[board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy

2021-12-01 Thread Thorsten Behrens 
Hi,

the 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 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes.

> calling for a VOTE on the just-published draft update to the CoI
> policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we
> reference version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy:
> 
> ---
> 
> Preamble
> 
> In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
> agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any
> regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes,
> decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.
> 
> Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of Interest 
> Policy: 
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/2/21/Mike_BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_1.pdf
> 
> Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the
> Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest
> Policy always shall prevail.
> 
> ---

Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstains, 0 disapprovals.
Both deputies supports the motion.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Drafting Tender "Cleanup & further improve ODF conformance"

2021-12-01 Thread Florian Effenberger 

Hello,

thanks a lot for the feedback, and sorry also here for the belated reply!

Regina Henschel wrote on 29.10.21 at 14:57:


(1)
The link http://autotests.opendocumentformat.org from item "Required 1." 
does not work.

Do you have another reference for ODFAutoTests?


unfortunately not - I can confirm the website is not loading, so I'll 
replace the reference with the Git repo pointed out by Michael Stahl in 
the meantime.



(2)
The search result from item "Required 2." contains Meta-issues. 
Expanding them results in 80 issues.


Using Whiteboard as search criteria has no advantage compared to the 
Meta-issues. And I think both, Whitheboard search or Meta-issues, are 
not suitable for a tender, but a tender needs to list the issues 
explicitly.


The list from Whiteboard search and Meta-issues needs to be examined and 
prioritized manually.


This is taken from the specification at 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2021#Cleanup_.26_further_improve_ODF_conformance


I fear answering that question is beyond my skills. ;-) Does it make 
sense to bounce this question back to the ESC for further specification?



(3)
Is it possible to get
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48392
ODF: Implementation for svg:linearGradient and svg:radialGradient is 
missing

as explicit issue for "Required"?
We had this already as suggestion "Multi-color gradient" in
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2021
and now again in
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2022


I've added it. Not sure, however, how much that would change the 
work/cost estimate of the tender.


Michael Stahl wrote on 03.11.21 at 10:49:


the scope of this is quite large and unclear... *required* items are:

1. ODFAutoTests: addressing issues will be difficult because as Regina points 
out the web service appears to be offline.
   IIRC it's possible to run the tests offline, but currently i guess nobody knows how 
much work it is to set that up and what problems would actually be found, so i guess this 
item mostly amounts to "get ODFAutoTests to run at all".


I've tried to rephrase #1 a bit, let me know if this is better.


2. odf_validation:

* 37128 this is, errm, "interesting" problem and might take weeks to fix
* 96066 likely needs specification work
* 94768 cannot be solved with ODF 1.3, it needs specification work
* 106934 needs specification work, possibly it was already added for ODF 1.4
* 131127 might be fixable?
* 131148 needs specification work
* 131159 this was added for ODF 1.4
* 108198 export meta-bug depending on 26 unfixed bugs, wow...
* 94587 *import* meta-bug depending on 37 unfixed bugs
  - how does this have "odf_validation" keyword in the first place,
i thought that applied only to the export filter?
i would propose to remove "odf_validation" keyword and keep "odf".

... so i'm not sure what would make sense here, certainly *requiring* fixes of 
> 60 different bugs that are all over the map doesn't make sense to me, unless 
the board wants to spend the entire yearly budget...

maybe everything should be "optional" and then applicants can list which bugs they think are actually possible to fix given the current ODF 1.3 specification? 


Given the amount of changes from the original tender, I wonder if it 
makes sense to bounce this back to the ESC and discuss it in one of the 
next calls? We have the autoupdater tender discussion tomorrow already, 
so maybe it's a bit on too short notice and would fill the agenda too 
much, but it could be a topic in one of the next calls? Or is it better 
to suggest the above list via e-mail and use it if people are fine with it?


Thanks,
Florian

--
Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy

2021-12-01 Thread Nicolas Christener 
Hi

There was an issue with receiving the TDF mails on my end and I'm sorry for
the possible late response.

Nevertheless: I support this VOTE and version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy.

All the best,
Nicolas

On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 00:41 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Dear directors, all,
> 
> calling for a VOTE on the just-published draft update to the CoI
> policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we
> reference version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy:
> 
> ---
> 
> Preamble
> 
> In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
> agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any
> regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes,
> decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.
> 
> Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of Interest
> Policy:
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/2/21/Mike_BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_1.pdf
> 
> Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the
> Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest
> Policy always shall prevail.
> 
> ---
> 
> According to § 1, 2. of said Rules of Procedure, this vote runs for
> one week, until December 1st, 2021. After approval, the amended Rules
> of Procedure will be published and enter into immediate effect.



-- 
Nicolas Christener, Deputy 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


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy