Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2023-03-20
Hi Andreas, all, Andreas Mantke wrote on 30/03/2023 14:28: Am 29.03.23 um 15:58 schrieb Cor Nouws: A personal interest is not a conflict of interest which in general is not a reason to abstain from discussing topics. sorry to be very clear here: I've never read or heard such nonsense inside other communities, I'm active in. Apart from the validity of your statement: as we all know, TDF is not the average organization. I think the documents, linked by Paolo in his email on this list, should show, that all members with a personal interest had to keep out of any discussion (and decision) of the corresponding topics. So you and Paolo forget TDF rules? Let's take a detailed look then. = TDF Statues = = = = = = = = = == § 8 Duties of the Board of directors == (3) The board of directors is obliged, via explicit publication in a generally used communication medium, to notify the public about: a.) (about statues, rules etc) b.) (about composition of the bodies) c.) (about procedings, discussions, decisions) d.) conflict of interest lasting longer than a month; e.) (decision on a complaint) - - - - Note: How to read the 'conflict of interest'? What more do the statues tell about 'conflicts of interest'. The only, _only_, mention is to be found in 8.4: - - - - (4) The board of directors prevents conflicts of interest within the Foundation. The board of directors is therefore obliged to ensure, that the board of directors itself, the membership committee, and the advisory board, at maximum have one third of their members being employed by a single company, organisation, entity or their respective affiliates of the aforementioned. The board of directors can expel one member per month from each of the foundations bodies, until the conflict of interest situation is either settled, or a re-election of the entity has been initiated. The board of directors can to resolve the conflict of interest by expelling the necessary number of members from other committee at once, and/or replace member by other members of such committee. - - - - Conclusion: § 8.3. deals with § 8.4, i.e. the composition of the foundations bodies. - - - - Do the statues provide more support for this reading? Let us look at § 9.6: == § 9 Resolutions of the Board of directors == (6) A board of directors member is barred from voting, if the vote contains any of the following subject matters: * self-dealing with the member, * the initiation or cessation of a lawsuit between the Foundation and the member, or * grants from Foundation means towards the member, or an entity the member is a board member or a member of the executive body of another entity. - - - - So this § 9.6 mentions the topics where directors may not vote. That are all typical conflict of interest situations, and all linked to voting/resolutions; situations limited in time per definition and not 'permanent'. So 'conflict of interest lasting longer that a month', is also in § 9.6 not related to specific topics/proposals. - - - - Source https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes/ = From the older Community Bylaws = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = It is interesting to look at the older Community Bylaws, that were the base for the current statues. These mention three rules to prevent the most-obvious potential cases of such conflicts in our Community: max 3 BoD members of one entity; max 30% of members in MC; and max 30% of members of the ESC from one entity. Source https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Provisions_Concerning_Possible_Conflicts_of_Interest = CoI policy = = = = = = = = = What does the CoI policy learn? From 4.1 and 4.2 it is clear that a person with a CoI may not vote on topics/items causing or bordering with the conflict.. but may participate in discussions: " … a conflicted person 4\.1 shall at a minimum always be excluded from any vote and any activity regarding any topics or items causing or bordering with the conflict for as long as the conflict is not certain to have vanished. The person *may participate in discussions, unless it suspended its disclosure duties (see 4.2*). ... 4\.2 according to below rules has a duty to disclose. As an exceptional procedure an obliged person may *suspend their disclosure duties* only if they* fully and completely refrain from influencing a discussion,* thread, topic or topical area in all direct or indirect means, directly or via third parties. This requires complete and full abstention e.g. from any proposal, vote, decision, contract or transaction, until the topic is fully settled. Source https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf = Conclusion = = = = = = = = = - - - - * The statutes do not say that persons in a (potential) CoI situation should abstain from discussions around the topics; and the statutes dó -implicitly- e
Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2023-03-20
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/03/2023 12:04: 7. Status Report, Discuss: TDF 2023 Budget Planning (tdf-board, 5 mins) Thorsten and Gabor declared a personal interest on the above topics (see above). I ask if they both attended the call and the discussion during this three topics of the private part of the meeting. Who lead the meeting as chair during this three topics? A personal interest is not a conflict of interest which in general is not a reason to abstain from discussing topics. Further question: why didn't declare Cor also a personal interest about this three topics? Sorry if it is not there. IIRC I said the same applied for me - as is usually the case - so my name should be there in the minutes too. 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] [DECISION] Budget request for marketing, community and events
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 16/03/2023 11:18: It is always known at the end of the previous year that there are recurring costs for infra and other tasks in the upcoming year. Thus it is necessary to make a decision about those budget items at the end of the previous year to pay the bills from TDF money. You may have noticed in the years 2012-2018, when you were deputy, that it is rather common that the decision for the budget for a certain year is made in that same year. 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] [DECISION] Budget request for marketing, community and events
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 15/03/2023 15:01: would be interesting to know for which FOSDEM the budget item is decided on, for the one: - in 2023? or - in 2024? This is for the 2023 budget, 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] [VOTE] Start audio-recording TDF board calls again, for better minuting
Hi all, Thorsten Behrens wrote on 02/03/2023 21:08: Motion: ask Infra to setup a Jitsi recording facility for the TDF board room as soon as possible. Recordings should be made available only to the board, in particular when private or sensitive topics are discussed. +1 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] Propose And Not Deliver (was: Re: Some Questions On Decision Making)
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 08/02/2023 20:22: the BoD chair proposed that Cor will deliver / publish further details on the topic 'hiring external communication expert' and answer my questions. But although I waited for a longer time yet neither Cor nor the BoD chair replied and submitted further information and answered questions. Hmm, sorry, apologies to that. When I saw you at the community diner in Brussels, I didn't think of giving a short update - so let me do now. We've asked few people for feedback before publishing. The busy days before FOSDEM, that was not completed I think. Will check this and expect the answer will follow this week on tdf-internal. I'll let you know if somehow that turn out to be not possible. 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: Some Questions On Decision Making (was: Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Re: [Vote] hiring external communication expert)
Hi Andreas, I'll ask the board to share the decision, on which the hiring of the external expert is based, public. And for the rest you're asking too much details on board work IMO. Cheers, Cor Andreas Mantke wrote on 20/01/2023 21:56: Hi Cor, if there is a clear description of the task it shouldn't be an issue to make that public at least to the TDF members. And it would also be of interest which consultancy firms you have contacted. Why have you only contacted those firms, although there are a lot of providers of such offerings on the market? What were the detailed criteria to choose only those firms? Regards, Andreas Am 20.01.23 um 21:47 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Andreas, Good questions. Yes, we had a clear description of the ask. We had contacted 4 consultancy firms with a summary, of which two seemed best matching. We got offerings from them based on the precise description. Finally we've chosen the one which we expect to be most helpful with checking the process as described and taking (a first) look at the wider communication. The price of the offerings did not differ much. HTH, greetings, Cor PS. For me it is not needed to use 'I think the TDF members want to know'. It is OK if you are interested. Andreas Mantke wrote on 20/01/2023 20:23: Hi all, if I look at the price tag of this decision, I' curious if there had been a complete task description done in writing before the decision. And I also think the community and especially the TDF members want to know if there had been a tender with the task description in front of the decision. Had there been done a market analysis / a comparison of cost before the decision? I'd like to note that TDF is a tax-exempt charity, running on donation money. Regards, Andreas Am 20.01.23 um 19:00 schrieb Florian Effenberger: Hello, the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-12-22, is now made public in accordance with our statutes. Cor Nouws wrote on 17/12/2022 11:59: Hello all, Another topic on which we need to make progress urgently IMO. Not only to check the handling, impartiality and objectivity of the CoC case against Paolo, but also get (a first?) external advise on our communication etc. From the comments on the topic - thanks! - there is a clear preference to go with the offering from Central Consultancy & Training. And since we're voting anyway, please cast your vote (+1/-1/0) for this one too by **Monday, 17:00 UTC / 18:00 Berlin time**. –-%<-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-– The board resolves: * Accept the offering from Central Consultancy & Training to execute 'Review handling CoC complaint against board member' as decided on October 17 2022 * As can be found here [redacted, internal link] * The cost for TDF are approx. 14.000 € The vote runs 54h from now. 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 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes. Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstains, 2 disapprovals. Also one deputy supports the motion. -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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: Some Questions On Decision Making (was: Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Re: [Vote] hiring external communication expert)
