Hello, Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 10:09:43 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

Ish Sookun wrote:

...

Dear openSUSE Members,

We have set up an electronic petition on Helios for the Non-Confidence Vote that Pierre Böckmann called for [1] on the 13th of March 2020. I have attempted it twice now, last night and just now - I get to "Helios is now encrypting your ballot" where it remains at 0%.

Then I get a pop-up saying:

...

there appears to be a problem with the encryption process. Please email help@heliosvoting.org and indicate that your encryption process froze at 0%

Without looking at the server or any logs: AFAIK the encryption gets done in the browser. The most obvious question therefore is if you have javascript enabled or use something that might block it. If this doesn't fix the problem, please speak up again. In worst case, ask the election officials to count your vote manually. On a more general note: if someone didn't receive the mail with the voting secrets [1] or has technical problems with voting, you can also contact the election officials directly if you don't dare [2] ;-) to ask on the public mailinglist ;-) You can reach them at election-officials AT opensuse.org Regards, Christian Boltz [1] In this case, your @opensuse.org address probably points to and old, outdated address. If so, please also send a mail to admin AT opensuse.org to get it updated. [2] the "don't dare" is not meant in any negative way - quite the opposite. I fully understand if someone doesn't want to publicly show his/her opinion in this vote for whatever reason. -- Feel free to rewrite the journal from scratch, considering serious use cases and not just toy usage. [Stefan Seyfried in opensuse-factory] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Per Jessen wrote:

nope, javascript not disabled and no blockers. Maybe I'll try another browser.

It worked with Chromium. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.9°C) Member, openSUSE Heroes -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

Per Jessen wrote:

...

nope, javascript not disabled and no blockers. Maybe I'll try another browser.

It worked with Chromium.

I'm happy to hear that. Just curious, because nobody reported such a problem before - which browser caused the problem? (Firefox on Tumbleweed worked fine for me. I use some ad and tracker blocking extensions, but that should be irrelevant for elections.o.o which is privacy-friendly by design for obvious reasons.) Regards, Christian Boltz -- Patches come and go like socks. Nobody really wants a bugzilla entry for each and every one. [Jan Engelhardt in opensuse-packaging] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

(slightly OT, just mentioning it for people concerned...) Am 01.07.20 um 23:37 schrieb Christian Boltz:

Hello,

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

...

It worked with Chromium.

(Firefox on Tumbleweed worked fine for me. I use some ad and tracker

Note that you both have revealed your voting to the world now :-P -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:17:45 -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Stefan Seyfried [07-02-20 08:15]:

...

(slightly OT, just mentioning it for people concerned...)

Am 01.07.20 um 23:37 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Hello,

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

...

...

It worked with Chromium.

...

(Firefox on Tumbleweed worked fine for me. I use some ad and tracker

Note that you both have revealed your voting to the world now :-P

not necessarily. I have twice accessed the site successfully but that does not mean I actually voted or confirmed a/the selection to vote.

There also is an option to submit a vote without a selection - you don't have to chose to sign but you can still submit your vote. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 7/2/20 3:35 PM, Per Jessen wrote:

Christian Boltz wrote:

...

Hello,

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

...

Per Jessen wrote:

...

nope, javascript not disabled and no blockers. Maybe I'll try another browser.

It worked with Chromium.

I'm happy to hear that.

Just curious, because nobody reported such a problem before - which browser caused the problem?

Firefox - albeit an older one of course - 52.8.

Then it could be any one of alot of things including that version of firefox not supporting new enough crypto libraries. -- 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

I should clarify my last sentence: - Vote NO in regards to requesting a re-election of the Board. - Vote YES to express confidence in our current Board. Regards Carsten

Am 03.07.2020 um 08:20 schrieb Carsten Hoyer :

Dear all

Whilst I am not a member sadly and not allowed to vote, I am a long- time user and I have some professional experience in governance, management and legal questions. I would like to let you know, if any of you wish to consider a non-member opinion whilst voting, that I respectfully disagree to the below.

The best for OpenSUSE would be to move on from the unprofessional infighting and baseless accusations, to continue working with the professional board we already have and focus on actual project questions and challenges that lie ahead.

It should be clear for everyone that the Board is not and shouldn't be a closed shop where individuals can only follow their personal agenda, it is a governance body, where some basic governance skills and abilities are required, as well as a professional manner. Given the style and content of messages and communication of a small number of ex-members of the Board, who whish to topple this current Board, those members are not suitable for a governance position and should never have been a Board member in the first place. The non-confidence vote seems to serve solely their own, personal agenda without any consideration that it may further damage the OpenSUSE project.

Please all keep in mind that we are not isolated - the outside world is following the trials and tribulations within the project and the fallout of continued infighting may be severe.

OpenSUSE will be stuck in the past if this continues, lose members and users, or, at least, not be able to efficiently manage the future challenges and to grow further.

Please vote "NO" at the non-confidence petition.

With kind regards

Carsten Hoyer

Am Freitag, den 03.07.2020, 00:15 +0200 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Hello,

Am Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020, 09:47:18 CEST schrieb Stefan Seyfried:

...

(slightly OT, just mentioning it for people concerned...)

Exactly for the reason you pointed out, I mentioned in my first response to Per that there's also the option to contact the election officials directly if someone doesn't want / dare to ask on the public ML for whatever reason.

...

Am 01.07.20 um 23:37 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

...

It worked with Chromium.

(Firefox on Tumbleweed worked fine for me. I use some ad and tracker

Note that you both have revealed your voting to the world now :-P

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. [1] So what? ;-)

It should be obvious that the board's actions since the last election gave more than enough reasons to sign the non-confidence petition. Even if you read only half of the mails I had to write on this ML in this time, my opinion on this should be *very* clear.

I guess everybody has read Pierre's call for the No-Confidence Vote https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2020-03/msg00091.html which sums up what happened until then.

To make things even worse, there have been additional (diplomatically spoken) questionable mails by some board members with the intention to damage the kicked-out board member even more.

I'm still sure that resigning from the board in protest was the right thing to do [2] - and (sadly) the additional questionable mails confirmed my decision more than once.

So even if I hadn't written the previous mail, my voting would be easy to guess ;-)

As sad as it is - IMHO a full re-election with a clean restart would be the best for openSUSE.

Regards,

Christian Boltz

[1] And yes, I know that it's also possible to submit a blank vote, and even if I didn't do that - thanks to the election officials for allowing this so that "$person submitted a vote" does not necessarily mean "$person voted against the board".

[2] Since then, I can (literally!) sleep better again

-- In asynchron-verteilten Umgebungen mußt Du gegen jede einzelne Regel Deiner Datenbankvorlesung verstoßen. [Kris Köhntopp]

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

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

On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 10:26 +0200, Carsten Hoyer wrote:

I should clarify my last sentence:

- Vote NO in regards to requesting a re-election of the Board. - Vote YES to express confidence in our current Board.

