A note on principles (by the board)
We, the members of the openSUSE Board, strongly value the openSUSE Code of Conduct and Guiding Principles: https://en.opensuse.org/Code_of_Conduct https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles Inclusion is a fundamental pillar of our community and the broader free software and open source communities that we are part of, are connected with, and value. We firmly stand against sexism, racism,... and strive to keep our communities open, welcoming, and safe for everyone to join. As a board, we also believe that these principles that apply to our openSUSE communities shall also apply to the events and groups that we partner with and sponsor. We are reassessing our sponsorships in that light. Axel, Gerald, Gertjan, Neal, Simon, Syds, Vinz
On Fr, Apr 2, 2021 at 14:19, Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> wrote:
We, the members of the openSUSE Board, strongly value the openSUSE Code of Conduct and Guiding Principles:
https://en.opensuse.org/Code_of_Conduct https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles
Inclusion is a fundamental pillar of our community and the broader free software and open source communities that we are part of, are connected with, and value.
We firmly stand against sexism, racism,... and strive to keep our communities open, welcoming, and safe for everyone to join.
As a board, we also believe that these principles that apply to our openSUSE communities shall also apply to the events and groups that we partner with and sponsor.
We are reassessing our sponsorships in that light.
I would have assumed that all of the above went without saying, but the fact that you needed a meeting to decide on putting out a very weak, vague statement instead of actually discussing pulling the plug is telling LCP [Sasi] https://lcp.world
We are reassessing our sponsorships in that light.
I would have assumed that all of the above went without saying, but the fact that you needed a meeting to decide on putting out a very weak, vague statement instead of actually discussing pulling the plug is telling
The wording of the statement seems to suggest that's exactly what's being considered. I assume this is about RMS? David Mulder
On Fri 2021-04-02, David Mulder wrote:
[ actually discussing pulling the plug ] The wording of the statement seems to suggest that's exactly what's being considered. I assume this is about RMS?
We wanted to make this a broader assertion, not specific to just one organization. As far as the FSF goes, we actually discussed this (also with Doug) and agreed to not sponsor until we hopefully can feel more confident again. Gerald
On 2021/04/02 08:24, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
The wording of the statement seems to suggest that's exactly what's being considered. I assume this is about RMS?
---- Something to note. A recent "/." article mentioned 2 letters, one asking for removal, another against. The signatures against were about 3000+, and 'for' was about 2000+. No idea if it is valid, however, since no allegations of fraud have been raised at this point, it will be interesting to see how, this power-play evolves with what seems to be a much more vocal minority. Hoping people are condemning the improper statements and actions and not the person(s) (or personality/ies) involved. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue -- primarily because of what feels like a lynchmob mentality. He may deserve ouster, but mob-rule is not a pretty thing -- its sorta scarey.
On Fri, 2021-04-02 at 17:24 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri 2021-04-02, David Mulder wrote:
[ actually discussing pulling the plug ] being considered. I assume this is about RMS?
We wanted to make this a broader assertion, not specific to just one organization.
As far as the FSF goes, we actually discussed this (also with Doug) and agreed to not sponsor until we hopefully can feel more confident again.
Gerald
Dear Gerald, Given this news, I would like to suggest that the Board reconsiders whether it's actions on this topic actually reflect our own principles "We want be open and work transparently" from https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles To read this threads initial public statement and note the absense of any specifics and then subsequently learn that the Board did discuss and make a decision regarding a specific organisation, I am left feeling that the Board is trying to act in an obfuscating manner. Even though I approve of both the initial message and the decision regarding sponsorship of the FSF, I do not approve of how the Board has conducted itself on this topic. Regards, Richard openSUSE Member
On 4/6/21 6:48 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
On Fri, 2021-04-02 at 17:24 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri 2021-04-02, David Mulder wrote:
[ actually discussing pulling the plug ] being considered. I assume this is about RMS?
We wanted to make this a broader assertion, not specific to just one organization.
As far as the FSF goes, we actually discussed this (also with Doug) and agreed to not sponsor until we hopefully can feel more confident again.
Gerald
Dear Gerald,
Given this news, I would like to suggest that the Board reconsiders whether it's actions on this topic actually reflect our own principles
"We want be open and work transparently" from https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles
To read this threads initial public statement and note the absense of any specifics and then subsequently learn that the Board did discuss and make a decision regarding a specific organisation, I am left feeling that the Board is trying to act in an obfuscating manner.
Even though I approve of both the initial message and the decision regarding sponsorship of the FSF, I do not approve of how the Board has conducted itself on this topic.
