Dear community,for the record my rejection of the proposal as formulated has not been counted.
I repeatedly asked for various elements to be considered and to amend the text before being able to vote on it but that unfortunately hasn't happened.
My opinion is that the text doesn't take in consideration feedback and other issues which include: - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day where people are busy with their day job - vote started after less than 21h at 18:53 when people coming back from work could have had time to rush in a comment - comments made during the meeting and in the mailing lists were not considered for inclusion in an actual compromise text - attempts to have an evaluation of the concerns expressed in time met no considerations - some managed to provide their opinion only in the vote reply but still no corrective actions have been taken - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company reselling COOL[0], should have declared a potential CoI and let the vice-chairman deal with the evaluation and inclusions of comments to make sure the process is seen by all as fully impartial regardless of actual CoIs.
I could have simply voted against and found ourselves once again in the same split situation we had in the original vote and that's what I wanted to avoid.
The main issues and missing elements I see in this proposal are:- LOOL should not be automatically archived, a full evaluation of the situation after a fair period of time should be done - the time frame is too short for a community to form (holiday season making it even more difficult) so 12 months could be a fair period of time - reopening of the repository with due warnings until LOOL is safe to use and activities show a healthy community forming
- marketing to promote the creation of a community around LOOL- get more feedback from the wider community at LibOCon about the future of LOOL
- finishing evaluating with commercial stakeholders the mutually Without the above IMHO the proposal will lead only to one outcome.Having said the above I ask to reconsider the decision and add it to the public part of the agenda for the next board meeting.
Ciao Paolo[0] https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/
On 04/07/2022 03:11, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Dear community, the following vote happened after our Monday board call, on request as a private email vote:The board sees positive & constructive news around renewed developer interest in LibreOffice Online. To further encourage initiatives to collaborate on a single, TDF-hosted repository, the board resolves to postpone formally atticizing Online for three more months. Unless the de-atticization requirements [1] (3 different developers contributing non-trivially) are fulfilled by then, and/or if necessary binding corporate commitments are not made by 2022-10-01, Online will be automatically moved to the attic. [1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic#Deatticization_requirementsThe Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 6 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. Result of vote: 2 approvals, 3 abstain, 1 disapproval. **Decision: The proposal has been accepted.** Two deputies support the proposal. Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order): Ayhan, Caolán, Cor, Emiliano, Gabriel, Kendy, László, Thorsten -- Thorsten
-- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
