Hi *, looking at this thread, we start to run in circles.
My understanding was, that Paolo volunteered to write-up a more detailed proposal, including goals (short-term and possibly long-term). I agree with several other directors (current and upcoming) that this would be very useful to have, to base a decision on. So lets wait for that document; in this sub-thread there was no new arguments in a while. I suggest we retire it. A few quick comments, no need to discuss further: Paolo Vecchi wrote: > On 16/02/2022 09:52, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > > The difference is that we already have a mentor (actually several > > mentors in several areas), while you suggest a strategic decision - > > We recently employed only 1 mentor. > No one else has been employed in that specific role. > TDF employed, and still employs, several mentors in various roles & overlapping responsibilities (including development). Those were, if my memory serves me well, unanimously wanted. > It would be great if members of the board of directors, with their > TDF hat on, would explain clearly why they seem to be opposed to > employing in-house developers. > The opposition seems to be about the process, and about putting the means before the end. There was BTW a constructive side-thread with some thoughts on how/where a salaried developer at TDF could be beneficial, with contributions from all sides of the aisle. Best, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