Regards

Carsten

The petition only has one option "YES" to express no confidence in the Board So the correct advice for anyone who shares your opinion (like myself) would be to not sign the petition at all :)

...

Am 03.07.2020 um 08:20 schrieb Carsten Hoyer :

Dear all

Whilst I am not a member sadly and not allowed to vote, I am a long- time user and I have some professional experience in governance, management and legal questions. I would like to let you know, if any of you wish to consider a non-member opinion whilst voting, that I respectfully disagree to the below.

The best for OpenSUSE would be to move on from the unprofessional infighting and baseless accusations, to continue working with the professional board we already have and focus on actual project questions and challenges that lie ahead.

It should be clear for everyone that the Board is not and shouldn't be a closed shop where individuals can only follow their personal agenda, it is a governance body, where some basic governance skills and abilities are required, as well as a professional manner. Given the style and content of messages and communication of a small number of ex-members of the Board, who whish to topple this current Board, those members are not suitable for a governance position and should never have been a Board member in the first place. The non-confidence vote seems to serve solely their own, personal agenda without any consideration that it may further damage the OpenSUSE project.

Please all keep in mind that we are not isolated - the outside world is following the trials and tribulations within the project and the fallout of continued infighting may be severe.

OpenSUSE will be stuck in the past if this continues, lose members and users, or, at least, not be able to efficiently manage the future challenges and to grow further.

Please vote "NO" at the non-confidence petition.

With kind regards

Carsten Hoyer

Am Freitag, den 03.07.2020, 00:15 +0200 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Hello,

Am Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020, 09:47:18 CEST schrieb Stefan Seyfried:

...

(slightly OT, just mentioning it for people concerned...)

Exactly for the reason you pointed out, I mentioned in my first response to Per that there's also the option to contact the election officials directly if someone doesn't want / dare to ask on the public ML for whatever reason.

...

Am 01.07.20 um 23:37 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen:

...

It worked with Chromium.

(Firefox on Tumbleweed worked fine for me. I use some ad and tracker

Note that you both have revealed your voting to the world now :-P

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. [1] So what? ;-)

It should be obvious that the board's actions since the last election gave more than enough reasons to sign the non-confidence petition. Even if you read only half of the mails I had to write on this ML in this time, my opinion on this should be *very* clear.

I guess everybody has read Pierre's call for the No-Confidence Vote

https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2020-03/msg00091.html which sums up what happened until then.

To make things even worse, there have been additional (diplomatically spoken) questionable mails by some board members with the intention to damage the kicked-out board member even more.

I'm still sure that resigning from the board in protest was the right thing to do [2] - and (sadly) the additional questionable mails confirmed my decision more than once.

So even if I hadn't written the previous mail, my voting would be easy to guess ;-)

As sad as it is - IMHO a full re-election with a clean restart would be the best for openSUSE.

Regards,

Christian Boltz

[1] And yes, I know that it's also possible to submit a blank vote, and even if I didn't do that - thanks to the election officials for allowing this so that "$person submitted a vote" does not necessarily mean "$person voted against the board".

[2] Since then, I can (literally!) sleep better again

-- In asynchron-verteilten Umgebungen mußt Du gegen jede einzelne Regel Deiner Datenbankvorlesung verstoßen. [Kris Köhntopp]

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

-- Richard Brown Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team Phone +4991174053-361 SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Thank you, I was’t entirely sure what exactly was asked. Not voting it is then. Regards Carsten

Am 03.07.2020 um 11:41 schrieb Bernd Ritter :

Hi Carsten,

to be clear: there is any YES in the current voting process. If you don't want to sign the petition, simply don't vote (as it says in the mail).

Cheers,

Bernd

Am 03.07.20 um 10:26 schrieb Carsten Hoyer:

...

I should clarify my last sentence:

- Vote NO in regards to requesting a re-election of the Board. - Vote YES to express confidence in our current Board.

Regards

Carsten

...

Am 03.07.2020 um 08:20 schrieb Carsten Hoyer :

Dear all

Whilst I am not a member sadly and not allowed to vote, I am a long- time user and I have some professional experience in governance, management and legal questions. I would like to let you know, if any of you wish to consider a non-member opinion whilst voting, that I respectfully disagree to the below.

The best for OpenSUSE would be to move on from the unprofessional infighting and baseless accusations, to continue working with the professional board we already have and focus on actual project questions and challenges that lie ahead.

It should be clear for everyone that the Board is not and shouldn't be a closed shop where individuals can only follow their personal agenda, it is a governance body, where some basic governance skills and abilities are required, as well as a professional manner. Given the style and content of messages and communication of a small number of ex-members of the Board, who whish to topple this current Board, those members are not suitable for a governance position and should never have been a Board member in the first place. The non-confidence vote seems to serve solely their own, personal agenda without any consideration that it may further damage the OpenSUSE project.

Please all keep in mind that we are not isolated - the outside world is following the trials and tribulations within the project and the fallout of continued infighting may be severe.

OpenSUSE will be stuck in the past if this continues, lose members and users, or, at least, not be able to efficiently manage the future challenges and to grow further.

Please vote "NO" at the non-confidence petition.

With kind regards

Carsten Hoyer

Am Freitag, den 03.07.2020, 00:15 +0200 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Hello,

...

(slightly OT, just mentioning it for people concerned...) Exactly for the reason you pointed out, I mentioned in my first response to Per that there's also the option to contact the election officials

Am Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020, 09:47:18 CEST schrieb Stefan Seyfried: directly if someone doesn't want / dare to ask on the public ML for whatever reason.

...

Am 01.07.20 um 23:37 schrieb Christian Boltz:

...

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 14:54:31 CEST schrieb Per Jessen: > It worked with Chromium. (Firefox on Tumbleweed worked fine for me. I use some ad and tracker Note that you both have revealed your voting to the world now :-P Yes, I'm fully aware of that. [1] So what? ;-)

It should be obvious that the board's actions since the last election gave more than enough reasons to sign the non-confidence petition. Even if you read only half of the mails I had to write on this ML in this time, my opinion on this should be *very* clear.

I guess everybody has read Pierre's call for the No-Confidence Vote https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2020-03/msg00091.html which sums up what happened until then.

To make things even worse, there have been additional (diplomatically spoken) questionable mails by some board members with the intention to damage the kicked-out board member even more.

I'm still sure that resigning from the board in protest was the right thing to do [2] - and (sadly) the additional questionable mails confirmed my decision more than once.

So even if I hadn't written the previous mail, my voting would be easy to guess ;-)

As sad as it is - IMHO a full re-election with a clean restart would be the best for openSUSE.

Regards,

Christian Boltz

[1] And yes, I know that it's also possible to submit a blank vote, and even if I didn't do that - thanks to the election officials for allowing this so that "$person submitted a vote" does not necessarily mean "$person voted against the board".

[2] Since then, I can (literally!) sleep better again

-- In asynchron-verteilten Umgebungen mußt Du gegen jede einzelne Regel Deiner Datenbankvorlesung verstoßen. [Kris Köhntopp]

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

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

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

That makes perfect sense, since you are not allowed a vote anyway.