As part of our openness and transparency this was published as part of the minutes where we discussed this issue as can be seen in the link below. It is somewhat unfortunate that these minutes were not fully ready to be sent out at the same time, however that meeting contained several complex issues and as you would understand that did have an impact on how quickly we were able to publish the minutes. https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/thread/6... -- 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
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 12:09 +0930, Simon Lees wrote:
Dear Gerald,
Given this news, I would like to suggest that the Board reconsiders whether it's actions on this topic actually reflect our own principles
"We want be open and work transparently" from https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles
To read this threads initial public statement and note the absense of any specifics and then subsequently learn that the Board did discuss and make a decision regarding a specific organisation, I am left feeling that the Board is trying to act in an obfuscating manner.
Even though I approve of both the initial message and the decision regarding sponsorship of the FSF, I do not approve of how the Board has conducted itself on this topic.
As part of our openness and transparency this was published as part of the minutes where we discussed this issue as can be seen in the link below. It is somewhat unfortunate that these minutes were not fully ready to be sent out at the same time, however that meeting contained several complex issues and as you would understand that did have an impact on how quickly we were able to publish the minutes.
https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/thread/6...
Even with the minutes posted, the contrast between the loud public statement and the quiet meeting minutes seems like a perfect example of the Board attempting to talk aout of both sides of their mouth https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/talk+out+of+both+sides+of+mouth The way the Board has acted means that any supporter of the FSF's position can point to openSUSE as a sympathetic potential ally, who has not taken a hard stance against their action. Conversely, any who feels the FSF's position is abhorrant can point to openSUSE's temporary ("for the time being") suspension of sponsorship and promise of a proposal from yourself and Neal as a positive step. In short, the Board's stance is not to have a stance. And that is what I do not approve of. Your reply, attempting to defend the Board's duplicity has not reduced that disapproval. Regards, Richard
Am 08.04.21 um 13:25 schrieb Richard Brown:
The way the Board has acted means that any supporter of the FSF's position can point to openSUSE as a sympathetic potential ally, who has not taken a hard stance against their action.
Conversely, any who feels the FSF's position is abhorrant can point to openSUSE's temporary ("for the time being") suspension of sponsorship and promise of a proposal from yourself and Neal as a positive step.
In short, the Board's stance is not to have a stance.
Or to have the stance as stated. Just because you don't like it the stance is still there. And just because it's not loud or infuriating it still is a statement. Plus there was action taken (which you did not mention for whatever reason). What any of the (more or less) involved groups gather from it to undergird their positions is neither in the board's hands nor do I personally care. vinz.
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 13:51 +0200, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
Or to have the stance as stated. Just because you don't like it the stance is still there. And just because it's not loud or infuriating it still is a statement. Plus there was action taken (which you did not mention for whatever reason).
What 'action taken'? From the meeting minutes: "* We would not like to sign any existing letter as oS Board" This is not an action, but a decision for inaction "* We would like to publish a note where we emphasize the CoC and guiding principles of the oS community" This is a not an action, but a reaffirmation of already existing standards of this project. One could argue it's a meaningless reaffirmation given I don't think any recent events put them in question. It may be an attempt to create an illusion of action, but it's not a meaningful act. "* As a sponsor of FSF we would like to see the guiding principles reflected. We would not like to sponsor an organization that is not in line with CoC and common values. * AI Simon and Neal to draft proposal based on Geralds mail to the board." This is not an action, but literally a promise of future action from Simon and Neal "* For the time being, sponsorship is suspended" This is not an action. "For the time being" makes it clear that the suspension is temporary, and I assume will be reassessed as soon as the promised action by Neal and Simon bears fruit...assuming that AI is actually acted on. I cant mention that which hasn't happened. And I think the way the Board is conducting itself in this matter gives me grounds, as a member, to have doubts whether the Board will follow through with any of it's promised actions. Meanwhile, I exercise my right as an openSUSE Member to respectfully, but clearly, state my displeasure with the behaviour of the Board. Hopefully that clear's that up.
What any of the (more or less) involved groups gather from it to undergird their positions is neither in the board's hands nor do I personally care.
So you are happy wit the Board making public statements but you don't care what the audience of the statements (the Public) make of those statements? Ok then..good to know..
Am 08.04.21 um 13:59 schrieb Richard Brown:
"* For the time being, sponsorship is suspended"
This is not an action.
Depending on one's point of view. My non-native English abilities tell me that "is supended" indeed is an action. But of course we can go on with nitpicking on words if that's what you fancy. "For the time being" makes it clear that the
suspension is temporary, and I assume will be reassessed as soon as the promised action by Neal and Simon bears fruit...assuming that AI is actually acted on.
I cant mention that which hasn't happened. And I think the way the Board is conducting itself in this matter gives me grounds, as a member, to have doubts whether the Board will follow through with any of it's promised actions.
