Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF

2022-06-08 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Am 8. Juni 2022 22:35:01 MESZ schrieb Thorsten Behrens 
> :
> >As such, lets please get back to the topic.
> >
> 
> Because the acting people from that years hasn't realy changed I
> think that gives a clearer view on their mindset and agenda. It's
> important to help understanding the whole process in this thread.
>
Hmm. I wonder how much of these discussions here really is about
frustrations of the past (and people not liking each other),
vs. interacting positively with new proposals.

I think it would be in everyone's interest (in particular in TDF's
interest), if we could discuss the merits of proposals and ideas
independent of who brought them in.

The ESC btw is such a place, and therefore still quite a pleasant
experience, with calm & constructive discussions between all
stakeholders.

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

2022-06-08 Thread Ayhan YALÇINSOY
Good idea, it works for me.Ayhan YALÇINSOY, Deputy Member of the Board of DirectorsThe Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DEGemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen RechtsLegal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint8 Haz 2022 12:44 tarihinde Florian Effenberger  yazdı:Hello Simon,

Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59:
> Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were 
> recorded so 2 must have been absent.

that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this - 
happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.

All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback.

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] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF

2022-06-08 Thread Andreas Mantke
Hi all,

Am 8. Juni 2022 22:35:01 MESZ schrieb Thorsten Behrens 
:
>Dear list,
>
>Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> > Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice
>> > Online work, can you please point me to the details?
>> TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was
>> explained to the board also as important for LOOL.
>>
>That seems to be a very technical argument (on both sides); in any
>case I doubt that a discussion of something that happend 8 years ago
>helps us in moving the developer hiring proposal forward.
>
>As such, lets please get back to the topic.
>

Because the acting people from that years hasn't realy changed I think that 
gives a clearer view on their mindset and agenda. It's important to help 
understanding the whole process in this thread.


>Paolo Vecchi wrote:
>> With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda,
>> during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails on
>> board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house
>> developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot
>> promote even a basic version of it.
>>
>Same here - mixing lots of other topics into this discussion is not
>useful in us making progress.
>
>It is also premature, since the ESC is still discussing the
>matter. Debating the merits of the proposal should happen there, not
>here (for the while). Unless the board wants to run its own, competing
>motion for how to deal with the Online repo (which I would consider
>nonconstructive).
>

It is not constructive for the agenda of the acting members of the ESC. There 
are a lot active members with a CoI in the LOOL topic. Thus if they further act 
to force a decision in their direction and the board stops that not immediately 
it's according to the statutes time for the MC to step in (to prevent the 
foundation from further damage).

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

--
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] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

2022-06-08 Thread Jan Holesovsky
Hello,

Caolán McNamara píše v St 08. 06. 2022 v 15:45 +0100:
> On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:44 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> > happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.
> > 
> > All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback.
> 
> Yeah, I'm content to see that information presented by default.

Works for me too.

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

2022-06-08 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Dear list,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> > Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice
> > Online work, can you please point me to the details?
> TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was
> explained to the board also as important for LOOL.
>
That seems to be a very technical argument (on both sides); in any
case I doubt that a discussion of something that happend 8 years ago
helps us in moving the developer hiring proposal forward.

As such, lets please get back to the topic.

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda,
> during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails on
> board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house
> developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot
> promote even a basic version of it.
>
Same here - mixing lots of other topics into this discussion is not
useful in us making progress.

It is also premature, since the ESC is still discussing the
matter. Debating the merits of the proposal should happen there, not
here (for the while). Unless the board wants to run its own, competing
motion for how to deal with the Online repo (which I would consider
nonconstructive).

Thanks,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF

2022-06-08 Thread Paolo Vecchi

Hi Andreas,

On 08/06/2022 19:53, Andreas Mantke wrote:

Hi all,

Am 06.06.22 um 13:18 schrieb Jan Holesovsky:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Ne 05. 06. 2022 v 19:12 +0200:


If I remember correctly TDF has paid a big part of work on the basics
of
LOOL. And maybe some former / current board member recognize which
company was paid for that work from donation money.

Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice
Online work, can you please point me to the details?

TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was
explained to the board also as important for LOOL. Thus this project was
payed from the LibreOffice donation money. The biggest part of this work
(according to the prize) was done by Collabora productivity.


thanks for the reminder.

Since then Collabora also benefited a lot from TDF's marketing, 
infrastructure and community support.


That was all part of the discussion which has been ignored during the 
negotiation to get LOOL made available to the community but then they 
unilaterally decided to move to GitHub and not backport any fixes or 
features.


With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda, 
during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails 
on board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house 
developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot 
promote even a basic version of it.




[But I may be wrong - as said, I have nothing to do with TDF tending
process, so maybe I've missed something?]


I made a research in an archive and found out that the document with the
offer from Collabora was created by Jan Holesovsky with LibreOffice 4.2
on Oct., 6 2014.


I guess anyone can forget to have created the documents that lead to the 
financing and support by TDF and the community of one of their major 
projects.


Now that Kendy has been reminded from where LOOL came from he will 
probably vote differently the request to kill it in the ESC.




Regards,
Andreas


Ciao

Paolo


--
## 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


--
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

2022-06-08 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

Am 06.06.22 um 13:18 schrieb Jan Holesovsky:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Ne 05. 06. 2022 v 19:12 +0200:


If I remember correctly TDF has paid a big part of work on the basics
of
LOOL. And maybe some former / current board member recognize which
company was paid for that work from donation money.

Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice
Online work, can you please point me to the details?

TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was
explained to the board also as important for LOOL. Thus this project was
payed from the LibreOffice donation money. The biggest part of this work
(according to the prize) was done by Collabora productivity.


[But I may be wrong - as said, I have nothing to do with TDF tending
process, so maybe I've missed something?]


I made a research in an archive and found out that the document with the
offer from Collabora was created by Jan Holesovsky with LibreOffice 4.2
on Oct., 6 2014.

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] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

2022-06-08 Thread Paolo Vecchi

+1

Paolo

On 08/06/2022 16:45, Caolán McNamara wrote:

On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:44 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote:

happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.

All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback.

Yeah, I'm content to see that information presented by default.


--
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


--
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] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

2022-06-08 Thread Caolán McNamara
On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:44 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.
> 
> All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback.

Yeah, I'm content to see that information presented by default.

-- 
Caolán McNamara, 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



Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1

2022-06-08 Thread Paolo Vecchi

Hi Michael,

I prefer to avoid going into details as people should draw their 
conclusions by looking at timing and people involved by looking at the 
ESC meeting minutes and your proposal.


On 08/06/2022 10:40, Michael Meeks wrote:

Hi Paolo,

On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial 
contributor sent the 23/05


It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that 
you critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal 
itself: please play the ball not the man.


Actions have been performed by people, in this case you and Kendy.

As I've been told off for stating facts and not naming people so I guess 
I have to make it clear who did what and when.


A sequence of events/coincidences show that some proposals are more 
equal than others and clear objections that make your proposal more 
complicated, expensive and much less effective have not been addressed 
at all.





You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged 
proposal, something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on:


developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find 
and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let 
employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies 
have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes.


The proposal contains this:

"The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for
 the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the
 Target Areas."

Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that 
they will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =)



Our ED has already plenty of things to do and micromanaging in-house 
developers should not be part of his job.


Please re-read the rest of my proposal as it states how things should be 
run to avoid overwhelming our ED. Our ED will evaluate things only if 
there are issues between the team and the ESC.





Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC 
call and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected 
peers alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary.



Nowhere in my proposal is being said that the ESC will be excluded.

Please re-read my proposal.




Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the 
ESC works seems weak as I've outlined before[1].


I'm slowly learning about it thanks to the good comments from Adreas 
that pushed me to look into it even if development is not my main focus 
and it is only one of the various areas LibreOffice is made of.


I've seen a very nice way to cooperate between developers in a way that 
seems to take in consideration the best way to deal with code and find 
good solutions to issues


Your intervention in the ESC meeting the 26/05/2022 and the 02/06/2022 
had absolutely nothing to do with code and a lot to do with politics and 
undue influence in a committee that now cannot be seen as a neutral ground.





Regards,

    Michael.


Ciao

Paolo



[1] - 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00557.html


--
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


--
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] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

2022-06-08 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Hi *,

Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59:
> > Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were
> > recorded so 2 must have been absent.
> 
> that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this -
> happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.
> 
I would support the proposal (independent of the vote at hand).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

2022-06-08 Thread Florian Effenberger

Hello Simon,

Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59:
Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were 
recorded so 2 must have been absent.


that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this - 
happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.


All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback.

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] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1

2022-06-08 Thread Michael Meeks

Hi Paolo,

On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial 
contributor sent the 23/05


	It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that you 
critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal 
itself: please play the ball not the man.


	You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged proposal, 
something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on:


developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and 
very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let 
employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies 
have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes.


The proposal contains this:

"The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for
 the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the
 Target Areas."

	Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that they 
will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =)


	Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC call 
and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected peers 
alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary.


	Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the ESC 
works seems weak as I've outlined before[1].


Regards,

Michael.

[1] - 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00557.html

--
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe

--
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] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1

2022-06-08 Thread Paolo Vecchi

Hi all,

On 08/06/2022 00:57, Cor Nouws wrote:

Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi wrote on 08/06/2022 00:31:


On 07/06/2022 21:40, Simon Phipps wrote:

Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all...


No, once again he took my document and copy/pasted bits of Michael 
Meeks proposal on it to completely change the logic of the proposal.


I assume if the 'logic changed', that is to reflect contributions in 
the discussion that were not added in your file.



That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial 
contributor sent the 23/05, his employee and member of the board copied 
the 25/06 on a document he called a merge and the same general manager 
practically imposed to the ESC part of his project.


The way the proposal wants to manage "suggestions" for tendering, the 
focus on mentoring and control of TDF's employee have been already 
described as very bad ideas.





That proposal doesn't really fit with the budget planned, senior 


I think there is room to look to the budget for next year again, if 
needed.


As this is, as agreed, a strategic project that has been taken out of 
the budget planning that we have done not long ago then we are still on 
time to review this budget.





developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and 
very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let 
employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies 
have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes.


This is unhelpful framing. Influence is (apart from statutory 
limitations to participation from entities) from participating, which 
is done in the best traditions of open source development, which in 
the case of LibreOffice is broadened deliberately - I was at the 
discussion - to more than 'just' coding.



We should check with an employment laws expert if they consider if 
"unhelpful framing".





The "legacy document" has actual contributions from many people of 
the community and TDf's team, the document on which Kendy pasted some 
text has only contributions from Michael Meeks and you


Kendy made efforts to include comments and ideas from all sides. Very 
useful to come to a proposal with the broadest possible support 
respecting as much ideas as possible.



Kendy replaced text to reflect the ideas of a commercial contributor not 
to include comments.





greetings,
Cor



Ciao

Paolo


--
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