I refuse to correct your top posting and your inconsiderate full quoting as described and explaiined in https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette

-- (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 freenode

Apologies, I am a very occasional mailing list user (these were actually my first mails in many years following the openSUSE lists, out of concern for the project), I did not mean any harm. If you had read the mails, I am aware I can't vote - I asked members to not vote in the interest of the project. However, I am off here now, your response as well as the passive- agressive tone of other mails on here lead me to the conclusion there's little encouragement to participate unfortunately and that I should look elsewhere to usefully spend my time. All the best, C -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Am Freitag, 3. Juli 2020, 16:25:21 CEST schrieb Patrick Shanahan:

That makes perfect sense, since you are not allowed a vote anyway.

As he wrote.......

I refuse to correct your top posting and your inconsiderate full quoting as described and explaiined in https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette

Did you read it? You should have come along this part: When you reply to a message, please quote only the relevant passages to which you are replying Best, Axel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri 2020-07-03, Carsten Hoyer wrote:

Apologies, I am a very occasional mailing list user (these were actually my first mails in many years following the openSUSE lists, out of concern for the project), I did not mean any harm.

Carsten, I did not see anything you should (or should feel obliged to) apologize for. Your mail filled me with sadness, in a way where I can literally sense the pulsation of my heart. This is by no means directed towards you, rather how participating in this project made you feel. I am deeply sorry about that.

However, I am off here now, your response as well as the passive- agressive tone of other mails on here lead me to the conclusion there's little encouragement to participate unfortunately and that I should look elsewhere to usefully spend my time.

You clearly care, which is one of the greatest gifts we can give, and I very much invite you, encourage you: please stay. Despite what you have experienced and may have been feeling, this community has many great moments and connections and a lot of support. There is some darkness clouding that at times, which is natural (though not happy, it definitely is not) and I hope we will, as a community, a set of communities, navigate through those. Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer , CTO @SUSE + chair @openSUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri 2020-07-03, Christian Boltz wrote:

Am Freitag, 3. Juli 2020, 08:20:26 CEST schrieb Carsten Hoyer:

...

The best for OpenSUSE would be to move on from the unprofessional infighting and baseless accusations, to continue working with the professional board we already have Well, that's your opinion of the current board and the events during the last months.

Sadly it doesn't match what happened

Here you label what someone else wrote as an opinion while putting your own perception and opinion as an absolute, Christian. It is natural for us humans to have different perspectives. Hence, for example, the phrase "the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. There have been many, many mails on this list in the last months for people to form their own opinions. Repeatedly stating the same, all the more invoking an air of uncertainty and doubt, hardly helps. I'll refrain from commenting on most such claims that you put in this one e-mail alone. It is unlikely that would converge. There are two I cannot help respond to, though:

and I don't think that for example shouting down and kicking out a newly elected board member - and even shouting down any attempt to explain the claimed offense

You keep repeating this statement which does *not* match what I have observed: There was one meeting where someone (not on the current board) voiced their felt pain towards Sarah. Neither in that case, nor in any other I was present at, did anyone shout at anyone else.

There's also a point I agree with you: having such an issue pending over months is indeed a serious problem. Without intending to blame anyone [2] - it took too long until the voting started. : [2] I can imagine that this wasn't easy for the election officials, and while I don't know much of what was going on, I know a few (non-public) bits that indicate that there were (also?) reasons outside of the election officials that caused some delay.

This is a nebulous statement (which maybe refers to the one week delay for the election officials to get the list of members, which we have addressed procedurally going forward, or maybe to something else). Please put yourself in the shoes of others reading such a statement, who do not have background: What do you want to relay, what (or who) do you want to imply (or implicate), what do you want to trigger? Let's have the poll run its way, conduct a board election (for one seat or all elected seats, depending on the outcome of the poll), and then take it from there. In the meantime, let's refrain from "semi-saying" and "maxi-hinting" things. That is not constructive nor helpful. Thanks, Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer , CTO @SUSE + chair @openSUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, Am Samstag, 4. Juli 2020, 20:25:56 CEST schrieb Gerald Pfeifer:

On Fri 2020-07-03, Christian Boltz wrote:

...

Am Freitag, 3. Juli 2020, 08:20:26 CEST schrieb Carsten Hoyer:

...

The best for OpenSUSE would be to move on from the unprofessional infighting and baseless accusations, to continue working with the professional board we already have

Well, that's your opinion of the current board and the events during the last months.

Sadly it doesn't match what happened

Here you label what someone else wrote as an opinion while putting your own perception and opinion as an absolute, Christian.

Right, I should have added something like "Let me explain my point of view". Sorry for missing this! This mail of course also includes statements from my point of view ;-)

It is natural for us humans to have different perspectives. Hence, for example, the phrase "the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

There have been many, many mails on this list in the last months for people to form their own opinions. Repeatedly stating the same, all the more invoking an air of uncertainty and doubt, hardly helps.

Part of that uncertainity and doubt might be that I had to "anonymize" some things to protect the involved people (which are not necessarily board members). Of course that also makes these things harder to understand. Gerald, let me propose something that is hopefully fair for everybody, and doesn't cause damage to the involved people: If you've seen something in my mails that looks questionable or wrong (or you simply don't get the context), ask me off-list, and if it turns out that I was indeed wrong, write a reply on the mailinglist stating so (ideally without revealing the details that could cause damage to other people - and I'll grant you an exception if something could damage me). Actually I'll even offer to write that mail myself and apologize if such a case exists. This doesn't mean that I want you to stop from responding in public, I just see it as an additional way to clarify some things.

I'll refrain from commenting on most such claims that you put in this one e-mail alone. It is unlikely that would converge. There are two I cannot help respond to, though:

...

and I don't think that for example shouting down and kicking out a newly elected board member - and even shouting down any attempt to explain the claimed offense

You keep repeating this statement which does *not* match what I have observed: There was one meeting where someone (not on the current board) voiced their felt pain towards Sarah. Neither in that case, nor in any other I was present at, did anyone shout at anyone else.