...which I get the feeling you don't have any trust in the board doing what it says it will be doing. If that's the case you might want to run a distrust motion against the board. We (the community) have some experience with these.
Meanwhile, I exercise my right as an openSUSE Member to respectfully, but clearly, state my displeasure with the behaviour of the Board.
Hopefully that clear's that up.
Noted.
What any of the (more or less) involved groups gather from it to undergird their positions is neither in the board's hands nor do I personally care. So you are happy wit the Board making public statements but you don't care what the audience of the statements (the Public) make of those statements?
Ok then..good to know..
Yes, including yours. These are things mostly out of control of the board and bowing to them is nothing I consider useful.
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 14:22 +0200, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
I cant mention that which hasn't happened. And I think the way the Board is conducting itself in this matter gives me grounds, as a member, to have doubts whether the Board will follow through with any of it's promised actions.
...which I get the feeling you don't have any trust in the board doing what it says it will be doing. If that's the case you might want to run a distrust motion against the board. We (the community) have some experience with these.
If the Board's only reaction to negative feedback from openSUSE Members is to stubbornly refuse to consider that feedback and instead escalate the situation by saying "if you dont like it, run a distrust motion", then I don't think the very concept of a Board is suitable for a Project with openSUSE's Guiding Principles. Thankfully, I know from the experience that the Board can operate with more nuance than the binary choice you post here. It is true, I currently have my doubts about the Board, justified by the actions/inactions of the Board and the responses in this thread. That said, I retain hope that some individuals in the Board will be able to influence things so that the Board may act more consistently with the Project's Guiding Principles in the future. So I will not be baited into escalating my disapproval into a full blown motion for your removal from the Board. I think having my disapproval publicly stated is the only way available for the Board to improve in the spirit of openness, quality, transparency and respect which the Project is meant to operate under. Regards, Richard
On 4/8/21 9:29 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 13:51 +0200, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
Or to have the stance as stated. Just because you don't like it the stance is still there. And just because it's not loud or infuriating it still is a statement. Plus there was action taken (which you did not mention for whatever reason).
What 'action taken'?
From the meeting minutes:
"* For the time being, sponsorship is suspended"
This is not an action. "For the time being" makes it clear that the suspension is temporary, and I assume will be reassessed as soon as the promised action by Neal and Simon bears fruit...assuming that AI is actually acted on.
Ok, maybe this part of the minutes wasn't worded the best. The actual decision was to suspend sponsorship until we believe that the issues that lead to our suspending of sponsorship are resolved, to date that hasn't happened yet. Personally I believe that the act of withdrawing all future sponsorship sends a stronger message to the main people we need to send a message to being the FSF Board then any statement or words that we may say. I can understand that you or others may have a different opinion on that, I also understand that there are a significant number of other organizations that are not in the position of having donated to the FSF or one of there events in the recent past and as such I can understand them feeling the need to signal there disapproval in other ways. Cheers -- 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
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 22:16 +0930, Simon Lees wrote:
Ok, maybe this part of the minutes wasn't worded the best. The actual decision was to suspend sponsorship until we believe that the issues that lead to our suspending of sponsorship are resolved, to date that hasn't happened yet.
Personally I believe that the act of withdrawing all future sponsorship sends a stronger message to the main people we need to send a message to being the FSF Board then any statement or words that we may say. I can understand that you or others may have a different opinion on that, I also understand that there are a significant number of other organizations that are not in the position of having donated to the FSF or one of there events in the recent past and as such I can understand them feeling the need to signal there disapproval in other ways.
Indeed "all sponsorship is withdrawn until standards are met" is a strong message. But that is not what has been posted, at all. Especially given "for the time being" comes with a clear meaning of "for the present, and for a short time in the future" https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+the+time+being So the minutes as they are written sure make it easy to read that it's the Boards intention to reestablish sponsorship sometime in the future. Which wouldn't be a strong message. Thanks for the clarification - might I suggest the minutes is corrected to more accurately reflect the Boards decision? Regards, Richard
Am 08.04.21 um 14:42 schrieb Richard Brown:
If the Board's only reaction to negative feedback from openSUSE Members is to stubbornly refuse to consider that feedback and instead escalate the situation by saying "if you dont like it, run a distrust motion", then I don't think the very concept of a Board is suitable for a Project with openSUSE's Guiding Principles.
I don't see that there is "only" and "stubborn" reactions. Simon explained, I explained. You told that you are not satisfied by the clarification. So maybe you might want to sweep in front of your own door regarding stubbornness.
Thankfully, I know from the experience that the Board can operate with more nuance than the binary choice you post here.
It wasn't a binary choice I gave, just yet another option. But of course you can keep on leaving out the broader picture painted and just go for singular, out of context statements.