Hi Andreas, Good questions. Yes, we had a clear description of the ask. We had contacted 4 consultancy firms with a summary, of which two seemed best matching. We got offerings from them based on the precise description. Finally we've chosen the one which we expect to be most helpful with checking the process as described and taking (a first) look at the wider communication. The price of the offerings did not differ much. HTH, greetings, Cor PS. For me it is not needed to use 'I think the TDF members want to know'. It is OK if you are interested. Andreas Mantke wrote on 20/01/2023 20:23: Hi all, if I look at the price tag of this decision, I' curious if there had been a complete task description done in writing before the decision. And I also think the community and especially the TDF members want to know if there had been a tender with the task description in front of the decision. Had there been done a market analysis / a comparison of cost before the decision? I'd like to note that TDF is a tax-exempt charity, running on donation money. Regards, Andreas Am 20.01.23 um 19:00 schrieb Florian Effenberger: Hello, the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-12-22, is now made public in accordance with our statutes. Cor Nouws wrote on 17/12/2022 11:59: Hello all, Another topic on which we need to make progress urgently IMO. Not only to check the handling, impartiality and objectivity of the CoC case against Paolo, but also get (a first?) external advise on our communication etc. From the comments on the topic - thanks! - there is a clear preference to go with the offering from Central Consultancy & Training. And since we're voting anyway, please cast your vote (+1/-1/0) for this one too by **Monday, 17:00 UTC / 18:00 Berlin time**. –-%<-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-– The board resolves: * Accept the offering from Central Consultancy & Training to execute 'Review handling CoC complaint against board member' as decided on October 17 2022 * As can be found here [redacted, internal link] * The cost for TDF are approx. 14.000 € The vote runs 54h from now. 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 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes. Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstains, 2 disapprovals. Also one deputy supports the motion. -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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
[board-discuss] [DECISION] [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
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 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes. Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstains, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. One deputy supports the motion. [NB: Rest assured, I would say, that we took notice of the discussion.] Cor Nouws wrote on 02/12/2022 09:24: Dear people, Thanks for the constructive feedback on the proposal. Various changes applied, I now call a vote for the resolution below. Your response within 72 hours from now is much appreciated. Cheers, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s); - who will report to the ED as a regular team member, and consult weekly with the ESC, which will oversee the technical direction of the work; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<------ Cor Nouws wrote on 28/11/2022 10:58: Hi all, As promised. After the previous draft text ended up in a dead-end, with apparently no compromise possible, it is time for a fresh start to get developers hired. The initial discussion was valuable and also informing this proposal. With the following, we suggest a new proposal, brief and positive, that makes clear where we stand, building on trust in the community, and leaves it to the board to pragmatically act, based on their task and responsibility to try to do the best thing for the foundation. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice core; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven exper
[board-discuss] Fwd: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
[ forwarding Gábors mail to this list as well, for clarity ] Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers. Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2022 23:59:36 +0100 From: Gábor Kelemen To: tdf-direct...@lists.documentfoundation.org Hi all +1 ATB Gabor 2022. 12. 02. 9:24 keltezéssel, Cor Nouws írta: Dear people, Thanks for the constructive feedback on the proposal. Various changes applied, I now call a vote for the resolution below. Your response within 72 hours from now is much appreciated. Cheers, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s); - who will report to the ED as a regular team member, and consult weekly with the ESC, which will oversee the technical direction of the work; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers willbe hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<------ Cor Nouws wrote on 28/11/2022 10:58: Hi all, As promised. After the previous draft text ended up in a dead-end, with apparently no compromise possible, it is time for a fresh start to get developers hired. The initial discussion was valuable and also informing this proposal. With the following, we suggest a new proposal, brief and positive, that makes clear where we stand, building on trust in the community, and leaves it to the board to pragmatically act, based on their task and responsibility to try to do the best thing for the foundation. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice core; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pa
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
Hi, I've brought this to the list tdf-internal for further discussion. Cheers, Cor Paolo Vecchi wrote on 03/12/2022 01:32: Hi all, On 02/12/2022 23:42, Cor Nouws wrote: Hi, Until someone can explain me that it is beneficial to TDF to compete with contributing members of the ecosystem, I see this attempt from Andreas as not at all interesting. Nobody can explain to you "that it is beneficial to TDF to compete with contributing members of the ecosystem" because it isn't and TDF doesn't do it. Now that that is sorted. Does Article 8 of our statutes sound more interesting to you? Isn't your and Thorsten's behaviour leading to think that there is a potential conflict of interests? Cheers, Cor Ciao Paolo Andreas Mantke wrote on 02/12/2022 23:38: Hi all, Am 02.12.22 um 13:52 schrieb Thorsten Behrens: +1 (thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this moving!) this vote was done by an owner and executive director of a software company who /which have an declared interest to influence the direction of the LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in the future, on which his company might bid. Thus the voter has a non arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic of this vote. Because of this he has to abstain from this vote. His vote is null. Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote and should not unduly influence the decision. The comments on this list and the attacks are very problematic. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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] [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
Hi Paolo, all, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 02/12/2022 16:17: OTOH in a few lines it manages to put together what I agreed with Jan that should NOT be there and what also the legal consultation advised against. In the below you put together various quotes to prove 'your right'. I think that is useless, since it is _literally_ a different proposal, without the potential trouble from the initial approach. Discussion and explanation here and on other places does show that. You are quoting parts from a process, willing to make others believe that these apply somehow. But then when Kendy was outspoken and clear finally: I am not OK, you start fighting that statement. (Again with your selection of quotes). While if look look at the process around the abandoned proposal from some distance, you see that at many steps compromises were accepted in the hope to come to a balanced result, but that an essential element - let TDF not compete with companies contributing in the ecosystem, was pushed to a new procedure, making the result not acceptable. That is what reads from Kendy's statements. And that is what I saw happening in the last phase and had let to my - still standing - questions and remarks. Most important of the quotes: you are violating rules about internal information, breaching confidentially. Stop that. (And to other readers, I hope you can understand that a 'please' is not at it's place there.) Apart from rules, it is problematic from multiple perspectives, also making the board not a safe place to work. And when you asked on the boards mailing list to publish all the correspondence around the topic. I made clear that will only add noise, loads off horror on the list. Or do you think that complaints, piling up, on the tone, volume and style of mails are not for you? We work on a _literally_ different proposal. Because of my bad habit of pointing out issues and trying to fix them You have for years denied to declare your personal and business interest in LibreOffice online. And seem to be on a crusade against some companies in the ecosystem. Maybe you can fix that? I'm being put in a condition of not being able to perform my role of director in these matters so I have little hope that those issues will be solved. This is factual 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
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