I know that you see it that way, but at least Sarah and I (and a family member who accidently heard it) see it as shouting. Anyway - even if we agree on calling it a "loud speech" (it was clearly not the "normal tone" of that person), it doesn't make things better. Independent of that, the only way I can describe the _content_ of that, well, loud speech, is that it was a wild mix of accusations, and at least some of them were wrong. Several others were more on a "bad idea" level, but far from being a code of conduct violation. In hindsight, it feels like throwing lots of mud at Sarah, aiming for "something will stick". Since you only responded to one half of my sentense, I'll assume that you don't object that Sarah wasn't given any serious chance to explain the claimed offense during that meeting. Also, nobody even considered that Sarah could be right. I can in no way imagine how all this could be seen as fair or diplomatic. And yes, the person who did that "loud speech" in the handover meeting is no longer in the board because his term ended. <speculation mode="thin ice">The more I think about it - and I know I never asked - I wonder if his, well, loud speech came as a surprise to the other board members or if it was something that was planned behind my and Sarah's back. Having it planned would at least be the perfect plot: The person throwing mud (yes, my summary) had to leave anyway, so he had nothing to loose. And the other board members were "just" silent (well, mostly), so that nobody can blame them.</speculation> (To make it very clear: this paragraph is pure speculation, and I'm not even sure if I want to know if my speculation is correct or if I watched too many bad movies.) Even if my speculation is wrong (actually I'd prefer that!) and that "loud speech" was the action of a single person without telling the others before - it's obvious that the other board members thought that much of the mud was really sticking. They didn't object to anything he said, nobody tried to stop him (at least you apologized for not stopping him some days later), supported some points, instantly rejected Sarah's reply attempts (in the rare cases when there was a second to attempt a reply), and "funnily" someone even supported a detail that - while not too important - was for sure wrong. One thing isn't speculation: After these things became public (and IIRC after Pierre called for the non-confidence vote), someone on this mailinglist asked if not "just" the person who did this to Sarah could step down. That was an obvious idea - but was of course impossible to do. In the end, most board members decided to kick out Sarah. This time for sure excluding me as a board member (with somewhat good intentions knowing that I'm a good friend of Sarah, and not wanting to make it too hard for me as long as possible - but still behind my back) and then invited me to a meeting where I was shocked with the already-taken decision. In that meeting it felt like nobody cared about my opinion or any attempt to explain why Sarah did what she did. But back to the loud speech, and then fast-forward to the next regular board meeting after Sarah was kicked out. I'm sure you and the other board members remember when (and how) I told you that I seriously consider to resign in protest. Basically I voiced my felt pain towards the board members (you might recognize that I use your wording here ;-) about what had happened. I'm quite sure that I used my "normal" voice (maybe with a slightly sad untertone) - and I'm very sure that I didn't speak louder than usual (not even to mention shouting) or attack anyone - while of course explaining why I consider to resign. I also gave all board members the chance to respond to what I said, and we had a long conversation (as surprising as it might sound - we even laughed a bit during that). Finally I slept over my decision (with the other board members' feedback in mind) instead of deciding in a hurry. (And no, that doesn't mean that I claim to be an angel ;-) Obviously I'm describing my own actions here, therefore the above might be biased. Please speak up if you see something in a different way. [As we all know, my final decision a few days later was to resign. I even dropped the words "in protest" from my resignation mail - not because it wasn't in protest (it clearly was), but because I hoped that dropping these two words would limit the fallout and avoid damage for openSUSE and all involved people - including the remaining board.] Now compare that to what was done to Sarah, and you'll see that a) there are sane and insane ways to tell someone that you think he/she/ they made serious mistakes b) even if you think that what happened in the handover meeting wasn't shouting, it was far from "normal" behaviour in both tone and content. I could even argue that what happened to Sarah was that someone claimed she violated the code of conduct, and he did that in a way that also violated the code of conduct :-( Fast forward again, I could simply continue - but I probably don't need to repeat that the remaining board decided to publish that and why Sarah was forced to resign (and therefore broke the promise not to reveal that - and yes, I know that Sarah gave some vague pointers in that direction) or later, just to pick another example, additional (diplomatically spoken) questionable mails by some board members with the intention to damage Sarah even more (how does that match our code of conduct?) The last "highlight" was a statement from a board member that people who feel discriminated should ask the board for support. Of course this sounds very positive - but also cynical for a few people. If you don't remember my mail about that from about one week ago: https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2020-06/msg00049.html

...

There's also a point I agree with you: having such an issue pending over months is indeed a serious problem. Without intending to blame anyone [2] - it took too long until the voting started.

[2] I can imagine that this wasn't easy for the election officials, and while I don't know much of what was going on, I know a few (non-public) bits that indicate that there were (also?) reasons outside of the election officials that caused some delay.

This is a nebulous statement (which maybe refers to the one week delay for the election officials to get the list of members, which we have addressed procedurally going forward, or maybe to something else).

Please put yourself in the shoes of others reading such a statement, who do not have background: What do you want to relay, what (or who) do you want to imply (or implicate), what do you want to trigger?

Good point. I'll explain the intention of this statement - basically it's three things in one: a) most important: I don't want to point fingers at or blame the election officials because of the long time it took until the vote started. This is the first time we have a non-confidence vote (luckily we never needed one before - and I hope we'll never need one again!), so it's more than understandable that it took a while to come up with a good way how to do the vote. b) nevertheless, it would have been better for everybody (independent on which "side" you are) if the vote would have been earlier and the topic would long be solved in one way or another. (Again: not intended as blaming.) c) there was also some delay completely unrelated to the election officials - and yes, I was referring to the delay for getting the list of members. I didn't know that it was one week, and I'm a bit surprised that <most likely guess> it took so long until someone in the board remembered that I am one of the persons who can (and of course did) provide the list. And even this isn't meant as blaming. For full transparency, and in case someone wonders what "addressed procedurally going forward" means - one of the election officials and Gerald got permissions on connect.o.o so that they can download the members list themself. Does this make the statement less nebulous? Regards, Christian Boltz -- Python: backtrace-driven development [found on http://whatcanidoformozilla.org/#!/progorn/py/] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, Am Sonntag, 5. Juli 2020, 22:51:47 CEST schrieb Christian Boltz:

<speculation mode="thin ice">

I was really walking on thin ice here. Gerald contacted me off-list and told me that my speculation is wrong, and that he was surprised about what happened in that meeting. I apologize for posting this nasty speculation - and as I already wrote in the previous mail: in this case, I'm happy that I was wrong. (And just to make it clear: the other parts in my mail were not speculations.) Regards, Christian Boltz -- legacy code: code you didn't write (this morning) [https://twitter.com/pcreux/status/481154970364825600] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Op maandag 13 juli 2020 22:56:02 CEST schreef Christian Boltz:

Hello,

Am Montag, 29. Juni 2020, 19:52:51 CEST schrieb Ish Sookun:

...

We have set up an electronic petition on Helios for the Non-Confidence Vote that Pierre Böckmann called for [1] on the 13th of March 2020.

The petition will end on the 14th of July 2020 at 23h59 CET.

As a reminder: if you think we should have a re-election of the whole board (for the reasons given in [1] and all the discussion around this), but didn't sign the petition yet: please don't wait too long.

The ballots will close in about a day.

Speaking about reminders - it seems the board also needs one ;-)

One of the "newest" board meeting minutes I've seen (2020-05-12) contained a note that the meeting minutes should/will be sent out faster. However, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_meetings doesn't look like this has been particularly successful. The newest meeting minutes published there are from 2020-05-26, and some older minutes are also still missing...

Regards,

Christian Boltz

[1] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2020-03/msg00091.html

...

