A look at the openSUSE board election

The election to replace outgoing openSUSE board members is underway, with four candidates vying for three seats. The election was initially scheduled to be completed in December, but the timeline was extended due to too few candidates standing for the seats. Voting closes on February 2 and the results are expected to be announced on February 3.

The openSUSE board is tasked with leading the overall project, acting as a central point of contact, helping to resolve conflicts, facilitating communication and decision-making processes, and initiating discussions about new project-wide initiatives. The board has six members, five are elected by the members of the project, and the board chairperson is appointed by SUSE. The outgoing members are Douglas DeMaio, Neal Gompa, and Patrick Fitzgerald. Board members are limited to two consecutive roughly two-year terms and then they must sit out an election period before running again. Gompa is term-limited this time around; DeMaio and Fitzgerald are not running for second terms.

Only members of the openSUSE project are allowed to run for the board. The criteria for membership is "contribution in a measurable way" to the project, and approval by the openSUSE membership team, which is appointed by the board.

Anybody?

The first call for nominations was announced on November 15, but openSUSE election committee member Ariez Vachha said, on December 2, that the committee was extending the timeline because no one had stepped forward to run. Board chair Gerald Pfeifer said that he expected this coming year to be important for the future of openSUSE as a project, and encouraged members who care about openSUSE to step up and run for a seat.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that openSUSE members were not initially clamoring to run for a seat. The board has been subject to turmoil in the past, and this year promises to have its own challenges. For example, there is the lingering question of a name-change request from primary openSUSE sponsor, SUSE, as well as calls to improve project governance and clarify the relationship between the project and the Geeko Foundation. The foundation is a UK not-for-profit entity that takes in and handles money for openSUSE activities, but it is separate from the project and not directly answerable to the board or larger openSUSE membership.

The project has faced a scarcity of candidates before (LWN covered one such instance in 2019), but this seems to be the first time the clock has run out entirely with no candidates.

Candidates and discussion

Ultimately, Vachha announced that four willing members were found to run for the seats by the end of the second nomination phase on January 18. The candidates, with links to each one's platform page, are Jeff Mahoney, Chuck Payne, Rachel Schrader, and Ish Sookun. Mahoney, VP of engineering for Linux systems, is the only SUSE employee running this time around.

The discussion phase has been relatively quiet, but not entirely silent. Christian Boltz asked the candidates what their opinion was about the renaming question. Mahoney said that he obviously couldn't get into SUSE-internal discussions about the topic, but shared his opinion that he was never particularly happy with the project being named openSUSE in the first place. However, after nearly 20 years, it would take time and effort for a new name to reach the same level of recognition that openSUSE has now. The community, he said, should not seriously consider a rename without support to provide the "acceleration" needed to regain public awareness. If that were present, a rebranding could be beneficial:

I think it could be an opportunity for rejuvenation. This board election is a pretty good example of flagging community involvement. We heard people at [the openSUSE Conference] this past summer talk about how difficult it is to join the community in a non-technical role. I know some people love the near-anarchy "do-ocracy" model of openSUSE but it also often turns into "whoever yells the loudest wins." A rebrand could also bring an opportunity to revamp governance to be more inviting to newcomers.

Payne said that the thought of changing the name filled him with a sense of sadness and that he could not support a name change. However, he would support "the direction that the majority [of the community] and SUSE ultimately choose." He said that his primary concern was continued growth and success of the distribution and community.

Sookun first replied to the question with his thoughts on whether a new legal entity, such as a foundation, should carry the openSUSE name. He preferred the openSUSE name, but said success of the project mattered most. He followed up with a note saying that he would prefer the name of the project remain unchanged. Schrader has not respond to the question.

Another openSUSE member, Thorsten Bro, had several questions. Bro wanted to know about the candidates' "pet projects" within openSUSE, their thoughts on the future of a legal setup for openSUSE and the status of the Geeko Foundation, as well as how they would react to "an escalation" on the mailing list. The example given was a long thread started in 2023 by Günter Dachs complaining that a post asking Reddit moderators to switch back to a regular openSUSE logo following the end of Pride Month had been deleted.

Payne said that his project was advocacy, and that he would like to see the openSUSE Ambassador program make a return. As far as handling the contentious thread, he said that he sided with the code of conduct that the board had developed and that the project needed "to move past this and accept everyone as humans regardless". He had little to say about the concept of a foundation, but was in favor of "whatever it takes" for the project to be great.

Sookun said that his project was openSUSE mirrors, and that he had set up the first Linux mirror in Mauritius. "Imagine using Linux for 20 years and always longing for faster updates — then finally experiencing lightning-fast updates." Like Payne, he said that he stood by the code of conduct, and did not feel that display of the pride flag should be restricted to Pride Month. "Inclusivity cannot be limited to certain dates."

He admitted that he did not have a full understanding of what had been accomplished and what was left to do with regard to a foundation for openSUSE. His vision, however, was for an independent openSUSE that could operate on its own.

Schrader responded that she was still looking for the best place to fit into openSUSE, but wanted to focus on making the things welcoming and easy to use for those with accessibility needs. She had not interacted in the pride thread Bro pointed to, but she felt that many Linux communities had not done much to show "that it's a space for all types of people". She wanted openSUSE to be the community that welcomes minorities, and to make that a big part of the project's marketing.

She also wanted to get past talking and move to the actionable stage of rebranding and making the project more independent "and not be seen as just an arm of the corporation". She felt that having a clear path for the project was important as "many onlookers are unsure about the future and may choose another distro because of that."

Finally, Mahoney said his pet project "historically" was maintaining the kernel of openSUSE's rolling-release distribution, Tumbleweed. These days, like his career in general, his focus is more big-picture. "I'm interested in governance and the health and growth of the community and project overall." His take on the escalation story was that it sounded "exactly like every other Reddit moderator story" he'd ever heard. But, the situation could have been avoided with a policy about how long alternate celebratory logos were in use.

Mahoney said that Bro would have to ask the board of the Geeko Foundation for its status, since it is supportive of but independent of the openSUSE project. It would require a lot of moving parts for that to change, though he said that there was a "big intersection" between an independent foundation and his interests in governance and growth of the community. The renaming would also play a role there.

What's next

As Pfeifer indicated, this coming year may be one of the most important for openSUSE in a long time. The board, and larger community, is likely to grapple with a rebranding and trying to chart a more independent path from the SUSE mothership. It is not a great sign that the membership had to be prodded to produce candidates to run for the board. If openSUSE, by any name, is going to increase its relevance and user base it will have to generate substantially more enthusiasm.

It is not solely up to the board to do this, but it could potentially act as a catalyst and cheerleader for a renaissance. In addition to a looming rebrand, the project also has a major release—openSUSE Leap 16—on the docket for 2025. Handled properly, it might be the thing to draw in new users and contributors.