Hi, Until someone can explain me that it is beneficial to TDF to compete with contributing members of the ecosystem, I see this attempt from Andreas as not at all interesting. Cheers, Cor Andreas Mantke wrote on 02/12/2022 23:38: Hi all, Am 02.12.22 um 13:52 schrieb Thorsten Behrens: +1 (thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this moving!) this vote was done by an owner and executive director of a software company who /which have an declared interest to influence the direction of the LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in the future, on which his company might bid. Thus the voter has a non arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic of this vote. Because of this he has to abstain from this vote. His vote is null. Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote and should not unduly influence the decision. The comments on this list and the attacks are very problematic. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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] [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
+ 1 :) Cor Nouws wrote on 02/12/2022 09:24: -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s); - who will report to the ED as a regular team member, and consult weekly with the ESC, which will oversee the technical direction of the work; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<------ Cor Nouws wrote on 28/11/2022 10:58: Hi all, As promised. After the previous draft text ended up in a dead-end, with apparently no compromise possible, it is time for a fresh start to get developers hired. The initial discussion was valuable and also informing this proposal. With the following, we suggest a new proposal, brief and positive, that makes clear where we stand, building on trust in the community, and leaves it to the board to pragmatically act, based on their task and responsibility to try to do the best thing for the foundation. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice core; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<------ -- 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 mob
[board-discuss] [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
Dear people, Thanks for the constructive feedback on the proposal. Various changes applied, I now call a vote for the resolution below. Your response within 72 hours from now is much appreciated. Cheers, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s); - who will report to the ED as a regular team member, and consult weekly with the ESC, which will oversee the technical direction of the work; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<------ Cor Nouws wrote on 28/11/2022 10:58: Hi all, As promised. After the previous draft text ended up in a dead-end, with apparently no compromise possible, it is time for a fresh start to get developers hired. The initial discussion was valuable and also informing this proposal. With the following, we suggest a new proposal, brief and positive, that makes clear where we stand, building on trust in the community, and leaves it to the board to pragmatically act, based on their task and responsibility to try to do the best thing for the foundation. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks, Cor -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice core; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<---------- -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerl
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Marina, Thanks! Marina Latini wrote on 01/12/2022 10:12: I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9 months of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the "abstract" of the previous document with some changes that are even bringing more controversial problems on the table (like for example how many positions will be opened for hiring the in-house developers - one, two, many). I read 'there will be two job postings'.. For the rest I've really done my best to explain my reasons to conclude that the old proposal was not fit for purpose. Sorry if I failed to bring my rationale across in a understandable manner. In parallel with this, I'm still not buying the explanation given to the exclusion of one elected board member from the work on this new "proposal". During the call you replied to me in a contradictory way, first saying that Paolo and Kendy have been excluded, than stating that the new "proposal" have been worked on when Kendy was already out of the board...that brings back again to "just Paolo being excluded". All fine with that. Let's say that we struggle in the board to create a safe working environment. So far it has been harmful and not productive otherwise. By the enormous volume and negativity, actually excluding directors that have busy day job and need to be concentrated, have then the evenings left to dig through loads of... By taking part of the work in a separate environment, it is just more inclusive. 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] the importance of shepherding this list & TDF
Hi all, FYI: The mail below contains parts of confidential communication. Of course selective, causing an unfair unbalanced picture of reality. I make a strong call for an end to this show. Please let's move this to a board meeting. Failing, to protect TDF, we'll consider moderating this list again..? At this stage, a significant board majority considers it very wise that TDF will not pay people to compete with contributing ecosystem parties. And there is no need for it: TDF's goals provide an huge amount of opportunities in multiple directions that are far from realized and all need time and attention. It's a sane thing, that obviously may evolve, as everything changes over time. But trying to put such a policy in a proposal, easily leads to legal, communication and personal struggles - as we've seen. So the proposal up now is simple and positive: a strong need; a whole load of clear tasks; hiring makes sense; and lets execute. As with all hiring proposals we had so far, legal advice seems simply unnecessary? Cheers, Cor Paolo Vecchi wrote on 30/11/2022 22:42: Hi Michael and all, On 30/11/2022 11:55, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi there, On 29/11/2022 23:38, Franklin Weng wrote: > Believe me or not. Let me try to provide a quick counter-balance in this thread. -- 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 30/11/2022 19:56: Am 30.11.22 um 14:20 schrieb Cor Nouws: is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). I quote your statements from the board-meeting at 14.11.2022: No problem for me that you give that some extra attention ;) Begin quote -- * really looks as if Paolo's behavior shows a lack of understanding * fundamental principle of TDF being a community * also the balance of cooperating companies * shared interests, statutes restricting influence * Paolo's comments show no understanding * one of the board's major responsibilities to maintain a modus operandi that best serves TDF's goals * respecting, understanding and supporting synergy vital * Paolo’s personal and business situation ignored so far * failed to establish a business relation with Collabora and CIB * interested in other ways to get online solutions? * a one sided, negative, attitude towards ecosystem companies? * now telling TDF/Directors what they should do? * all this has lead to a bad proposal? * the board should look into this issue first End quote -- Noticing now that's not the end of the story though.. But this is clearly showing the facts about Paolo, whom is telling others for a long time in a strong no-compromise-style manner what to do, but who himself appears to be in a very interesting position. That's really a reflect on the content only? Only? Don't think so. But your frame is not correct: This is not what I brought in for information on the content to answer Sophie. Oh, Let me not ask your thoughts on the fact that he denied for a year + to declare his personal/business interest ;) You blunt attack another board member during a board meeting and the chair of the meeting is not stopping you and give you advise about the netiquette. Apparently I gave a word to a mutually felt frustration in a way that was not too bad? But everyone who subscribe not to your view get an advise from the chair / moderator. Again your frame is not correct. It is character assassination. What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years. What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? See above. Your words speaks volumes. Again your frame is not correct. You accused me of willingly misleading/not replying to Sophie. My response showed that your characterization is false. AFAIC: Enough said. But feel free to call to talk over it more/again. Thanks, 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Sophie, sophi wrote on 30/11/2022 14:37: My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail. So yes, you misunderstood my mail, I repeat: what I read in those minutes is pointing at people and not to the substance of the document, mail for which.. from the minutes: " * I'm still missing information (Cor) * asked comments from Mike * what he wrote on relations between TDF and companies * looks very limited in the light of TDF * and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1 * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare * from legal aspects and organizational wise * very different from contract on properly tendered project " In my understanding that is on the content of the proposal. And sorry that I misunderstood your question. I would have appreciated if you would have let me know. mail for which I still miss part of the answers: - who are the _others_ you talked about? As mentioned in most recent board meeting: all apart from Kendy and Paolo. - will this new proposal be reviewed by the community? Is ongoing I think. - will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers? That is not needed for a simple proposal to hire people for the team. - what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis. You can't seriously mean you want me to respond to this, do you? I've seen also others already explaining that the length and nature of the old proposal is a problem on it's own. Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included. It seems now I've some answers: - all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me See my reply to Emiliano explaining the need and that the idea that Paolo is excluded from the process is false: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01148.html - only by part of the members -> which is unacceptable for me when the whole discussion was public and you even inform here on a public list that it won't be public I don't consider the list tdf-internal as a second class place to cooperate. It's only to be expected that members engage there. Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included. - no answer see above. - no answer See above. