On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 1:55 PM Richard Brown <rbrown(a)suse.de> wrote:
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 12:28 +0000, Adrien Glauser wrote:
Restraint is expected from current and former Board members during
elections. When talking about candidates in their capacity of member
or former member, they should seek to prioritize means of
Why should current and former Board members be held to a different
standard than any other contributor? Are we not meant to be a community
Why should a former head of FDA not become a CEO of a BigPharma he
just approved a controversial drug off of 3 years ago you meant? Or
why former parliament members / ministers should not serve on the
supervisor board of state-owned enterprises?
One of the key points that comes up during every
election is the
reminder that Board members have no additional priviledge or power over
the direction of this project, but only the responsibility to remove
blockages to the community when they appear.
It seems counter intutive to me to require restraint from current and
former Board Members but not apply the same rules to the entire
No it doesn't then they are merely being petty, and clearly did not
yet let go off what they in their own words describe as "very
stressful and tricky role", perhaps, just perhaps you are not good at
doing politics, guess what, governance bodies ARE politics, they make
policy decisions, if they can approve them by themselves or need wider
consensus does not change that fact.
I can understand a version of these rules that apply
to current Board
members, as they may have to work with the elected
individuals..honouring the will of the vote and all that.
But I strongly feel former Board members have the same rights to a life
of free contribution to the Project as any other contributor.
I think we should avoid creating a situation which effectively says to
ex-Board members "Thanks for all the hard work you've done in a very
stressful and tricky role for the Project, but now you're a second
class citizen compared to every other contributor".
Not to every other contributor, you would be equal among your former
and current board member peers. It is not uncommon in advanced
democracies such as Switzerland to restrict former public servants
from certain conduct or roles, for a good reason.
Assuming you can provide a justification for applying
this rule to
current & former Members, then I have a followup question.
Do you feel it's fair to retroactively reply these rules to all past
Board Members, even though they had no forewarning of these limitations
before they decided to run for the position?
Humans have survived this long for their ability to adapt to changing
circumstances, they sadly did not survive because of their strong
ability to foresee the future.
I think that's an unfair imposition to hold
dozens of contributors to a
different standard than everyone else, when they had no forewarning
about that standard before they offered to help the Project by running
for the Board.
Victimizing yourself much? In the end, I assume no-one pointed a gun
at your head and told you, you know be The Chairman or die.
Assuming you can't provide a justification, I can
imagine these rules
working Project wide, but such a constitutional change would almost
certainly require a Membership vote to accept them, given they would be
obligations for all contributors to the Project.
So project wide vote would be made, does not mean, we can't define a
quorum and acceptance rate, we may e.q. require no participation rate,
but require 75%+ approval rate.
candidates to reply;
- allow the community to follow and discuss claims and replies from
- provide reliably records of all exchanges;
- minimize the risk of harming the candidates' and the community's
I feel the first 3 are valid criteria, I fear the last one is
Someones reputation (and the communities) is based on what we all say.
It doesn't matter where we say it,
Yes it does, it does matter when, where and how you say things, we
call it context and there is an entire department at your company
called the PR department that thinks about what to say,when to say it,
where to say it, and how to say it. Some companies go beyond that and
have also internal comms departments for communication of information
within the organization effectively as opposed to externally focused
the only way of minimizing the risk
to candidates and communities reptuation is preventing the candidates
and community from saying anything.
That is simply false, there is plenty of ways to mitigate risks of
harm, you confuse minimize / mitigate with prevent / eliminate.
> openSUSE Project mailing list -- project(a)lists.opensuse.org
> To unsubscribe, email project-leave(a)lists.opensuse.org
> List Netiquette: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette
> List Archives: https://firstname.lastname@example.org