Pursuant to the presentation We’re all grown up: openSUSE is not SUSE (and it’s tim our name reflected that.), given by Richard Brown and Robert Sirchia at openSUSE Conference 2024, it is clear that the openSUSE Community has some thinking to do and questions to answer, about our Project Name, our Governance, and our very future.
Discussion of this has largely been focused and documented on the openSUSE Project Mailing List and other adjunct conversations are happening in other threads, and in places like Matrix and the Forums.
Currently, there are no actual plans on the table anywhere for what future changes may look like.
This blog post is not intended to make any of those plans, nor is it discussing any potential name changes. This is merely a collection of documents that I’ve put together, giving an overview of the Governance Structures of some of our peer projects out there in the Linux Distribution space.
Please note, this analysis is not intended to pass any value judgement on any of the projects being discussed, individual developers, the products any of these projects release, or to say which governance model is “best”. I have attempted to try to be as neutral and realistic as possible in my Pros/Cons, and I welcome any feedback from contributors from these projects, where they feel I may have gotten something wrong, misunderstood, or have Pros/Cons they would like to have added.
Please contact me on Mastodon @sfalken@mastodon.naturalorder.me, via e-mail sfalken at opensuse dot org, or just send me a PR to the document on codeberg with your suggested changes.
The Free/Open Source organizations I’ve chosen to examine are:
I have chosen these five, as they are the biggest “Primary” distributions out there. They provide the bases for many other downstream derivative distributions, and provide a good overview of the structures that exist out there for both Commercially linked, and wholly community based development models.
edit 2024-07-17 I have added the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) as it was brought up as an example in the presentation, and provides an alternative “Umbrella Organization” that isn’t necessarily within the model of providing a “Linux Distribution”, but concerned with fostering smaller projects with a common goal.
This blog post will be providing a very simple overall description of the distributions in question, with a link to a more in depth examination of their structure, on Codeberg
openSUSE
- Deep ties to the Company SUSE S.A. and their Commercial products.
- Legal and Financial Coverage rests with SUSE S.A. including Trademarks
- Very loose Project Governance
- Weak Central Authority
- Lacks Documentation about Policies and Procedures in many cases
-
The openSUSE community is to be governed by those who ‘do the work’
- The project structure whether intentional or not, is very focused around the Individual Developer, and Personal Initiative, but as a side effect of the “Factory First” Policy, SUSE S.A. has enormous influence over Development.
openSUSE Project Governance Overview
Fedora
- Deep Ties to Red Hat Inc and their Commercial products.
- Legal and Financial Coverage rests with Red Hat Inc. Including Trademarks
- Very tight Project Governance, with multiple levels and spheres of responsibility.
- Strong Central Authority
- Documentation is generally good, but lacking in some areas.
- The project structure appears to be primarily concerned with the project overall, and less with individual developer wishes.
Fedora Project Governance Overview
Ubuntu
- Community project is a wholly owned part of Canonical, LTD
- Legal and Financial Coverage rests with Canonical, LTD, including Trademarks
- Very Structured Project Governance
- Strong Central Authority, and Ultimate Veto via Canonical
- Documentation is generally good
- Project Structure appears to favour the needs of Canonical LTD and the overall Project, vs Individual Developers.
Ubuntu Project Governance Overview
Debian
- Community Project, without any direct ties to any Commercial Interest.
- Legal and Financial Coverage provided by SPI, Inc, Trademarks are held by the project
- Very Structured Project Governance, via a Constitution
- Weak Central Authority
- Documentation is very good
- Project Structure clearly focuses on the needs and desires of Individual Contributors
Debian Project Governance Overview
Archlinux
- Community Project, without any direct ties to any Commercial Interest.
- Legal and Financial Coverage provided by SPI, Inc, Trademarks are held by the project.
- Relatively Loose Project Governance
- Weak Central Authority
- Documentation is spotty, but efforts are underway to improve
- Project Structure is clearly focused on the needs and desires of Individual Contributors
Archlinux Project Governance Overview
CNCF
- Large Foundation, funded and governed mostly by Commercial Interests.
- Provides Legal, Financial, and Marketing support to smaller projects
- Clear documentation of Foundation/Project goals, and structures
- Weak Central Authority (In so far as, the Foundation is not directly involved in the day to day operations of the projects under it’s purview)
- Unclear if the Structure is primarily focused on the goals of Sponsors, or on Developers
Notes
These documents are subject to addition or review, as I am eliciting feedback from current and former developers of those Projects. Changes will be noted in the various git commit logs for the individual pages.