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? I didn't replied you because I found you mail offensive to me and I didn't want to escalate. Sad that you did not try to let me know somehow etc. That left the stage for someone who is pouring a lot of negativity on top of my head :( I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said. I'm not aware that I tried to turn what you said. Sorry if I gave that impression. And happy to look into this, other details, more closely. Either here, in private mail (with others you prefer in CC) or in a call (with others you prefer present as well). thanks, 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 28/11/2022 17:19: if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? Thanks, 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Emiliano, * Although we agreed to discuss the below separately, I think it is good to give some counter-balance right now as well. Emiliano Vavassori wrote on 28/11/2022 22:55: Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is Various people are writing on this list and tdf-internal that they do not appreciate amount/style of discussion. Now, you and me do know the directors mailing list. What shall we say: a factor 10, 15.. times what happens here? And then, as director having a day job that asks your attention and concentration.. You open the mail in the evening, and.. An hour or so later: most mail read and energy lost. So we're trying various concepts that allow all people to join (more) in various stages. IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I No director is excluded from rights nor possibilities to give input or to vote. find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior. Why this dislike? You do not understand or see the need of trying to create a positive, workable and safe working environment? I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. Before you replied to the mail with the draft, the idea of the approach, with an invite to respond with your thoughts, was already sent twice. The when you did reply, I tried to explain the need for that approach in different words. And since consider your input generally very useful and important, I asked you to think about it again. Why is this something to be angry about? I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone. Really, if you feel treated badly in board discussions etc., do speak up, or in private, or try to have a call.. it should not be that way :( Best, 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Emiliano, Emiliano Vavassori wrote on 28/11/2022 22:55: Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto: Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Yes, you replied that you chose not to take part. True. For the rest: topic has been mentioned and briefly touched in today's board meeting. We agreed to have discuss that in a (separate) meeting. 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Dear people, Cor Nouws wrote on 27/11/2022 17:41: I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal. Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See: https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal Greetings, 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Sophie, Thanks for expressing your concerns on the matter. Given the situation, I can only understand that. Although I think it is not needed to expect something weird or bad to happen. Wrt my comments: see the minutes of the meeting at 2022-11-14: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable. Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers. So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work? Cheers, Cor sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50: Hi Cor, all, Le 27/11/2022 à 17:41, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi all, I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- 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
[board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. Thanks, Cor Paolo Vecchi wrote on 24/11/2022 17:35: Dear board and all, during LibOCon it has been agreed that we would iron out the divergences about the last few sentences, we would have the proposal discussed with our legal counsel and then proceed with the vote. As we went through all these stages I'm proposing the following vote: -%<-- - Approve the In-House Developer Proposal v3.1 https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB - Instruct the members of our staff led by our ED to draft the job description for 2 developers - Publish the job description - Task the members of our staff led by our ED to proceed with the interviews and selection of the best candidates - Task our ED to propose to the board the best candidates for confirmation of contracts - Task our ED to prepare and sign the relevant contracts -%<-- The vote runs 72h from now. If all full board members voted before, the vote can be concluded earlier. Ciao Paolo -- 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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 25/11/2022 14:57: All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as I'm sure I did not. I mentioned items that make it questionable and definitely not fit to help our community with developers. 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] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)
Hi, Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/10/2022 22:07: 7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins) ... because there are four board members with a direct link to the product Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic. It is interesting that this topic pops up again... At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic, the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development on LOOL: no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere. Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb, I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is". Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is open to all members. I'll continue there. Cheers, Cor *) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic -- 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] Nuisance With Private Emails
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 23/10/2022 20:11: Hi all, I want to inform you that I get on a regularly basis emails in private, with 'friendly' instructions what I'm not allowed to address on mailing lists. I suggest you write the persons directly that you don't like that. I assume it is something that could be written to the mailing list as well? I find this form of cautionary private emails pestering and not appropriate for an open Free Software project. I think it is inappropriate to post this sort of vague accusations on the list. 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] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 17th at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 17/10/2022 10:13: I'm the one being accused of something so I believe it's my right to have that session in public. We're still talking about an investigation. Of course there is and will be all room for you to give your input. And IIRC you defended yourself at the previous meeting. IMO not at all as quick and clear as you promised, but.. You wrote your explanation on the investigation. There will be a reply and then it's good to talk again. Greetings, 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] Updated Code of Conduct - blind-sided
Hi Michael, The process around the new CoC has been, for various reasons, under some pressure. I apologize for the moments that I could have asked about your involvement - or the lacking of - in this process, as member of the Committee. Not mentioned in the announcement, is that due to the short notice, some topics hadn't been fully discussed in the board etc.. So we'll further pick that up, together with the Committee. Giving opportunities to improve on short notice too, I expect. Then: Michael Meeks wrote on 07/10/2022 15:32: has a large volume of novel text and lots of quirks - eg. being based on an obsolete version of the Contributor Covenant for no obvious reason (the newer 2.1 is unsurprisingly better). That information is new to me. I'll check that. (*) This is a particularly wasted opportunity - because a new CoC (with which I have no problem in principle[1]) can give a useful point to reset our discourse as a community and to draw a line under some of the past unhelpful behavior. I always find it interesting to hear people talking about unhelpful behavior: it makes me wonder what happened (finding out might take some work..) and - indeed - what to learn on how to possibly improve etc. From a quick skim some details look quite problematic. Happy to learn your thoughts there. In general there is substantial scope for mis-use (or even just the damaging appearance of it) around CoC enforcement .. Similar here. Thanks, Cor *) https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/ -- 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] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, September 19th at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)
Hi Sophie, sophi wrote on 17/09/2022 20:12: 5. Discuss: Updating CoC policy (Cor Nouws, 5 mins) Apparently we have a proposal for a new CoC policy So I'm a bit surprised to see this item here, I've added it to a private meeting agenda between the Board, the Membership Committee and the team Apologies for how this happened. When at location, and pinged by Thorsten, I remembered I had promised to direct an item to the board. Not being at the laptop, I thought to remember it was this one. So I mentioned that, to start looking on how to proceed with working on the CoC. Thorsten hadn't seen it yet, so I think that lead to "apparently .." Sorry for this :) to explain my approach first and why I feel extremely uncomfortable with our actual Code of Conduct. I can expose it to the public, but I thought to get some support and direction from the board, which apparently is not the case. Hoh - happy to help with finding direction of course. Hence I mentioned it for the agenda. But indeed, you shared it to look at it in the meeting with MC and Board (and team). I had forgotten that. No problem for me to do it there first, if you prefer. 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] [NO DECISION] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group
Hi Heiko, Heiko Tietze wrote on 13/09/2022 15:55: I wonder what it means when only two directors vote on a proposal. Is the topic not relevant, do people abstain because of conflicts, is there silent disagreement... Fair question. Abstain would have been mentioned. And IMO the topic is relevant. Very relevant. We'll working on having a board meeting asap to discuss the topic. HTH, 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] Lets sort out the patch review before continuing here (was: Merging Of Contributions)