8.1 ist nicht 9.0

Also in der Quersumme schon ;-) [> Henne Vogelsang und Manfred Tremmel in suse-linux]

I consider this message sheer propaganda. Ahd state here officially that I will not vote, and I strongly suggest every member on this list not to do so either. There is nothing wrong with the current Board. They've dealt with every single issue so far as one might expect of an openSUSE Board. And please stop digging, Christian. What if you end up being 100% right but on your own? -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, Am Montag, 13. Juli 2020, 23:28:25 CEST schrieb Knurpht-openSUSE:

Op maandag 13 juli 2020 22:56:02 CEST schreef Christian Boltz:

...

Am Montag, 29. Juni 2020, 19:52:51 CEST schrieb Ish Sookun:

...

We have set up an electronic petition on Helios for the Non-Confidence Vote that Pierre Böckmann called for [1] on the 13th of March 2020.

The petition will end on the 14th of July 2020 at 23h59 CET.

As a reminder: if you think we should have a re-election of the whole board (for the reasons given in [1] and all the discussion around this), but didn't sign the petition yet: please don't wait too long.

The ballots will close in about a day.

I consider this message sheer propaganda. Ahd state here officially that I will not vote, and I strongly suggest every member on this list not to do so either. There is nothing wrong with the current Board. They've dealt with every single issue so far as one might expect of an openSUSE Board.

Right, I forgot that all board members are angels. </sarcasm> Jokes aside: We obviously disagree, and that's ok - I won't force you to agree with me ;-) Actually I would even agree with your last sentense if it would say "... as _I_ (Gertjan) might expect ...". However, since you wrote it in a general way ("... as _one_ might expect ..."), I can only disagree - and given the long discussions we had on this list, I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one who heavily disagrees with what the board has done. It's also interesting that you wrote "as one might expect" and not something like "the board didn't make any serious mistake". Personally, I'd even say the current board made the worst mistakes (yes, plural :-( ) an openSUSE board ever made [2] - which includes kicking out a board member for a sidenote in a request for help in a conflict resolution (without even giving her a chance to explain why she wrote that), later publishing the reasons for the forced resignation (while having promised to keep that confidential) and - worst - followed by some mails from individual board members with the obvious intention to destroy her reputation. Sorry, but that's not what I'd expect from an openSUSE board. (That was the diplomatic version, and I skipped at least one earlier unrelated and IMHO questionable board decision in the above text.)

And please stop digging, Christian. What if you end up being 100% right but on your own?

I could ask you the same question ;-) - I'm sure you think what you wrote is 100% right, but you also know that I disagree. You should know me good enough to know that I usually know what I'm doing - and if it turns out that I was wrong (which of course happens sometimes [3], luckily not too often ;-) well, then I'll learn from that and try not to repeat that mistake. Anyway - there are some hours left to vote, and I still encourage everybody who thinks the board made serious mistakes to vote for a re-election of the whole board. Tomorrow we'll see the results of the vote, which will - besides answering the question what the community thinks about the current board and if we'll have a full re-election - also show if my or your point of view was right. Regards, Christian Boltz PS: Carlos, thanks for stating the obvious. [1] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2020-03/msg00091.html [2] well, to my knownledge - which means an inside view for 3 years, and an outside view for longer than openSUSE or a board exists. Therefore I'm somewhat sure that my statement would even be true without this footnote. [3] I won't even try to claim that I'm perfect and/or an angel ;-) -- What are you doing?!? The message is over, GO AWAY! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juli 2020 um 16:40 Uhr Von: "Vojtěch Zeisek" An: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Betreff: Re: [opensuse-project] Non-Confidence Petition

Dne úterý 14. července 2020 14:57:43 CEST, Christian Boltz napsal(a):

...

Anyway - there are some hours left to vote, and I still encourage everybody who thinks the board made serious mistakes to vote for a re-election of the whole board. Tomorrow we'll see the results of the vote, which will - besides answering the question what the community thinks about the current board and if we'll have a full re-election - also show if my or your point of view was right.

I wonder if people who started and/or support the petition have any idea, or better, plan, what to do next. Many problems with the Board were pointed out, but were there clear evidences to convince people to sign the petition? We'll see. And if the petition succeeds, what will be next? Who will run for the Board under current situation? Of course, such argumentation is not sufficient to not sign the petition, I just wish to point out, that destroying is easier than creating and I wonder if anyone has any plan, how to make the project great again...? ;-)

Let's watch that from another perspective: "How can the openSUSE project be great with the existing Board and their decisions?" openSUSE has got a fantastic community living from their Members and Contributors. We have to follow our guidelines for interacting in such situations. Our plan has not been destroying the community. We want to "rescue" our project in this situation. Do you really believe we would find any volunteer for the single position in the existing Board? I would be optimistic that it is more possible with a whole new openSUSE Board. Nobody wants to work in an environment with excluding Board Members (colleagues) or saving people trolling with the reason of a former position. I know that it is a difficult decision without the own experience within that. You have to live with quotations of different emails. But I can fully agree with Christian. There is enough stuff by the openSUSE Board on this mailing list with "more than mistakes". I expect another conduct by openSUSE Board Members. They have destroyed the affair for their own. So you have got the opinion of two former Board Members with the experience in this Board. Best regards, Sarah

-- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/

Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/

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

Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juli 2020 um 18:51 Uhr Von: "jdd@dodin.org" An: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Betreff: Re: [opensuse-project] Non-Confidence Petition

Le 14/07/2020 à 16:40, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :

...

to not sign the petition, I just wish to point out, that destroying is easier than creating and I wonder if anyone has any plan, how to make the project great again...? ;-)

sure, and the problem is not that different if the board stay in place :-(

It will still be necessary to revamp the present system to make things more friendly for anybody. This year is bad in many aspect :-(

(can the covid also infect groups?)

Only if we would organize a oSC as a covid party. ;) Let's make it better. It is a bad year (for most groups and companies). We have to wait for the result of the petition. After that we have time for rethinking. Sarah

:-( jdd

-- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

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

The recent petition has clearly shown that almost 90% of the Project has confidence in the current Board and their previously stated direction and intent. With such an overwhelming indication of support I think any talk of radically different directions would be utterly irrational. Contrarily, I expect the Board to take the recent result of the petition as a clear indication of the communities will and I expect them to redouble their efforts and act with increased purpose and confidence in the coming weeks. The boards detractors have had their chance to force a different direction, they barely met half of the already low threshold to force a re-election. Let’s end that train of thought resolutely here and now.

On 17. Jul 2020, at 14:46, Klaas Freitag wrote:

Am 14.07.20 um 16:40 schrieb Vojtěch Zeisek:

...

I wonder if people who started and/or support the petition have any idea, or better, plan, what to do next. Many problems with the Board were pointed out, but were there clear evidences to convince people to sign the petition? We'll see. And if the petition succeeds, what will be next? Who will run for the Board under current situation? Of course, such argumentation is not sufficient to not sign the petition, I just wish to point out, that destroying is easier than creating and I wonder if anyone has any plan, how to make the project great again...? ;-)

Great question. Yes, destroying is easier. I would consider 'not changing' a slow way of destruction.