It is true, I currently have my doubts about the Board, justified by the actions/inactions of the Board and the responses in this thread.
That said, I retain hope that some individuals in the Board will be able to influence things so that the Board may act more consistently with the Project's Guiding Principles in the future.
...or at least how you interpret these principles.
So I will not be baited into escalating my disapproval into a full blown motion for your removal from the Board. > I think having my disapproval publicly stated is the only way available for the Board to improve in the spirit of openness, quality, transparency and respect which the Project is meant to operate under.
Wait, you only raised your voice and won't take action? Uuh.
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 15:03 +0200, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
So I will not be baited into escalating my disapproval into a full blown motion for your removal from the Board. > I think having my disapproval publicly stated is the only way available for the Board to improve in the spirit of openness, quality, transparency and respect which the Project is meant to operate under.
Wait, you only raised your voice and won't take action? Uuh.
Indeed. I raised my voice and expect the individuals who are elected to a body to take actions to take actions.. And I'll be considering those actions when deciding how I vote in the future. That's how democracy works..and the Board is elected democractically after all, to represent the Members like me who vote for them. There's no need to escalate things to further action as long as I have hope that the Board will consider my voice the next time they take actions in my name as part of the openSUSE Project. Regards, Richard
On 4/8/21 10:30 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 22:16 +0930, Simon Lees wrote:
Ok, maybe this part of the minutes wasn't worded the best. The actual decision was to suspend sponsorship until we believe that the issues that lead to our suspending of sponsorship are resolved, to date that hasn't happened yet.
Personally I believe that the act of withdrawing all future sponsorship sends a stronger message to the main people we need to send a message to being the FSF Board then any statement or words that we may say. I can understand that you or others may have a different opinion on that, I also understand that there are a significant number of other organizations that are not in the position of having donated to the FSF or one of there events in the recent past and as such I can understand them feeling the need to signal there disapproval in other ways.
Indeed "all sponsorship is withdrawn until standards are met" is a strong message.
But that is not what has been posted, at all. Especially given "for the time being" comes with a clear meaning of "for the present, and for a short time in the future"
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+the+time+being
So the minutes as they are written sure make it easy to read that it's the Boards intention to reestablish sponsorship sometime in the future.
Which wouldn't be a strong message.
Thanks for the clarification - might I suggest the minutes is corrected to more accurately reflect the Boards decision?
Sure, i'll raise that with the board sometime after I sleep. -- 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
On 08.04.21 13:25, Richard Brown wrote:
In short, the Board's stance is not to have a stance.
I disagree.
And that is what I do not approve of.
I totally approve of the board's actions in this case. JFTR. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
One thing is that this an incredibly vague and weak "statement" compared to what other projects/organizations put out (like Fedora or SUSE for that matter) and a totally different one that it has been kept here and not posted anywhere else like news-o-o. So basically seen by nobody... This is really sad.
On 4/10/21 5:10 AM, Attila Pinter wrote:
One thing is that this an incredibly vague and weak "statement" compared to what other projects/organizations put out (like Fedora or SUSE for that matter) and a totally different one that it has been kept here and not posted anywhere else like news-o-o. So basically seen by nobody...
This is really sad.
We have discussed also posting this to news.o.o, I am unsure what the status on that is though. Also as I mentioned to Richard, as we have recently been sponsoring FSF events which means unlike other organisations A "public statement" is not the only action we are taking so you cannot judge our response just on a public statement. Obviously we will be informing the FSF about the fact we are not sponsoring there events and why. -- 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
Simon Lees wrote: A "public statement" is not the only action we are taking so you cannot judge our response just on a public statement. Obviously we will be informing the FSF about the fact we are not sponsoring there events and why.
Simon, With all due respect the only way this or other decisions of the board can be judged are by the public statements. And this one is very much questionable. This is another subject, but the board should consider holding public meetings - similar to the Fedora Council's - if wanted to be judged by not only based on the statements it is making public. My two cents. -- A.
Hi Attila, On Mon 2021-04-12, Attila Pinter wrote:
This is another subject, but the board should consider holding public meetings - similar to the Fedora Council's - if wanted to be judged by not only based on the statements it is making public. My two cents.
coincidently just a few hours before you sent that e-mail the board discussed and agreed to do exactly that - making board meetings public. :-) Gerald PS: Yes, we need to work (again) to get minutes out quicker; a pet peeve of mine that I inherited from Christian...
This is great progress, well done and thank you!
participants (9)
-
Attila Pinter -
David Mulder -
Gerald Pfeifer -
L A Walsh -
Richard Brown -
Sasi Olin -
Simon Lees -
Stefan Seyfried -
Vinzenz Vietzke