Hi Andreas, Did you already ask on the developer list for explanation etc. on what happened (and looks unfortunate indeed). If so, what did that learn you? If not, can you please ask the relevant questions there? Thanks, Cor Andreas Mantke wrote on 05/09/2022 17:50: As you already know I submitted on August, 26 a patch to LibreOffice core which fixes a name change. This name change was done about five month before and changes the naming from 'lool' to 'cool'. This name change breaked the connection from the LibreOffice Online repository and its downstream consumers. It also changed the naming from a vendor neutral to the naming of a commercial OSS company. The patch was tested by Jenkins without any issues. Then a developer with review permissions gave a +2 and marked the patch ready for integration. Because nobody with ther permission to merge the patch took care of the patch and submitted it to the core repo I asked about the procedure with volunteer patches some days later here (and on the developer list too). I got the message then that the commit message is not okay, because it didn't reflect the code change. I amended the commit message as requested. Then after some more comments on Gerrit one developer edited my patch. This patch reverted my changes and added totally different lines of code to the patch set. The commit message wasn't changed. This totally new patch set was reviewed by the author of the new patch set, marked ready for integration and merged. This developer didn't asked me, if I'm fine with the new patch. Nevertheless the merged patch is marked as signed by me. The new patch didn't revert the naming change, done about five month ago. The changed naming to 'cool' stayed in the LibreOffice core repository and it is not yet clear, if and when this line will be removed ever. In addition the new patch breaks the connection to two downstream consumer projects and to the LibreOffice online repository too. This new patch was merged as signed by me. I wasn't asked if I was fine with the new patch and I never signed this new patch (and are not fine with it). I see this as a violation and ask TDF to de-merge the patch. In addition: in my opinion there is much space for improving the interaction with volunteer developers inside the LibreOffice community. But maybe this only my opinion and everyone else is fine with the current process. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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] Moderation And Elections
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 19/08/2022 17:34: I'd not bet on it. It's your (the board) duty to create a clean process without any obstruction and equality of choice for everyone. Sure! Everyone must and will have a fair change to (be) nominate(d). The deadline is clear. Another part from the announcement: " Please send nominations and self-nominations via e-mail to electi...@documentfoundation.org (which reaches the Board of Directors in private) and *at the same time (!)* to board-discuss@documentfoundation.org (which is a public mailing list)." So of there is any delay in moderation, then there is - the mail to elections@ - the mail in moderation queue that make clear beyond doubt that/if a nomination is before Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00 "(00:00 is beginning of the day, 24:00 is end of the day) All times in CEST/UTC+2" With the elections starting a week after end nomination, I really fail to see how a possible delay in moderation can break the process. .. If you fail, you have to take the full responsibility and draw the obvious conclusion. Thanks :) Cor Am 19.08.22 um 17:10 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 19/08/2022 16:13: ... The time it takes to moderate a candidacy email through the moderation queue is the proof that this is an obstruction of the election process. As we know, the nomination phase ends on Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00. So if five days before that moment there is a delay in moderation, I don't think you can seriously argue that there is any obstruction of the election process. Having said that: it definitely is good to make sure that delay is not the norm, and that we do not miss any last minute nominations. Thanks for reminding us. Greetings, Cor Quote from the announcement, Subject: [board-discuss] [ANN] Announcing the election for the next TDF Membership Committee Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:02:11 +0200 From: Thorsten Behrens To: TDF Board Discussion " 2. Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00: end of the nomination phase (one week before the election starts, as per § 12 II) 3. Thursday, 2022-09-01, 00:00: official start of the elections (at least 45 days after announcement of the election, as per § 12 II) " -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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] Moderation And Elections
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 19/08/2022 16:13: ... The time it takes to moderate a candidacy email through the moderation queue is the proof that this is an obstruction of the election process. As we know, the nomination phase ends on Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00. So if five days before that moment there is a delay in moderation, I don't think you can seriously argue that there is any obstruction of the election process. Having said that: it definitely is good to make sure that delay is not the norm, and that we do not miss any last minute nominations. Thanks for reminding us. Greetings, Cor Quote from the announcement, Subject: [board-discuss] [ANN] Announcing the election for the next TDF Membership Committee Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:02:11 +0200 From: Thorsten Behrens To: TDF Board Discussion " 2. Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00: end of the nomination phase (one week before the election starts, as per § 12 II) 3. Thursday, 2022-09-01, 00:00: official start of the elections (at least 45 days after announcement of the election, as per § 12 II) " -- 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] [VOTE] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group
Hi, This vote was brought in discussion on the directors@ few hours before posting here, without any discussion taking place there. So I think it's best if I go back to that list to learn something more first. Cheers, Cor Caolán McNamara wrote on 21/07/2022 15:22: Hello, the special working group of the legal oversight group hereby makes available the draft of an amendment to the Rules of Procedure [1] of the Board of Directors. The amendment is to change the internal delegation of responsibilities (“areas of oversight”) in § 3 only regarding “contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks”. The former members of the legal oversight group regarding “contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks” shall be replaced by the new members Caolán McNamara, Emiliano Vavassori and Paolo Vecchi. (All other oversight groups remain unchanged.) We hereby call for the following VOTE, which will start Friday, 2022-07-29 00:00 UTC+2/CEST and will then run for 72h. This vote is proposed by all members of the special working group of the legal oversight group: Caolán, Emiliano, Paolo. Members of the board who are in conflict shall explicitly declare their abstention. [1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules -- 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] no obvious double-standards (was: List Moderation - Apply Double Standards?)
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/07/2022 13:24: I believe his assumptions come from the following statements: "Therefore I really think that it is needed that this type of mail is not moderated through." and "So again, I regret that it has been moderated through in this form. I will further discuss this in the board internally." These statements from a member of the board do give the impression that he wants to censor the opinions of another member of the board. Ah yes, cut only part of a text, and you can 'prove' about anything, I would say. Let me add the reference here for full text. https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00819.html So far that wasn't provided in this thread.. The content of the email is highly controversial, disregards the right of expressing one's opinion and instigates censorship but it has gone through. Not at all. Reading my mail, makes clear that the worrisome parts are _not_ the fact that there is a different opinion on the App stores. The mail explains that the communication of a board member is disrespecting board procedures, that it contains a passive accusation to other board members, and that is spreads misinformation about what the CoI policy is for. If that is still below the level required for moderation then, looking at board-discuss mailing list, the moderation put in place is of no use and it should just be removed to stop giving the impression that some members of the board don't want uncomfortable, but sometimes needed, discussions in public. As stated in the mail, I have no problem with a different opinion on the boards decision. I also gave a hint of a possible way that could be used to express that opinion in a helpful way, not with all rest, that really is not needed to express a fair opinion. HTH, 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] [DECISION] Offer AppStore LibreOffice for a fee
