Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi, Am 31.05.22 um 15:59 schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi Michael, Michael Weghorn píše v So 28. 05. 2022 v 21:21 +: (...) The following passage in that section is a bit unclear to me: It is also expected that while the Targeted Developer is unable to actively contribute to public and professional education for whatever reason (eg. absence of volunteers) that they will be researching and increasing their experience by contributing to new ways to advance the free software and standards in their particular Target Areas. Can you clarify what that means in practice? Ah - it is the extension of the rationale how the development itself fits the TDF mission, ie. doesn't make that much sense without the previous paragraph that starts "Why is it important to major on mentoring". So how about: "Development per se is not part of TDF mission, but it is expected that while a mentor is unable to actively contribute to public and professional education for whatever reason (eg. absence of volunteers) that they will be researching and increasing their experience by contributing to new ways to advance the free software and standards in their particular Target Areas." Does it make more sense this way? I'd be curious to know what would be (from the point of TDF's mission / statutes) the difference between working on the source code by in-house developers and by tendering and paying a commercial company for doing this work? I only could see the difference that in one case TDF has full control and has not to pay for the benefit of a commercial company. And thus in the first case could get reach more targets / tickets done than in the latter case from my point of view. But maybe I'm totally wrong and have no knowledge of the real market economy. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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] [DECISION] additional budget of 30.000 € for legal consultations
Would you be able to give us some more background to this please? While it's good to have the decision public, without the context of the request it is hard to understand the merits of this large unbudgeted expenditure. If that remains sensitive, perhaps post to the list only Trustees can read. As a more minor point, it would be good to also report the attendance in this item too, so that this becomes a more complete record and we know who was involved. Thanks! Simon (TDF Trustee) On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:39 PM Florian Effenberger < flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello, > > the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-05-31, is now > made public in accordance with our statutes. > > Florian Effenberger wrote on 27.05.22 at 10:15: > > > I hereby ask for a VOTE on an additional budget of 30.000 € for legal > > consultations. > > > > The vote runs 72h from now. > > given the topic, for the avoidance of doubt, first the result within the > 72h: > > 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 4 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. > > Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals. > Decision: The proposal has been accepted. > > One deputy supports the motion as well. > After the 72h, two more board members supported the motion. > > 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 >
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal concerns
Hi Kendy, I kindly ask you once more to rename your file and your proposal as it has nothing much to do with mine. That is not a merged proposal is simply another proposal and what you are doing is only generating confusion. Thanks Paolo On 31/05/2022 14:57, Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 30. 05. 2022 v 13:44 +0200: While TDF is committed to working with members of the commercial ecosystem in a mutually beneficial relationship it should be made clear that third parties and suppliers (commercial contributors) should not limit what a charitable organisation can do as that is against our statutes and the principles TDF was created with. Can you please explain what concrete limitations do you mean? I'd be very pleased to see how the Merged proposal can be improved to address those. The ESC provides valuable contributions but it is well represented by commercial contributors and other external organisations which should not directly influence TDF's employees. I am a bit confused - are you concerned about the Board the same way? If it contains commercial contributors the same way as ESC does, should it not influence TDF staff either? All the best, Kendy -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Michael, Michael Weghorn píše v So 28. 05. 2022 v 21:21 +: > I think having Paolo's original proposal and this one in a form > that's > easy to compare is very helpful. Thank you! > After reading the discussion on the mailing list, I was surprised > that > the overall direction still seems very similar to the one in Paolo's > unmodified proposal. Indeed - I'm trying to find the middle ground... > Removal of section "App stores management": As mentioned earlier, I > agree that it makes sense to separate the app store topic from the > current proposal of hiring developers, and focus on areas that are > currently not receiving enough attention otherwise. Please don't get me wrong - I believe the appstores is an important discussion, just don't want to block the hiring on that; as I think it is orthogonal to that. > Section "The solution: Hire a Targeted Developer": This sounds > mostly > good to me and if I understand correctly, also mostly fits with what > I > wrote earlier in the discussion. [1] > With the goal of improving areas that are neglected, having those > developers take responsibility for specific "oversight/target areas" > (by > either improving them themselves or by mentoring others) looks like > the > right approach to me, and it IMHO makes sense to focus on mentoring > others in case capable people interested in working on those areas > show > up. This way, TDF developers can potentially cover more areas over > time, > as work is shared. Perfect. > The following passage in that section is a bit unclear to me: > > > It is also expected that while the Targeted Developer is unable to > > actively contribute to public and professional education for > > whatever > > reason (eg. absence of volunteers) that they will be researching > > and > > increasing their experience by contributing to new ways to advance > > the > > free