I think the current proposal is a good one and I like the 40% rule. So far in my opinion Novell's role as a benefactor as whole been quite benign and very positive, even if we do not always agree on some decisions. On 9/29/10 3:36 PM, Michael Loeffler wrote:
All,
I fully support Henne's suggestion to get rid of the Novell/Non-Novell split and open the whole board to the community while implementing the 40% rule as described below. But, and please let me raise a concern here, if we'd like to consequently implement this change in election rules, we'd also need to get rid of the current chairperson appointment from my perspective. The chairperson currently is appointed by Novell and to my feeling this still constitutes Novell a special role. I don't see an issue that Novell as the main sponsor of the project has a special role in here. I can understand any company that they want to have a safety that they might veto things which they don't want at all in a project
Moin, On Wednesday 29 September 2010 15:21:14 Rupert Horstkötter wrote: like ours. And the previous years have proven that in the openSUSE project people doing the work take decisions and not someone with veto power. And this is how a project should work.
My experience and observing the whole community is that this has been the case as well. Just an example, I've asked for and been made maintainer in few top level devel projects on OBS. Now my skill level is nowhere the level of the Novell developers and I could very well make a mess of things for Factory ;), no one has said no... As Henne has said, "Just take things and run".
Best M (current chairman of the openSUSE Board)
<snip> Having begun to wrestle myself with setting up governance for open source projects, I appreciate the openness the way this has been handled. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org