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/07/2022 16:12: Hi all, just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite a few reasons. As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see similar issues: Indeed. Recently you already tried to reopen the vote on LOOL. You got a reply to that here: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00746.html You didn't reply / take notice /* it seems. Instead you're doing the same here with another board decision.. - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day where people are busy with their day job - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent during the discussion period - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent also in the vote process If the majority of the board votes in favor, the board agrees. It is known that you are not happy here. Try to live with it and not repeatedly spoil precious time and good will by starting debates on closed votes. I've tried to explain you this before. Even several times. Sadly you didn't respond to that or just ignore and do the same again.. - Most push backs from objections coming from representatives of publishers of their own products based on LibreOffice Lacking any reasonable relation between the one and the other, the decision for TDF starting to publish in the app stores is just passed, this seems to be one of the infamous passive accusations. - No evaluation or statements of potential CoIs have been made so not clear if publishers should have voted abstain To start with, this is not in line with the CoI policy. Then it is again an statement showing that we really need to look at that topic. I already asked for doing so at our LibOCon in Milan. - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company publishing its own products based on LibreOffice, should have declared a potential CoI and Lacking any reasonable ground for that, in as well the CoI policy as well as in practice, this looks as a false accusation and abuse of the policy again.. 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 being present or not. Here we have also the additional issue that it is not clear what we have voted for as there hasn't been a proper discussion on the implications of the vote. If the majority of the board votes in favor, the majority of the board is fine with content, discussion, information available.. (Before repeating myself: see above for the rest.) ... Seeing that we are in a position where we need to get together, grow understanding, find common grounds, I think a mail with passive accusation, insinuation, disrespect for board procedures, ... does not belong on this list. Therefore I really think that it is needed that this type of mail is not moderated through. If you would write something as "I voted against because I consider this or that more or less important, or .." other reason related to the content of the decision, that would be perfectly fine to me. I suggest there's been more then enough explanations, also in careful, friendly, winsome ways, about your dominant style of communication? So again, I regret that it has been moderated through in this form. I will further discuss this in the board internally. 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
[board-discuss] Re: [tdf-internal] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree
Hi all, I think it is justified to spent some more words on this open letter. And do so already now. Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 10/07/2022 22:42: We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice Online. ... This statement, on which people have been encouraged to vote on, is false. There is no decision nor proposal for the "definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice Online". And people that worked on this statement/open letter should know that (1). It has been explained more than once, also on this list, that no one is blocking anyone on working on the code and project. More in detail: there are clear conditions for atticization for projects and also for de-atticization of projects. These normally applies to this the repository as well. All has been agreed upon by the active LibreOffice contributors in the ESC. And the reason is to prevent ghost-repositories to hang actively on TDF's infra. The reason is not to stop anyone to work on the code he/she loves. How beautiful and simple it that. [ For reference: 1) (lazy looking at my own mail, but there are more around with even better info I guess) see e.g.: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00746.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00771.html ] As a foundation committed to eliminating the digital divide in society by giving everyone free access to office productivity tools, the most important thing is to demonstrate that we are committed to offering alternatives to all those individuals and organizations that lack the resources to hire corporate services. No doubt about foundations objectives, I refer to a workshop/discussion that will be held at the LibOCOn in Milan. Something that - as far as I've noticed - has only been receiving support (2). 2) https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00748.html and replies to that! ... To avoid the process of atticization, as the clock is already ticking, and, at the same time, emphasize the global nature of the foundation we urge full consideration of the two proposals that have been made so far. ... And finally wrt these proposals: no one is blocking anyone to work on these. Greetings, 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] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree
Hi all, Thanks for sharing your opinions, but the statement here is factual incorrect: Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 10/07/2022 22:42: We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice Online. ... People interested can find lots of discussion in the archives as well as information on what they and others can do to create the software they like, also under TDF. 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] Whether technical moderation of this list is needed
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 08/07/2022 16:29: my short answer is: no. I consider it a wise decision. Let's discuss it (first) in the board. 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] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 06/07/2022 22:46: It's odd you say that as IIRC Mr Meeks said that since they move the What is the use of writing "Mr Meeks" please? It looks a bit odd to me, in a community where we simply say e.g. "Paolo". Or of course in case people possibly may not understand who Paolo is, "Paolo Vecchi". project to Microsoft GitHub they had more contributors. Why do you explicitly say "Microsoft GitHub"? Are there other GitHub's around that we may get confused with? As stated in my answer to the "decision", it just needs to be re-run with a text that would allow the community a chance to do something. I refer to my comments made on this list on July the 4th (and earlier on another one): no one is blocking anyone on working on the code and project they love. If the conditions in the decisions are not met in three months, the project will be atticizised. If conditions for de-atticizations (and those are similar) are met in four months, the repository will be de-atticizised. How beautiful and simple it that. 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] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 06/07/2022 20:08: [1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic#Deatticization_requirements it is very interesting to read this criteria and compare it with the git log of COOL. It seemed even this Github repo (project) didn't attract the number of volunteers, which are requested in the decision proposal. Where in the deatticization requirements do you read the word "volunteer"? This is a very interesting and obvious misreading of the rules. ... And as we are saying in Germany: Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopfe her. Looks so. Why are you doing this? 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] re-discovering the Foundation roots?
Hi, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 05/07/2022 21:37: Marina has a point here, those who can't attend the conference and would like to participate in this meeting would be banned if it only has a face to face version. Sorry if I missed the question on participating remotely. Obviously no objections. It's just not as practical, and asks for other preparations and handling. Maybe, at least, a pad with questions could be enabled. Yep, sure. Greetings, 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] re-discovering the Foundation roots?
Hi Marina, Marina Latini wrote on 05/07/2022 18:03: On 05.07.2022 14:45, Cor Nouws wrote: I see three :) It would definitely be worth I think to have a meeting where not only the Board of Directors but also the Board of Trustees (TDF members) _participates_. And that would need preparations, is my first feeling. Unless I'm missing something, the Board of Trustees includes already all the informally called "members" (AKA Board of Directors + Membership Committee + Members). Yes, that is what I meant to say. Board of Trustees is the official name for TDF members. And obviously members of the BoD are TDF members too. If your proposal Cor is to allow the participation of the full Board of Trustees and not only the Board of Directors I think it will be also important to consider the possibility to have this workshop in its hybrid version, giving to the whole Board of Trustees a chance to participate (not only in person but also from remote). It is important to have broad input, from basically anyone. However when the board discusses an items, that may have a dynamic that is different from when the 'general community' talks about the same. If only because of the number of people involved. So I think it just makes sense to prepare these meetings. Get e.g. a (broad) sense of questions that live, think about a sensible order to discuss, possibly invite (not force) people to share questions and ideas in advance, share some background info.. Such things. I think there is no blue print that fits every topic. So starting preparing early enough with 2, 3 people and gradually broadening that, could be useful. Then others joining, in the sense of being present more than actively involved, could be considered too. ...this sounds to me that community members not part of the Board of Trustees can't really participate but only "listen" but as I wrote before I'm probably missing the full picture here. I don't want to exclude anyone, but it does not seem unnatural that members are a bit more involved somehow? I would say, we're on our way finding out what works best in this case. Does that make sense to you? 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] re-discovering the Foundation roots?
Hi, Uwe Altmann wrote on 05/07/2022 14:30: Am 05.07.22 um 14:18 schrieb sophi: Is this meeting reserved to the board members or the whole community (not only TDF members) is also invited? Basically yes ;-) To be honest: I didn't think of this - both variants have their pros and cons. I see three :) It would definitely be worth I think to have a meeting where not only the Board of Directors but also the Board of Trustees (TDF members) _participates_. And that would need preparations, is my first feeling. Then others joining, in the sense of being present more than actively involved, could be considered too. Let's look what interest evolves and then decide. Makes sense. 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] re-discovering the Foundation roots?
