Hi Kendy,
On 29/06/2022 10:00, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Can you please check the 2.3 once again, and merge those bits that are
acceptable for you, and I'll see how can I rephrase the rest, so that
we can finalize this, please?
I was hoping that the extensive rationale I provided when I sent out
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 27. 06. 2022 v 17:58 +0200:
> The differences are not that many apart from those that I could not
> accept as they impose limitations that have no place in an
> employment
> proposal.
>
> In the document v. 2.3 you just merged back the issues that will
> cause
Hi Kendy,
On 27/06/2022 17:38, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Thank you very much for that!
I've once again rebased the changes on top of yours, but I see we are
getting much closer; so in the
TDF-In-House-Developers-Proposal-v2-3-Merged.odt
I've accepted your changes where we both agree, to avoid
Hi Paolo, all,
Paolo Vecchi píše v St 22. 06. 2022 v 16:49 +0200:
> as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear
> I've integrated what makes sense to have on a
> developers recruitment proposal and added a few items clarifying
> some aspect in version 2.2 (in ODF
El 22.06.2022 11:49, Paolo Vecchi escribió:
Hi all,
as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear
I've integrated what makes sense to have on a developers recruitment
proposal and added a few items clarifying some aspect in version 2.2
(in ODF format) of this "merged"
Hi all,
as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear
I've integrated what makes sense to have on a developers recruitment
proposal and added a few items clarifying some aspect in version 2.2 (in
ODF format) of this "merged" proposal that you'll find here together
