Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (783 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse-project] Decision making transparency ...
  • From: Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:07:50 +0100
  • Message-id: <1251198470.8751.1856.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Michael,

First my bias - I believe this is the wrong decision. Nevertheless -
were I convinced that in fact it was made by a
reasonably open and transparent process - I would be able to accept
it in good conscience - in the spirit of tolerance and community; all
democrats get to swallow bitter fruit sometimes :-)

On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:56 +0200, Michael Loeffler wrote:
After consideration of the project discussion I discussed the
feature request further with the openSUSE Board and other leaders
within the openSUSE project and came to the decision

This is most interesting. When you say you "discussed the feature
request" with the openSUSE Board - what was their considered
recommendation ?

Did they suggest you make this choice ?

Or did you just -tell- them what you had already decided - and then
discuss that ? indeed - what was the process here ? it appears
remarkably opaque.

Surely, in this case boot-strapping from the transparent openSUSE
election process, and the general mix of the board as representatives of
the community would make most sense.

It is one thing that the board discusses the issue, and comes to a
compromise. It is another thing to (somehow) -trust- that, inside the
head of one person - who happens to be a KDE user, based in a KDE
hotspot ;-) - a balanced decision is made, taking into account both the
volume and quality of evidence on both sides. It is not really a process
open to scrutiny - short of some MRI scanning machine ;-) Worse - it
seems to me that an equally reasonable, but different person may well
have made a different decision.

In summary, it is somewhat surprising, amid all the talk of the
critical importance of "doing what the community wants" for a decision
of this importance and scope, to be made by a single, appointed, Novell
employee, in a permanent, irremovable maintainership role. The advantage
of elected representatives is that as/if/when they make silly decisions,
there is at least a hope of replacing them.

I would ask that at the openSUSE conference we can come to an
understanding of a rather more useful role for the openSUSE board for
this kind of decision. Is it planned to have a discussion on this narrow
topic of transparency; indeed the whole issue of openSUSE governance
seems like it could do with re-visiting [ clearly with no reference to
this current hot topic ].

We want to make clear that both desktops are considered equal
citizens within the openSUSE Project

How about actually sketching out what this really means, if indeed it
means anything at all, to re-assure the GNOME guys that this is not the
very unsubtle end of a big wedge to squeeze them out, and make their
(already un-necessarily unpleasant) experience of openSUSE advocacy
worse.

As an example, can you give any assurances around my concerns about
conferences - presenting both desktops equally eg. ? providing live-CD
media instead of DVDs - so GNOME advocates don't have to hand out
default-KDE-installs left and right ? other trivial examples might be
boxed set screenshots (if the boxed set rides again), printed marketing
materials etc. We have one prominent area where they are not treated
equally - I assume the plan is to spread that aggressively to other
areas - can you reassure ?

Thanks,

Michael.

--
michael.meeks@xxxxxxxxxx <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
References