Hi all, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 04/07/2022 18:54: Hi Uwe, On 04/07/2022 18:22, Uwe Altmann wrote: I'm willing to prepare and moderate a session (similar to the one in Brno) If there is some interest within the community because it doesn't make sense to do this with three to five Persons new at the project as we had in Rome. Very kind and helpful, Uwe. Thanks! I believe it's important even if only the board is present as I have the impression that there are different views that are sometimes the cause of conflicts in the interpretation of what TDF should or should not do. We're in the very lucky position that our statues and our "Next Decade Manifesto"* give us inspiration and work for much more than just one decade. Then obviously this comes with a responsibility for the board to decide on what to do when. *) https://www.documentfoundation.org/assets/Documents/tdf-manifesto.pdf Then it would be great to have the sessions that I proposed for the board meeting in Berlin to explain a few things: - the reasons why we have a CoI Policy and how it intersects with board decisions and charitable status The CoI policy is a subject that IMO deserves a meeting on its own. Various interesting examples of interpretations show that having time to look at background, effect and use should be very helpful. - the duty of the member of the board to take decisions for the benefit of TDF and not third parties - what fiduciary duties are and how they affect board members from a point of view procedures, tasks and legal liabilities - the duty of the member of the board to take informed decisions not just sending a +1 without checking potential issues related to a proposal When we start talking about normal directors tasks and functioning, I suggest to add training on normal practice in governance wrt a normal and effective work-flow. For example abstaining from reopening debates too fast once decisions are made. - maybe also a link to the announcement of the creation of TDF may provide a hint about the ideas behind the Foundation and its ethos (https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2012/02/20/the-document-foundation-officially-incorporated-in-berlin-germany/) Being here for a long time (2004.. and luckily not alone & some longer too) its a delight to read the key values that we filled in with TDF: ".. for the community, and an entity independent from any single vendor. ".. guarantee .. strong rights to active contributors." ".. the ideal grounds for a free office ecosystem, including users, developers, marketeers, adopters, service providers and many, many more” ".. vendor-neutral, that provides safety, builds trust, and that sends out a strong sign of stability to all stakeholders." That could help new members of the board in understanding what they have to take in consideration while performing their duties. For sure we should all try to be the living example of conscientious behavior, understanding, with self-reflection, direct and respectful communication, avoiding accusations and more good habits, that inspires the whole board :) 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] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 04/07/2022 11:39: Dear community, for the record my rejection of the proposal as formulated has not been counted. You did not participate in the vote. Full stop. 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. Indeed, you've spent a lot of time to reopen the debate on the decision that was taken in the board meeting (the extended public part) last Monday. There was discussion about your ideas and that did not lead to any change. 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 It didn't appear to me that you had not enough time available to share your thoughts. - vote started after less than 21h at 18:53 when people coming back from work could have had time to rush in a comment 24 hours after the meeting maybe, But hé, who cares ;) - comments made during the meeting and in the mailing lists were not considered for inclusion in an actual compromise text We extensively discussed and a compromise was accepted in the meeting. - attempts to have an evaluation of the concerns expressed in time met no considerations I think all your more then 10 mails received replies. - some managed to provide their opinion only in the vote reply but still no corrective actions have been taken We extensively discussed and a compromise was accepted in the meeting. I have huge respect for the board members spending again time to discuss a decision already taken that you do not agree with. - 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. Three remarks: 1. I hold strong (did mail this before) that this topic/vote is about having sane development projects under TDF umbrella. To prevent hosting zombi-projects, which will harm our reputation. It is not about allowing or blocking people to work on what they love. And it is not about a choice for TDF to publish a online version of LibreOffice. 2. It is without ground in our rules nor precedent that a potential CoI should exclude anyone from her/his role in our work. 3. Declaring people having a indirect CoI is becoming popular, it seems. It is clear from various examples, that the current CoI policy leads to lack of clarity and discussions. I think it makes sense to have a well prepared and organized discussion on this at LibOCon. 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. You could have brought in that elegant thought on the board list ;) The main issues and missing elements I see in this proposal are: ... > Without the above IMHO the proposal will lead only to one outcome. I refer to my comment above: no one is blocking anyone on working on the code and project they love. If the conditions in the decisions are not met in three monts, the project will be atticizised. If conditions for de-atticizations are met in four months (and those are the same..) the repository will be de-atticizised. How beautiful and simple it that. You could consider to stop spending time from yourself and others on this useless debate and instead do some constructive work on what you want to see happen in the future? And - apart from what László explained earlier on this list about projects-dynamics - making sure that your place looks a fun one to be in, would probably be wise too. 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. . 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] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 01/07/2022 13:54: On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote: I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away, while have previously agreed to develop under a non profitable foundation umbrella. Apparently some things changed there? I think I tried to explain earlier in this thread how delicate it is to have a balance. ... I don't think TDF should get into services provision, we promote our members of the ecosystem to do that, but I did propose at the time to Did you ever realize that your proposals are mostly very interesting for hosting companies and negative for ecosystem companies doing development, in this case Collabora? 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] TDF, the online version, and its missions
Hi Daniel, *, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 28/06/2022 01:08: El 27/6/22 a las 19:28, Cor Nouws escribió: Win-win is a situation to which we all aspire. However, one of the key pieces in this mutant puzzle is to broaden the ecosystem rather than narrow it. And, in this sense, clear rules and boundaries are necessary. Sure. Therefore I wrote ideas on broadening the ecosystem. And I'm sure we only can agree that TDF deliberately competing with one of the few ecosystem contributors, would not be a particularly smart thing to do there ;) And the good thing is that that can be avoided, also when we are encouraging more businesses to help our ecosystem grow. TDF cannot force the entire mass of LibreOffice users to consume a particular product. It can, however, improve it's work to raise awareness about the importance of contributing (which is not reduced to code) to the community that embraces the project. Fully agree here. I guess we all hope that we can return to work on that soon - obviously the time that we can spend here is limited for the most of us. And choosing to put that energy in areas where we really can make growth, seems wise. We are in a wonderful open source project with work that we hope many people will enjoy to use, in all freedom, and that they find encouraging to contribute to. Yes. Finding balance between ecosystem members and TDF is not easy. In the Autumn of 2020 we learned the hard way that it can be easily broken. So indeed we have to be respectful and considerate. Community can ask the very same. Suffice it to recall that the door was slammed when the foundation was working on the required marketing plan. If that is part of how the situation is experienced, it only shows how delicate these processes are. And then still, apart from all things that happened then: looking back I'm sure that not all that I do/did is/was perfect. And please allow me to take the liberty to assume that is similar for others ;) I still don't understand why people resort to self-flagellation by arguing that TDF is trying to compete with the ecosystem. I think Sophi I think I missed seeing that happening. In any case, for me self-flagellation is not the category under which one would expect to find a normal 'clear and reliable relation'. has put it very well by saying that there are spaces for everyone and that worldwide not all users are able to pay a subscription to access a product. In Latin America, for example, there are countless social organizations or organizations linked to indigenous peoples whose main role is to narrow the gap in access to technology. Sound familiar? We see these things everywhere. And it will not surprise you that I regret to see that. Hence my love to be in open source development and open source projects. And of course no country or region is excluded - people from anywhere should feel encouraged to contribute. I firmly believe that we can provide software for free and do such in a smart way not hurting our very own ecosystem, that we so desperately need. Everyday we are ready to welcome people from everywhere around the world contributing and are we educating them to get them started. I believe that neither TDF nor the community can be blamed for not satisfying the whims of a company. Very true. And honestly I hope that I should not understand that you mean that we have company's whims, demanding the community to satisfy whatever their needs are... Looking forward, on the side of solutions that are not crushing our open source development: I think I made a careful hint already in my response to Sophie.. I hope it is not too hidden ;) and that it encourages people to think about real solutions. I look forward to listen to and talk about all ideas, e.g./especially in Milan. In the mean time encouraging and helping people to do what they believe in: work on open source! 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] TDF, the online version, and its missions
Hi Sophie, all, sophi wrote on 27/06/2022 22:09: I'm opening a new thread because I would like to clarify a bit my position on why this is necessary for TDF to have an online version and why I think it's possible if we all take a balanced position and listen to each others. I believe delivering LibreOffice on centralized online services in resource-constrained environments and on Android powered tablets and phones is explicitly part of our mission. It is a fair choice to believe that. I think not the only valid one. So for me the topic is not do we want to compete each other, but do we want to complete each other. And if we brainstorm on that common goal, We see a clear winn-winn currently with Collabora Online.. Not only it is promoting LibreOffice (since clearly based on LibreOffice Technology), of course open source code to the best standards (anyone can join, study, build, contribute, share, fork), with non limited free versions available, and with an open community with many we know.. but it is also allowing the ecosystem to have it's role, as we thought out it would be wonderful when setting up the foundation, to contribute significant to TDF and LibreOffice as a result of the companies investments and risk taking and capabilities to deal with the commercial markets. I'm sure we will find ways to be beneficial for both the ecosystem and the foundation and that should even broaden the ecosystem. Yes. Finding balance between ecosystem members and TDF is not easy. In the Autumn of 2020 we learned the hard way that it can be easily broken. So indeed we have to be respectful and considerate. I cannot believe that there is a clear and conscientious will in TDF to compete with it's own ecosystem. And I agree with you that, also when there is an online under TDF infrastructure (which no one can nor want to forbid, since we have a meritocratic community. And for which we know what is reasonable and asked for to have a sensible fair project) we must have ways to simply not compete with the ecosystem. And for growing the ecosystem: both mentoring and projects to find new markets/parties that understand the opportunities and want to do some investment are needed. Let's (again) try to focus on work like that, would be my suggestion. TDF has to take care of those left over users anyway. Not sure what you mean with that. Some may reply that it doesn't fulfill the technical part, but to my eyes, if we get room for everyone, community will show up to help filling the gap. It is encouraging to see, apart from some problems as pointed out by others, enthusiasm. But hmmm..., with all history, discussions and careful working on proposals, I think it is not unfair if I notify that it is somehow late. Then of course: better late then not at all ;) 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] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
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 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. 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. 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. greetings, 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] Drafting job posting for "part-time web technology expert"
Hi Florian,
Florian Effenberger wrote on 03/06/2022 11:23:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Shared=926267
the last link doesn't seem to point to a file, so I'm not sure if what
(I already had a bit fishy feeling with the file, hence I pasted all my
changes in the mail ;) )
... so I'm not sure if what
you write below is already in the document from the first link.