Now with the result of the petition at hand, I think the board should not go back "to normal", but consider to change things drastically. It has turned out that the current governance model of openSUSE has not succeeded in improving the projects relevance nor to unite the contributors behind a common goal or vision.

OTOH openSUSE is heavily depending on SUSE company, technically (all the work of SUSE R&D) and financially and also in the way it can evolve.

IMHO that should be clearly admitted, and instead of trying to decrease the influence of SUSE and manage openSUSE independently (which would fail big times with the current setup), openSUSE should move closer to SUSE company and also put the governance of the project more under the hat of SUSE.

So concretely the plan could be:

1. The new openSUSE Board (after the election) decides to dissolve itself in the current form at a specific date in lets say 15 month later. 2. A group of people of community and SUSE company is formed to work on a proposal for a new governance model for openSUSE, in tight cooperation with SUSE. The board as an institution does not have a saying in this, only individual contributors (which can be board members of course). 3. The new governance model will become reality on day one after the current board dissolved itself, or, if there is none, the project will be dissolved completely and people can fork parts or whatever.

Maybe this will finally generate enough dynamic on all involved sides to stop bickering and answer the important questions.

Klaas

PS: I haven't checked with the bylaws. PPS: I wonder myself that I am proposing this, years ago I would have argued the direct opposite. But today I think it is the most constructive way of creating a perspective for openSUSE.

-- ...und freier Mut gebiert die Tat! Erich Mühsam. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

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

Le 17/07/2020 à 14:46, Klaas Freitag a écrit :

Now with the result of the petition at hand, I think the board should not go back "to normal", but consider to change things drastically. It

drastically is a bit much, but what have to be made better is the working of "membership" right now no member really know the others, so, for example, elections are made on the candidates propositions, but we have no way to weight them. I wonder if the lack is not of a "community manager", may be a bit like what Jos did some years ago https://news.opensuse.org/2011/05/09/people-of-opensuse-jos-poortvliet/ and this is clearly not the board task jdd -- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, Top-post on purpose CAN WE PLEASE PUT THIS BEHIND US NOW? The vote is done we should move on. The constant back and forth and the events of the recent past have left many with a bad taste in their mouth and have had their effect, see James' request to have his membership cancelled. Continuing the back and forth is not really going to help us recover, which will be hard enough as it is. Please Please Please stop. Thanks, Robert On 7/17/20 9:56 AM, Klaas Freitag wrote:

Am 17.07.20 um 15:29 schrieb Richard Brown:

Hi Richard,

please stay cool.

...

... The boards detractors have had their chance to force a different direction, they barely met half of the already low threshold to force a re-election. My point was not about the board. I have never considered the openSUSE board and all the ding dong around it that important tbh.

I wanted to bring up an alternative thought how the governance of the project could be changed in the future.

...

Let’s end that train of thought resolutely here and nowIf this kind of comments are handled this way, I will happily keep my

mouth shut and go elsewhere, no worries.

Have fun, Klaas

...

...

On 17. Jul 2020, at 14:46, Klaas Freitag wrote:

Am 14.07.20 um 16:40 schrieb Vojtěch Zeisek:

...

I wonder if people who started and/or support the petition have any idea, or better, plan, what to do next. Many problems with the Board were pointed out, but were there clear evidences to convince people to sign the petition? We'll see. And if the petition succeeds, what will be next? Who will run for the Board under current situation? Of course, such argumentation is not sufficient to not sign the petition, I just wish to point out, that destroying is easier than creating and I wonder if anyone has any plan, how to make the project great again...? ;-)

Great question. Yes, destroying is easier. I would consider 'not changing' a slow way of destruction.

Now with the result of the petition at hand, I think the board should not go back "to normal", but consider to change things drastically. It has turned out that the current governance model of openSUSE has not succeeded in improving the projects relevance nor to unite the contributors behind a common goal or vision.

OTOH openSUSE is heavily depending on SUSE company, technically (all the work of SUSE R&D) and financially and also in the way it can evolve.

IMHO that should be clearly admitted, and instead of trying to decrease the influence of SUSE and manage openSUSE independently (which would fail big times with the current setup), openSUSE should move closer to SUSE company and also put the governance of the project more under the hat of SUSE.

So concretely the plan could be:

1. The new openSUSE Board (after the election) decides to dissolve itself in the current form at a specific date in lets say 15 month later. 2. A group of people of community and SUSE company is formed to work on a proposal for a new governance model for openSUSE, in tight cooperation with SUSE. The board as an institution does not have a saying in this, only individual contributors (which can be board members of course). 3. The new governance model will become reality on day one after the current board dissolved itself, or, if there is none, the project will be dissolved completely and people can fork parts or whatever.

Maybe this will finally generate enough dynamic on all involved sides to stop bickering and answer the important questions.

Klaas

PS: I haven't checked with the bylaws. PPS: I wonder myself that I am proposing this, years ago I would have argued the direct opposite. But today I think it is the most constructive way of creating a perspective for openSUSE.

-- ...und freier Mut gebiert die Tat! Erich Mühsam. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo

On 18/07/2020 13.20, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

Am 17.07.20 um 15:29 schrieb Richard Brown:

...

The recent petition has clearly shown that almost 90% of the Project has confidence in the current Board and their previously stated direction and intent.

I disagree.

Me too.

It has shown that only 10% of the members think that throwing, brexit-style, the biggest wrench they can find into the gearbox, would be a good idea. There is no indication that 90% of the members think the current setup is the best idea since sliced bread.

I actually like Klaas' idea.

I don't know. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.1 x86_64 at Telcontar)

Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Juli 2020 um 13:47 Uhr Von: "Vojtěch Zeisek" An: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Betreff: Re: [opensuse-project] Non-Confidence Petition

Dne sobota 18. července 2020 13:20:42 CEST, Stefan Seyfried napsal(a):

...

Am 17.07.20 um 15:29 schrieb Richard Brown:

...

The recent petition has clearly shown that almost 90% of the Project has confidence in the current Board and their previously stated direction and intent.

I disagree.

It has shown that only 10% of the members think that throwing, brexit-style, the biggest wrench they can find into the gearbox, would be a good idea. There is no indication that 90% of the members think the current setup is the best idea since sliced bread.

You can't distinguished who for whatever reason ignored the petition (without (much) thinking about it), and how many actively decided *not/ to support the petition. The rules were clear from the beginning - convince 20% of members to support the petition. Starters and supporters of the petition failed in this. So that IMHO speculations and statistical or sociological discussions can't change clear democratic decision. See e.g. much much attention average referenda attracts in various countries. If ~50%, it's great success. The results do not say anything about possible future changes in the project. But it might be good starting point for future discussion. The question must be "What *do* we wish?" and not "What we *do not* wish?". The Board should learn from what had (has?) happened in past ~half year and whole project *must* move forward, otherwise it might die painful death in crappy personal fights...