software and standards in their particular Target Areas. > > Can you clarify what that means in practice? Ah - it is the extension of the rationale how the development itself fits the TDF mission, ie. doesn't make that much sense without the previous paragraph that starts "Why is it important to major on mentoring". So how about: "Development per se is not part of TDF mission, but it is expected that while a mentor is unable to actively contribute to public and professional education for whatever reason (eg. absence of volunteers) that they will be researching and increasing their experience by contributing to new ways to advance the free software and standards in their particular Target Areas." Does it make more sense this way? > Section "Selecting Target Areas": This sounds reasonable to me > (applying > a similar process to the tendering one and have ESC suggest, but BoD > ultimately decide on target areas). Great. > Section "Project management" has this: > > > The Targeted Developer will have the same rules, rights and > > conditions > > as any other volunteer or corporate contributor to the code under > > TDF > > umbrella. Overlaps or prioritisations that find no clear conclusion > > between the Targeted Developer and the ESC will be decided by an > > ESC > > vote, as is standardized for any overlaps in the development of the > > LibreOffice code, and applicable to all volunteer and corporate > > developers. For avoidance of doubt, by no means the Targeted > > Developer > > or TDF leadership by tasking the Targeted Developer can overrule > > code-related decisions as decided by the ESC. > > I completely agree to the first sentence. > > However, the part that ESC has the ultimate decision in case of > overlap > or prioritisation replaces one in Paolo's proposal where BoD would > have > the ultimate decision there. > > I think it would be in line with the previous section "Selecting > Target > Areas" if BoD would have the final say when it comes to > prioritisation > of target areas/tasks for the developer(s) (which I *thought* was > what > Paolo's proposal meant to say). > > In case of different opinions on a more technical level I'd > completely > agree that ESC should be the committee that would have the final > say, > just as is the case for any other contributor. (The last sentence > seems > to fit well with this.) > > As I understand it, your reply to Paolo [2] seems to be in line with > this, but can you please clarify this? Indeed, I should clarify this; I think changing "Overlaps or prioritisations that find ..." to "Technical decisions that find..." could do? > Section "Bootstrapping": > The initial proposal suggests to employ 2 developers, while the > modified > one suggests to "start with hiring a single Targeted Developer > initially, with the option to expand this to two if multiple > suitable > candidates present at the interview stage". > What's the practical difference of the initial proposal of planning > to > hire two developers (and then only employing one, if only one > suitable > candidate
Re: [board-discuss] In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi all, Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 30. 05. 2022 v 13:44 +0200: > After having read the other proposal I have integrated some minor > changes into v 2.1 that you can find here: > > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sFtCk9wiMWbt2pB > > Some of the changes implemented: > - added that TDF has increased its contributions also thanks to > improved > QA triage, UI and unit tests development > - moved the "app stores management" section under Focus Areas and > removed the long rationale behind the proposed focus area as it > should > be by now clear to all. It might be seen as controversial but it is > a > natural evolution to have the apps managed directly by TDF > - removed the paragraph stating that tenders are a negligible part > of > commercial contributors income > - added that in-house developers should participate to events to > present > their achievements For the ease of review, here is the above document in editable form, with the changes visible as tracked changes: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/YNZyoL7Q39bMiCD I've also rebased the Merged proposal on top of this; it is great to see the amount of differences decreased, please see it here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/ggx9zJnN9yZSKc6 In case you want to edit it, you can do so directly in the shared folder: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049 If you are not a TDF Member, happy to incorporate your changes for you, please send them as a reply to this ML. All the best, Kendy -- 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
[board-discuss] [DECISION] additional budget of 30.000 € for legal consultations
Hello, the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-05-31, is now made public in accordance with our statutes. Florian Effenberger wrote on 27.05.22 at 10:15: I hereby ask for a VOTE on an additional budget of 30.000 € for legal consultations. The vote runs 72h from now. given the topic, for the avoidance of doubt, first the result within the 72h: 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 4 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. Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. One deputy supports the motion as well. After the 72h, two more board members supported the motion. 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
[board-discuss] Merged proposal concerns
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 30. 05. 2022 v 13:44 +0200: > While TDF is committed > to working with members of the commercial ecosystem in a mutually > beneficial relationship it should be made clear that third parties > and > suppliers (commercial contributors) should not limit what a > charitable > organisation can do as that is against our statutes and the > principles > TDF was created with. Can you please explain what concrete limitations do you mean? I'd be very pleased to see how the Merged proposal can be improved to address those. > The ESC provides valuable contributions but it is well represented > by > commercial contributors and other external organisations which > should > not directly influence TDF's employees. I am a bit confused - are you concerned about the Board the same way? If it contains commercial contributors the same way as ESC does, should it not influence TDF staff either? All the best, Kendy -- 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
