On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 7:45 AM Sarah Julia Kriesch
Gesendet: Samstag, 14. März 2020 um 22:05 Uhr Von: "Stasiek Michalski"
An: "Sarah Julia Kriesch" Cc: Knurpht-openSUSE , opensuse-project@opensuse.org Betreff: Re: [opensuse-project] Call for a No-Confidence Vote - Re-Election of the openSUSE board On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 21:40, Sarah Julia Kriesch
wrote: Gesendet: Samstag, 14. März 2020 um 21:15 Uhr Von: "Stasiek Michalski"
An: "Sarah Julia Kriesch" Cc: Knurpht-openSUSE , opensuse-project@opensuse.org Betreff: Re: [opensuse-project] Call for a No-Confidence Vote - Re-Election of the openSUSE board This guy has represented himself (with the company signature!) on the same way during the application period with speaking bad about the openSUSE Heroes Team [1], myself and others. He had interacted on the same way in the openSUSE Board in the past and is doing so on our mailing lists continuously. Does that match our Code of Conduct or do we have special rules for such people?
This is simply a critique of status quo, not the effort of the contributors. Richard even goes as far as to point out: "(...)it's not the Board's job to tell our infrastructure volunteers or sponsors how to do their job."
I fail to understand how you can see this statement as disrespectful. It recognizes Heroes as trying their best.
I meant the bigger part: "To re-iterate my points in my original email - It is an objective fact that issues in both Provo and Nuremberg take too long to fix - There is no evidence that Provo issues take any longer than Nuremberg issues, therefore there is no evidence that moving openSUSE infra from Provo to Nuremberg is a good solution - Even if there was, I do not think is it appropriate for Board members to demand the course of action that sponsors or other volunteers will have to take out.
And because you were insulting enough to suggest I want a broken infrastructure, I will re-iterate here, of course I do not want a broken infrastructure[...]"
I am confused now, because none of this is in any way disrespectful...
If you are reading only one of these emails that can sound not disrespectfully. I would not escalate that because of 1 or 2 emails with such aggressive chant. I have an abudance of patience and try to turn that into positive in such a case. I am one Founder of the Heroes Team and know their feeling with MF-IT in the background.
Do you mean that is no Board Member job to speak for them that they can transfer improved processes with a better infrastructure?
Therefore, if you know the situation such a comment is disrespectful:
- There is no evidence that Provo issues take any longer than Nuremberg issues, therefore there is no evidence that moving openSUSE infra from Provo to Nuremberg is a good solution
Additionally, that is not only in one email. That is drawing a continuous line through the whole thread with the goal to damage my campaign.
Additionally, I have asked the Heroes Team for their wishes and my suggestions were exactly what they need. So in my point of view I have spoken as a Board Member candidate with "(...)it's not the Board's job to tell our infrastructure volunteers or sponsors how to do their job." in the best interest for the community and Richard against their wishes/ the Team.
Where is he against anything? He just stated he was dissatisfied with the admin@o.o's response time regardless of the location, and for all I know, this might have been the case for him. Denying somebody's experience and citing your own as if it was the whole truth is disrespectful. As a matter of fact, in this context, those exact experiences would have been an excellent opportunity to boost your platform in the vote by citing as concretely as he did. I just see this as a wasted opportunity.
Every time you bring up Richard you treat him like he is against you for some reason though, can't we all be friends instead?
I want to have peace in the community, too. That is not possible with disturbers. I don't treat anybody because of unique wrong actions. But sadly Richard has done similar things with other former Board Members (a long "mostly non-public" history), too. That does not have any end and continues on public mailing lists. You can watch that on opensuse-factory in the last weeks [0].
I would like speaking well about Richard and having a frienship as with everybody else in the community. But I am sorry so say that - that is not possible with such flouts and aggro from the other side.
Having known all of you folks as long as I've been actively involved in the openSUSE community this go-around (which is five years now!), I have never known Richard to be anyone but a joyful, enthusiastic supporter of the openSUSE community. It was Richard that introduced me to other great members of the openSUSE community, including Stasiek, and when we met in-person at Flock in 2018, we had a fantastic conversation of project governance (I've been a member of the Mageia Council for a couple of years now). While Richard can easily bait people with the rest of them, he largely reserves that for presentations, where he professes his love for openSUSE and its wonderful community. I've extremely confused about the acrimony you have with Richard, especially even now as he isn't even a member of the Board or the Chairman anymore. I also don't get what *any* of this matters with the issues at hand, since again 1) Richard is not the Chairman nor on the Board, and 2) you stepped down of your own volition and *then* disclosed all this. The best I can gather is that *you* have a problem with the openSUSE community. And I don't think *that's* right either. I think a lot of people here don't understand the nuances of project governance that well. It's important to note that the openSUSE Board *does nothing* most of the time. The Board's major purpose is to arbitrate disputes and to handle sponsorships of the openSUSE Project, including being the bridge between SUSE and openSUSE. If we as a community want the openSUSE Board to do more things, then that's a completely separate conversation. But as it stands, you are asking for the Board to do things it does not have the ability to do. The things it does now are mostly matters that cannot be disclosed to the public without permission from *everyone*, legally speaking. So that makes transparency on board matters a little difficult. As Richard has said many times, openSUSE is a "do-ocracy". It is mostly self-organized and self-governing within individual groups that wish to do governance. That has its pluses and minuses, but it has enabled folks like myself and Stasiek to make huge impacts in the openSUSE Linux distribution as well as other aspects of the Project. So, in the end, I'd like to just ask... Can you please just let it go? It's in the past, dredging it up isn't going to help anybody now. It's not like Gerald is going to be able to do anything about what happened 2+ years ago unless SUSE has a TARDIS hidden somewhere in the Nuremberg office. Having visited the SUSE office there, I'd be impressed if they managed to hide one anywhere (most rooms are not big enough to hide such a thing!). -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org