Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
+1 Paolo On 01/06/2022 20:13, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi Cor, all, Am 01.06.22 um 11:48 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 31/05/2022 19:49: 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 I do not understand what you mean. What is full control over open source code? it means control not over the source code per se, but over the direction of the development from a TDF point of view and the modules etc. TDF think are useful or needed by the community (and the user of the program and the donor). And this means TDF need to decide and operate independent from any commercial company. TDF with in-house developer could avoid a situation like the one with LOOL (I'm not sure that this opinion is common ground inside the current board). 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. It is indeed an interesting question to look at effectiveness of TDF-spendings. In case it is clear that in house development would result better work for the foundations goals, that is something we cannot easily ignore. (I would not be able to set some data there ;) ) But of course other aspects to consider there are: how can TDF be growing the ecosystem, which I think is one of the most important challenges of the LibreOffice project, and not compete with the ecosystem. (Different subject, that as far as I am concerned will be at the table to work on soon.) I stated already in another email that tendering produces a lot of overhead and consumes a lot of TDF/community resources (and also extra money). Tendering also preclude TDF (and its staff / developers etc.) from gaining more knowledge about working on the source code etc. So the positive and interesting aspect in this subject is to find the areas where that is the case. And it's clear that those have been defined. And combining development and mentoring is also good for growing at least the developer base. Then the only discussion is: what is a sensible way to effectively manage in house developers/mentors. And, brushing in my opinion here: the combined knowledge of code, development, and existing needs, is best found in our ESC, with its broad composition, open meetings etc. It should be very clear that only TDF (board, ED) are managing the in-house developer. They are HR manager and the functional manager (maybe including some senior staff member). The ESC has no mandate to give any advise regarding their work or their area of work (in addition: if I look at the ESC meeting minutes I could not confirm that there is a real broad composition; seemed - beside TDF staff - only staff from three commercial companies attend the meetings usually). Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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 Cor, all, Am 01.06.22 um 11:48 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 31/05/2022 19:49: 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 I do not understand what you mean. What is full control over open source code? it means control not over the source code per se, but over the direction of the development from a TDF point of view and the modules etc. TDF think are useful or needed by the community (and the user of the program and the donor). And this means TDF need to decide and operate independent from any commercial company. TDF with in-house developer could avoid a situation like the one with LOOL (I'm not sure that this opinion is common ground inside the current board). 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. It is indeed an interesting question to look at effectiveness of TDF-spendings. In case it is clear that in house development would result better work for the foundations goals, that is something we cannot easily ignore. (I would not be able to set some data there ;) ) But of course other aspects to consider there are: how can TDF be growing the ecosystem, which I think is one of the most important challenges of the LibreOffice project, and not compete with the ecosystem. (Different subject, that as far as I am concerned will be at the table to work on soon.) I stated already in another email that tendering produces a lot of overhead and consumes a lot of TDF/community resources (and also extra money). Tendering also preclude TDF (and its staff / developers etc.) from gaining more knowledge about working on the source code etc. So the positive and interesting aspect in this subject is to find the areas where that is the case. And it's clear that those have been defined. And combining development and mentoring is also good for growing at least the developer base. Then the only discussion is: what is a sensible way to effectively manage in house developers/mentors. And, brushing in my opinion here: the combined knowledge of code, development, and existing needs, is best found in our ESC, with its broad composition, open meetings etc. It should be very clear that only TDF (board, ED) are managing the in-house developer. They are HR manager and the functional manager (maybe including some senior staff member). The ESC has no mandate to give any advise regarding their work or their area of work (in addition: if I look at the ESC meeting minutes I could not confirm that there is a real broad composition; seemed - beside TDF staff - only staff from three commercial companies attend the meetings usually). 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] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi all, Am 01.06.22 um 11:11 schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke píše v Út 31. 05. 