't consider that to be something actionably under the CoC, and haven't in the past. And I have no intention of doing so in the future.

This issue has popped up because of a repeated pattern of behavior, language and/or conduct, on multiple of our communication platforms that obviously makes some of our community members uncomfortable. This isn't speculation on my part, or spreading FUD, and some of those members have spoken up in the threads over the last week or so. And to just discount this all as FUD is disingenuous at best.

...

If you ask for a board to take a unified stance, it has to take some time. There are several people and to coordinate takes time. Especially if you know that you have to be prepared for another troll attack.

Again, you call anybody that doesn't agree with your stance a troll. And I don't appreciate it.

I haven't been engaging with the threads, because I am in fact waiting for the board to meet, and decide what the official response is going to be, and I haven't wanted to pour more fuel onto this fire.

...

While community fights over CoC where everybody says that they support it and nobody is against it and it's enforcement 🤷

This is actually patently untrue, as I know from personal experience, and can go back through the mail archive and find the evidence, if required, that there are project members, that do oppose the existence of a Code of Conduct, and pop up basically every time the CoC has to be enforced.

For the CoC to mean anything, it has to be something thats applied to the community equally, and it has to actually be applied, not just held as some sort of stick to threaten people with. And yes, not all of us are always going to agree with every facet of the Code of Conduct, or any other official stance of the Project. That's how communities work, and it's perfectly valid to have community discussions, about the Code, and to review it over time, to make sure it's still serving the community.

In communities, as in compromises, nobody is ever fully happy with things when they have to be written down and enforced, and that's kind of the point.

But if the lack of enforcement of the CoC and/or community standards is something that is making a not insignificant portion of the community uncomfortable in project spaces, or dissuading people from becoming members and/or contributors, then *I* have a problem with that.

Equally, if our lack of enforcement of that same CoC and/or community standards is something that makes the project *attractive* to some people, well, those are largely people that *I* don't personally want to "work" with.

But this is all academic at this point, until such time as I see a unified policy response on the matter from the board. I'm trying very hard to not read any of the individual responses from board members as any sort of indicator of which way the board is going to decide, and only as the board members individual opinions as project members.