Thank you for this nice explanation! The petition is done and we are not able to change that. We have to accept it. Therefore, especially the Board "and we" have to learn from that what has happened. I agree with Seife and Carlos. 11,6% is not "nobody". That is a small part of the community and more than 1 person. In my opinion, the Board should accept that as a feedback and (as Klaas said) they should think about their decisions in the past. That is more something as a second chance. But I agree with the others, too: "We had enough discussions about this topic and should look forward." Best regards, Sarah

-- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/

Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/

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

Hi, Am Samstag, 18. Juli 2020, 23:08:32 CEST schrieb Carlos E. R.:

...

But I agree with the others, too: "We had enough discussions about this topic and should look forward." Yes.

Yes and no. On the non-confidence motion I agree. Everyone can make their own assumptions and live more or less happy with them. (Hence the changed topic.) But on the general picture of this community I want to emphasize what Sarah wrote in some way:

Therefore, especially the Board "and we" have to learn from that what has happened.

The crucial bit here is "and we". The board does not operate and live in some empty space here. It serves the community on particular tasks but in the end it's just part of the whole openSUSE ecosystem. This whole non-confidence motion story brought up flaws we never had to face before. So, yelling "CAN WE PLEASE PUT THIS BEHIND US NOW?" won't work for the overall topic. (It sure is good for mental hygiene regarding this list's tonality, but that's a different story.) But we can't just put this behind us but have to draw conclusions in a progressive and constructive way. E.g. the election officials had to knit a process for the petition with bylaws that never had such thing in mind. This needs to be fixed. That is why I appreciate Klaas' initiative to talk about the governance model. Lets put this into the whole foundation context that keeps popping up from time to time:

1. The new openSUSE Board (after the election) decides to dissolve itself in the current form at a specific date in lets say 15 month later. 2. A group of people of community and SUSE company is formed to work on a proposal for a new governance model for openSUSE, in tight cooperation with SUSE. The board as an institution does not have a saying in this, only individual contributors (which can be board members of course). 3. The new governance model will become reality on day one after the current board dissolved itself, or, if there is none, the project will be dissolved completely and people can fork parts or whatever.

Maybe this will finally generate enough dynamic on all involved sides to stop bickering and answer the important questions.

Yes, I mostly agree as I see hardly any serious (publicly visible) activity from a reasonable number of community people. It's mostly Simon Lees who pushed on that topic. On the other hand SUSE is already involved but not very active as well. And I can't blame them for that. Why should SUSE push on changing something they are satisfied by in the status quo. So, to conclude: community people interested in and willing to do some discussion work should gather rather sooner than later. Consider me as one of them. vinz. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Op zondag 19 juli 2020 01:24:46 CEST schreef Knurpht-openSUSE:

Op zaterdag 18 juli 2020 18:18:15 CEST schreef Sarah Julia Kriesch:

...

...

Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Juli 2020 um 13:47 Uhr Von: "Vojtěch Zeisek" An: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Betreff: Re: [opensuse-project] Non-Confidence Petition

Dne sobota 18. července 2020 13:20:42 CEST, Stefan Seyfried napsal(a):

...

Am 17.07.20 um 15:29 schrieb Richard Brown:

...

The recent petition has clearly shown that almost 90% of the Project has confidence in the current Board and their previously stated direction and intent.

I disagree.

It has shown that only 10% of the members think that throwing, brexit-style, the biggest wrench they can find into the gearbox, would be a good idea. There is no indication that 90% of the members think the current setup is the best idea since sliced bread.

You can't distinguished who for whatever reason ignored the petition (without (much) thinking about it), and how many actively decided *not/ to support the petition. The rules were clear from the beginning - convince 20% of members to support the petition. Starters and supporters of the petition failed in this. So that IMHO speculations and statistical or sociological discussions can't change clear democratic decision. See e.g. much much attention average referenda attracts in various countries. If ~50%, it's great success. The results do not say anything about possible future changes in the project. But it might be good starting point for future discussion. The question must be "What *do* we wish?" and not "What we *do not* wish?". The Board should learn from what had (has?) happened in past ~half year and whole project *must* move forward, otherwise it might die painful death in crappy personal fights...

Thank you for this nice explanation! The petition is done and we are not able to change that. We have to accept it. Therefore, especially the Board "and we" have to learn from that what has happened. I agree with Seife and Carlos. 11,6% is not "nobody". That is a small part of the community and more than 1 person. In my opinion, the Board should accept that as a feedback and (as Klaas said) they should think about their decisions in the past. That is more something as a second chance.

But I agree with the others, too: "We had enough discussions about this topic and should look forward."

Best regards, Sarah

Do you see the discrepancy in your reply ? Please stop now, Sarah. The outcome simply means that 88.4% of the membership does not support the petition, so trusts the current board. Where nobody campaigned for the 88.4% and you and yours intensively campaingned to get the 20% needed on various platforms ( proof can be shown ). Instead of trying to still make this a community statement, you, instead of the people on the current board, could as well find a reason for "rethinking" ("" from your FB page ) . You gathered people to see it your way, the community did not accept the way you see things. Don't try to present the outcome of the petition as a win or a signal to the board from the community. That is outright disrespecting the 88.4% of the membership that did not support your view. And hence gave signal of trust in the board. You went for some goal - board down - campaigned, and your side lost. That is the outcome of your cruisade, incl. the petition. Accept that. And refrain from ^^. Another thing: Stop spreading false info. A.o. about other board members stepping down in thepast. I personally told you in Prague about this, and I have the evidence you're wrong. Yet you still used that in your campaign against the board and others. . In short: Stop. And leave ( this community has better things to do ) if you cannot stop trying to keep this discusion alive. I.e. have it somewhere else please. Ezplanation for double/edited posting: Mimuj message said my reply could not be posted, So I copied did some minor editing,, reposted.

-- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, Am 19.07.20 um 01:24 schrieb Knurpht-openSUSE:

Op zaterdag 18 juli 2020 18:18:15 CEST schreef Sarah Julia Kriesch:

...

...

You can't distinguished who for whatever reason ignored the petition (without (much) thinking about it), and how many actively decided *not/ to support the petition. The rules were clear from the beginning - convince 20% of members to support the petition. Starters and supporters of the petition failed in this. So that IMHO speculations and statistical or sociological discussions can't change clear democratic decision. See e.g. much much attention average referenda attracts in various countries. If ~50%, it's great success. The results do not say anything about possible future changes in the project. But it might be good starting point for future discussion. The question must be "What *do* we wish?" and not "What we *do not* wish?". The Board should learn from what had (has?) happened in past ~half year and whole project *must* move forward, otherwise it might die painful death in crappy personal fights...

Thank you for this nice explanation! The petition is done and we are not able to change that. We have to accept it. Therefore, especially the Board "and we" have to learn from that what has happened. I agree with Seife and Carlos. 11,6% is not "nobody". That is a small part of the community and more than 1 person. In my opinion, the Board should accept that as a feedback and (as Klaas said) they should think about their decisions in the past. That is more something as a second chance.