2022 v 19:49 +0200: 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. The difference is that once you hire a developer / developers, the development becomes a mandatory expense - TDF has to pay their wage every month. Also when TDF switches targets, it has to pay for the time the developers have to spend learning the new area. On the other hand, the tendering is (and always has been) only budgeted from the excess, as the last thing after all the other costs (staff, marketing, infrastructure, etc. etc.) are covered - which gives TDF much more freedom in the planning: it can decide not to tender at all, if all the other costs give no room for that (and avoid hard decisions where to cut - infrastructure? conference? or even jobs?). I'm not sure if you're really thinking such simply or if you try to throw smoke grenades further. It seemed you try to create the impression that a contract of an in-house-developer is always for livelong and thus a big mandatory expense for a very long time. But I think you as the general manager of a commercial company should know better (?). The management of in-house developer is more lean and direct. Instead if you tender the development tasks you have to publish and advertise the tender, evaluate the bids, evaluate the milestones and the result(s). This is whole process consumes a lot of work time from TDF staff, board members and/or volunteers, which will be lacking in other important areas of the TDF/LibreOffice project then. Because a commercial company has to calculate in unforeseeable problems and realize a profit, the price for a tender is much higher. In addition the number of commercial companies, able to work on such LibreOffice source code tenders, is - spoken guarded - very clearly laid out. If we would see such 'diversity' outside of the TDF world we would name it a monopoly/oligopoly market and wouldn't expect a real competion. Over all I think the above answer shows that the role of a general manager of a commercial company, which has some interest in TDF tendering development, has a huge CoI with the TDF role(s). Thus I'd expect that this CoI should be solved asap and the appropriate measures taken to prevent TDF from further damage. 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] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 31/05/2022 19:49: 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 I do not understand what you mean. What is full control over open source code? 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. It is indeed an interesting question to look at effectiveness of TDF-spendings. In case it is clear that in house development would result better work for the foundations goals, that is something we cannot easily ignore. (I would not be able to set some data there ;) ) But of course other aspects to consider there are: how can TDF be growing the ecosystem, which I think is one of the most important challenges of the LibreOffice project, and not compete with the ecosystem. (Different subject, that as far as I am concerned will be at the table to work on soon.) So the positive and interesting aspect in this subject is to find the areas where that is the case. And it's clear that those have been defined. And combining development and mentoring is also good for growing at least the developer base. Then the only discussion is: what is a sensible way to effectively manage in house developers/mentors. And, brushing in my opinion here: the combined knowledge of code, development, and existing needs, is best found in our ESC, with its broad composition, open meetings etc. Cheers, Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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] Merged proposal concerns
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v Út 31. 05. 2022 v 16:30 +0200: > That is not a merged proposal is simply another proposal and what > you > are doing is only generating confusion. Does that mean that you have no interest in trying to find a middle ground, and that we should decide for one or the other via a Board vote? If that is a misunderstanding, and you are actually interested in finding a solution that fits all, please point out concrete sentences in the Merged proposal you have problem with (like Michael W. has done), I am more than happy to explain, rephrase, or amend. 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
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke píše v Út 31. 05. 2022 v 19:49 +0200: > 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. The difference is that once you hire a developer / developers, the development becomes a mandatory expense - TDF has to pay their wage every month. Also when TDF switches targets, it has to pay for the time the developers have to spend learning the new area. On the other hand, the tendering is (and always has been) only budgeted from the excess, as the last thing after all the other costs (staff, marketing, infrastructure, etc. etc.) are covered - which gives TDF much more freedom in the planning: it can decide not to tender at all, if all the other costs give no room for that (and avoid hard decisions where to cut - infrastructure? conference? or even jobs?). And obviously, for tendering, TDF should choose projects that fit the mission, no question about that. 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
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 28/05/2022 11:25: The intention here (and I would very much like to support that idea), is to come up with a merged proposal, which then gets broad support. Broad support by whom? Up until Collabora Productivity's general manager came out with his own proposal there wasn't much effort being put in it by others in the board. This is an insinuation and specific framing, not fitting in "Please be helpful, considerate, friendly and respectful towards all other participants." There has been input from all sides over the past months, and you choosing the ones that are 'constructive' and not working with the ones you find not 'constructive'. We had that discussion before. You've been asked recently on this list to try to behave and respect the CoC. Please do try. If there's changes you believe are problematic, please interact with them. As above the changes makes it a completely different proposal, just rename it. Process-wise, my call to work out a proposal how to come to a joint text (in a small circle) is still open. I've asked many times but still no answer. Will you one day explain why you keep wanting to have this process behind closed doors? The proposal was not to have any process behind close doors (again an insinuation..) but to work with Kendy (iirc) to merge all ideas brought in the discussion so that there is one proposal to discuss. For 3 months there were no sides. The community contributed to the project and once it was ready the representative of a commercial contributor decided to propose a new document. Similar as above: an insinuation, negative framing and not true. Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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
