Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2020, 07:17:15 CET schrieb Simon Lees:
I believe that the events in the last year have shown
a weakness in at
least one part of the rules.
If 20 per cent or more of the openSUSE members require a new
board, an election will be held for the complete elected Board seats.
I believe that this is a very worth while concept, however the current
phrasing has left enough ambiguity that in practice it was hard to
organise cleanly. My personal view is that the people who authored
this text expected that should this ever be needed that some form of
basic petition or even just +1's to a mailing list thread would be
If I had to guess, I'd say they added the rule "because you need such a
rule", and never expected that there would be a need to actually trigger
that rule (which also means they didn't care about technical details).
In practice it was decided that this would be too hard
to verify and
had some privacy concerns and as such the election officials decided
to utilize our voting system which was a reasonable way to handle the
situation under the current wording.
I'd drop the "under the current wording" part - the way the voting was
done was reasonable, independent of the wording.
However it now leaves us in a
position where one or two people can call for such a vote that will
cripple the project for several weeks.
You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist ;-)
We were in this position since openSUSE exists. In all the years, we had
exactly one call for a non-confidence vote, and that was for good
reasons. Nobody ever abused this rule, and given the possible damage
someone could do to him-/herself, I expect that nobody will ever abuse
this rule to "troll" or "just for fun".
Besides that, I don't see how that would "cripple the project for
Most parts of the project will continue as usual.
The only affected area are board-related things like elections and the
board itsself. I'd hope that the board doesn't do "big" decisions during
a running non-confidence vote (unless they are really urgent), but
that's just a personal expectation and nothing our rules state.
And finally, since we now have a known-good way to handle a non-
confidence vote, it will (if we ever need it again) be handled much
This doesn't mean that your proposal is terribly bad, however I think it
I don't believe this was the
intent of the original wording as such I am proposing an alternative,
this is still in draft form so I am happy to hear other peoples
amendments and suggestions.
10 individual members may contact the election officials
requesting a petition of non confidence in the board. If 20 per cent
or more openSUSE members require a new board, an election will be
held for the complete elected Board seats.
The 10 is a number that I felt is reasonable i'd be open to going
slightly up and down, its a bit of a balance if 20% of members are
interested getting 10 to contact the election officials should be
easy. At the same time it should be reasonably easy for election
officials to verify 10 members by checking the membership list and
sending an email to there registered email address asking for
confirmation they sent the original email.
Your main goal is to prevent abuse of the rule, right?
For that, I'd say that even 3 members would be enough, and 5 would be
more than enough.
Note that your proposal means 10 members need to half-publicly *) state
that they want a forced re-election, and this is harder than it sounds
for the privacy reasons discussed earlier.
*) In theory, the election officials could leak the list of people who
sent them a mail. Or one of the admins could check the mail log for
people who mailed the election officials recently and "guess" the
To make it clear: This is not meant as distrust in the election
officials or the admins, but it's a case where I'm thinking about "what
could happen in worst case?" - and data that doesn't exist can't leak
There was also some questions around the 20% rather
then a 50%
majority, My view is to leave this as is, if 20% of people call for a
forced election it means there is quite some disagreement in the
community, however the current board can run in the election so a
different 50% of the community could still reinstate them.
IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong) some months ago your opinion was that in
case of a forced re-election, the current board members wouldn't be able
to run. I'm not sure if I mis-remember or if you changed your mind, but
let me explain why I don't like your view:
If the board kicks out one of the board members, this person is not
allowed to run in the forced re-election, even if that board action was
the reason for the non-confidence vote.
Therefore it would only be fair to apply the same rule if 20% of the
members kick out the whole board.
An alternative might be to change the rules so that "$person isn't
allowed to run" does not apply to forced re-elections.
(As a sidenote, and independent on the rules - if I'd be part of a
kicked-out board, I'm quite sure I wouldn't run again.)
Ich bezweifle, dass jeder 1984 gelesen hat. Denn dann wüsten die
Kommentatoren, dass das Gros der Bürger gar nicht überwacht, sondern
einfach nur verdummt wurde. Privatfernsehen wurde übrigens in
Deutschland zum 1. Januar 1984 eingeführt. [Peter Brülls zu