Community to Discuss New Governance Proposal

Members of the openSUSE community will have a virtual meeting on Feb. 18 at 3:30 p.m. UTC to discuss a proposed governance framework aimed at clarifying decision-making processes within the project community.

The meeting, accessible on the project’s Jitsi channel, follows a recent draft proposal that outlines structural changes to how the project manages technical and community decisions.

The proposal calls for the creation of two new governing bodies; a Technical Steering Committee with the purpose of providing technical direction and resolving technical disputes, and a Community & Marketing Committee focused on community growth and communication platforms.

The existing openSUSE Board would continue handling legal, financial and organizational matters.

The governance framework aims to address what the proposal describes as informal decision-making processes that often favor those with the most time or persistence rather than following clear procedures. The proposal seeks to establish transparent structures while preserving maintainer autonomy and open participation.

Both proposed committees would consist of elected community members serving two-year terms. Some feedback on this topic discussed at FOSDEM recommend it be reduced to a yearlong commitment. The proposal recommends that the Technical Steering Committee have seven to nine members, while the Community & Marketing Committee would have five to seven members.

The draft explicitly states nothing takes effect without community discussion and board approval. After the initial discussion period, feedback will be incorporated into a revised draft before the board and community can consider the next steps.

Points for Discussion

• Committee Structure and Size: Should the Technical Steering Committee have seven to nine members and the Community & Marketing Committee five to seven members, or would smaller committees be more effective?
• Term Lengths: Is a two-year term appropriate for committee members, or should the project adopt the one-year commitment suggested in FOSDEM discussions?
• Maintainer Autonomy: How can the governance framework ensure technical decisions don’t override individual package maintainers’ control while still enabling project-wide progress?
• Transition Process: What criteria should determine voter eligibility and election procedures during the proposed six-month interim period before formal elections?
• Conflict Resolution: Are the proposed escalation paths clear and fair for resolving technical disputes and community issues across different project areas?

Contributors can review the proposal and comment on the mailing list to engage with the community about the topic. Those who are not able to attend the meeting can also engage with the meeting by listing any issues they would like for those who attend to discuss on the etherpad designated for the meeting.