But I agree with the others, too: "We had enough discussions about this topic and should look forward."

Do you see the discrepancy in your reply ? Please stop now, Sarah. The outcome simply means that 88.4% of the membership does not support the petition, so trusts the current board. Where nobody campaigned for the 88.4% and you and yours intensively campaingned to get the 20% needed on various platforms (

I've been mostly silent about that topic but rereading some claims repeatedly I need to comment. I didn't support the petition but sorry I do also not really trust the board (completely). The other option was just the worse. So please stop claiming that 88.4% of the community "trusts the board". The petition lost because it's how it works. When I see the reaction from some board members how they now feel more self-confident as before, sorry to say: There is no reason for that. There certainly is a certain degree of distrust in the board and it really should work on regaining its trust moving forward! Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 19/07/2020 10.04, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

Hi,

Am 19.07.20 um 01:24 schrieb Knurpht-openSUSE:

...

Op zaterdag 18 juli 2020 18:18:15 CEST schreef Sarah Julia Kriesch:

...

...

Do you see the discrepancy in your reply ? Please stop now, Sarah. The outcome simply means that 88.4% of the membership does not support the petition, so trusts the current board. Where nobody campaigned for the 88.4% and you and yours intensively campaingned to get the 20% needed on various platforms (

I've been mostly silent about that topic but rereading some claims repeatedly I need to comment. I didn't support the petition but sorry I do also not really trust the board (completely). The other option was just the worse. So please stop claiming that 88.4% of the community "trusts the board". The petition lost because it's how it works. When I see the reaction from some board members how they now feel more self-confident as before, sorry to say: There is no reason for that.

Absolutely.

There certainly is a certain degree of distrust in the board and it really should work on regaining its trust moving forward!

-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.1 x86_64 at Telcontar)

OK, this is a "he said - she said" story at this point. Membership has voted the board stays STOP STOP STOP take your bickering off list if you feel the need to continue IT MUST END On 7/19/20 7:53 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:

Hello,

I've been silent in the last days in the hope that things cool down and we all can go back to productive mode, but I _have to_ reply to Gertjans claims.

I hope this mail doesn't add too much fuel to the fire.

Am Sonntag, 19. Juli 2020, 01:24:46 CEST schrieb Knurpht-openSUSE:

...

Do you see the discrepancy in your reply ? Please stop now, Sarah. The outcome simply means that 88.4% of the membership does not support the petition, so trusts the current board.

As multiple people already stated, this is not true, and I'm sad that I have to repeat it just for you.

The only thing we know is that 88.4% of the membership didn't vote for (as Seife described it) "throwing, brexit-style, the biggest wrench they can find into the gearbox".

We can only speculate about the reasons. Carlos already mentioned some possible reasons yesterday, and I could easily add some more if I would want to add to the speculations.

I know two things for sure:

* 45 members (8.8%) actively voted against the petition - and while that could be seen as supporting the board, it's still speculation. Maybe some people voted that way just to ensure that list of voters != list of people who voted against the board (and while I'm personally fine with having made my voting behaviour public, I don't even want to imagine how much damage someone could do with a list of people who signed the petition)

* Anybody who claims that "88.4% [...] trusts the current board" has made up a _completely wrong_ conclusion.

...

Where nobody campaigned for the 88.4%

Just to pick a random example - you are "nobody"? ;-)

Let me quote from one of your mails you wrote about a week ago: There is nothing wrong with the current Board. They've dealt with every single issue so far as one might expect of an openSUSE Board.

Now if that isn't campaigning pro-Board, I don't know what would be.

...

Don't try to present the outcome of the petition as a win or a signal to the board from the community. That is outright disrespecting the 88.4% of the membership that did not support your view. And hence gave signal of trust in the board.

Repeating a completely wrong conclusion doesn't make it more true.

And, as a sidenote - I can't imagine any way how someone could describe what happened in the last months or the result of the petition as a win. Not even a >20% result would have been a win. It was more a loose-loose situation, and the petition was a way to ask our members to choose the lesser evil.

But, independent of the exact result - IMHO already the call for the non-confidence petition was a clear signal to the board.

...

You went for some goal - board down - campaigned, and your side lost. That is the outcome of your cruisade, incl. the petition. Accept that. And refrain from ^^.

Crusade? If it's your personal opinion to call it this way, fine. But for a more general view, let me make clear that campaigning isn't a crusade.

...

Another thing: Stop spreading false info. A.o. about other board members stepping down in thepast. I personally told you in Prague about this, and I have the evidence you're wrong.

Assuming we are talking about the same person (and I'm quite sure about that), well, it's an interesting case.

That person told the board a reason for stepping down.

In the handover meeting, you told us about a _different_ reason you heard from that person in private - which, if you think it a bit further, can be easily interpreted in the way Sarah sees it.

I never asked that person if there is a "real reason" (because I felt that asking that question would already hurt) and therefore don't know for sure, but - based on some interesting[tm] things I remember, and especially after knowing the reason you told us in the handover meeting - I'm sure that Sarah is much closer to the truth than you are.

I don't want to write more details in public to avoid publishing private or confidential information. If you don't understand what I mean, ask me in private, and I'll explain it.

...

In short: Stop. And leave ( this community has better things to do ) if you cannot stop trying to keep this discusion alive. I.e. have it somewhere else please.

Gertjan, please re-read Sarahs mail. She already wrote that she accepts the result and doesn't want to continue this discussion. Yes, she also wrote that we (including the board) should learn from it - and that's something several people (including me, and even including one of the current board members!) see in a similar way. Maybe there's disagreement about the details, but so far statements saying that we and/or the board should continue with "business as usual" are in a very clear minority.

And about asking Sarah to leave: Seeing that you wrote that in a mail that repeats a known-wrong claim, well, I think everybody can make his/ her own conclusions, so I won't comment on this. And I seriously wonder if I need to ask you exactly the same, so please finally stop your crusade [1] against Sarah before I really have to ask you to leave.

Regards,

Christian Boltz

[1] I'm only using that word because you introduced it into the discussion, but it's not the worst choice.

-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo

Hi Robin, Robin Shepheard writes:

I have considered attempting to contribute to openSUSE with the limited skills I have from some time now, however the tone of the mailing list has been incredibly disconcerting. I know that as an Aspergers sufferer I may not be the best gauge for other peoples reactions but the infighting has been a major discouragement.

This is not related to Aspergers, I find the tone on the mailinglists insufferable most of the time as well and started outright deleting most threads. I would therefore ask everyone to take Robin's email seriously and consider their communication-style in the future. The toxicity is costing us contributors and actively hurting the project. * snip *

If there is anything I can do to help please let me know.

Stay, contribute and spread a positive & welcoming atmosphere in the channels where you feel comfortable. Cheers, Dan -- Dan Čermák Software Engineer Development tools SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5 90409 Nuremberg Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Director: Felix Imendörffer