For sure not. ("On May 9 I added some suggestions to the Nextcloud
version that apparently have gone lost:")
Changed:
* Maintain and improve the user-facing (frontend) part of our (custom)
web applications and (internal and external focused) websites
That's quite a mouthful. ;-) I'd rephrase it as
* Maintain and improve the user-facing (frontend) part of our web
applications. This includes external and internal applications, and some
custom projects.
Fine.
We then need to update also the next line, "...fixes to the applications
we use".
Remark:
* Collaborate with volunteer contributors around the globe.
=> Collaboration is not a task as such, but a way in which the
tasks are achieved..
Yes, but I think it's nice to mention that. We can add it to the section
title as "As our future Web Technology Export, you work with a great
team of currently twelve, and collaborate with volunteers around the
globe to:"
Yes, adding it to a different section makes sense indeed.
Changed:
* Take care of tools we use for localisation and of accessibility
requirements
The tools are already covered by the "web applications" term. What is
meant here, IMHO, is that for all our tools we should ensure proper
accessibility as well as localization options, that having a focus on
that is a part of the role.
Ah :) So "Take care of... our tools"?
Remark:
* Make our tools usable both with desktop and mobile devices
=> No idea if that is far reaching, in the sense that it can be
very complicated? So maybe add 'as far as reasonable achievable'
We had issues in the past e.g. with the LibOCon website that was not
usable from a mobile, so I think this is a key competence the person
needs.
Yes, I agree.
These days, with devices ranging from desktop to tablet to
mobile, at least where sensible we should ask for that. How about "Make
as many of our tools usable ... as possible"?
Yes, something like that. Just to recognize maybe something falls off
the plate.
Changed:
* Follow web technologies and trends and bring them to TDF web
services with suggesting, discussing and implementation.
In the current document there is "Suggest, discuss and follow..." - I
think that is easier to read thatn "with suggesting, discussing and
implementation". We could make it even easier and say "Evaluate web
technologies and bring them...".
That's indeed clearer.
I propose that Ilmari and me finish the tender based on the latest
edits, and aim to publish it early next week.
Looks good - thanks!
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 for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 03/06/2022 11:53: ... Another reason why I did not want to share my proposal open for editing to anyone is that it might happen that someone writes something that should not be written in a public document. We want a public discussion (of course not when it does not fit) but prevent people to write in a document because they may write something odd... after all there is this mailing list where * can write * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :D .. We will publish public tenders open to all ensuring that there will be a level playing field so that any organisation will be able to participate. You may have missed something, but that is standing policy. Cheers, -- 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 for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 02/06/2022 22:59: thanks for your extensive explanation which I really appreciate as I appreciate your contributions both during your working hours and as a volunteer. We surely are all working with passion to reach the same goal and we have specialisations that allow us to view things from different but complementary perspectives. I know it is difficult to follow long threads where I provided further You need help? :) clarifications about my proposal but what you are saying has already been taken in consideration. IMO only partly. It is useful explanation to set realistic expectations. Young and passionate developers with the will to learn and adapt will not replace the tenders, they will start with focusing on areas that haven't been covered by others as much as we wished. It is indeed an important outcome of the discussion that there are ways to complement, and not to compete with the commercial ecosystem. Finding senior C++ or experienced LibreOffice developers willing to mentor is very difficult and/or very expensive as they already have a good and very well paid position so even if they have a huge passion for LibreOffice and our community is unlikely we'll be able to match what some large corporations can offer. As from my proposal: "The developers will not need to have a narrow specialisation in the proposed areas but a good understanding of them, willingness to learn and to adapt will be necessary characteristics of the candidates. Their general role will be to fix bugs and features in full, fixing bugs that are blockers for community contributors and to help evaluating which complex tasks should be tackled by external specialists." Thanks to the mentors that we already have in our team, if they have the passion and the right attitude, they will grow to become excellent developers and if they wish even join the ranks of mentors in the long I love your optimism (well, not always), but as you can read in Lászlo's mail: there's huge uncertainty. run. Not all developers want to become mentors or do presentation in public, some just prefer to focus on the development side and we should enable our team to express their best skills the way they are most comfortable with. That is true. However more mentoring power is needed to. So if we can combine the two, it's better I would say. There are surely risks in doing that but I believe there are even bigger risks in not doing it. The biggest risk that we have in doing it is that we invest in forming developers that then might go back on the market You are thinking about a contract that forbids people to switch? ;) and anyway contribute. That's one of our goals anyway. If we get it right we'll have developers that start working on things that other volunteers may want to take on again as they see that things are moving in the right direction. Let me not take that too negative, but I assume developers are driven by the wish to make cool stuff. And there are enough opportunities for that in the source/product. What is clear is that the process I started with my proposal allowed to bring to light areas that did not receive enough attention and now commercial contributors, volunteers and in-house developers will start working together to fix those areas. IMO there is clearly room for that. See my mail from 23:17 CET I'm sure there will be a lot of fun to be had for everyone ;-) Could well be - let's hope it works out fine. 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 for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Andreas, Thanks for your answer, Andreas Mantke wrote on 01/06/2022 20:13: Am 01.06.22 um 11:48 schrieb Cor Nouws: Andreas Mantke wrote on 31/05/2022 19:49: 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). TDF now chooses the projects for the tenders, so already does have that influence. And this means TDF need to decide and operate independent from any commercial company. I think it is fair to include also the organizations that use LibreOffice (and make use of services of commercial organizations for support/improving) as part of our wide community. And also: TDF is founded thanks to (also, among others) the massive help of our commercial ecosystem. 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). I'm not sure. LOOL started thanks to tedious hard work with great risk, pushed by the need to make it an success in the market. For me (having seen commercial and idealistic activities in many areas) it's hard to imagine that a voluntary driven foundation can have the same understanding of and interaction with a business market. But we're diverging a bit too much, if we redo all the previous discussions on that matter here, I think. (covering some highlights at a beer, looks better to me ;) ) 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 I think you underestimate the costs/overhead of having in house developers. And for their work too, it is necessary to plan the activity, evaluate milestones and check the results of in-house developers. I think you also underestimate the advantages commercially driven organizations have. (Mind that I'm not at all suggesting that commercial organizations are the best choice for everything ;) ). But please read the mail from László: explanation by real life examples. This is all not to say that there is no room for in house development (as I repeatedly stated). During this discussion (and in fact quite early) various areas are noted that are (for obviously market reasons, I would say) badly covered by commercial ecosystem. So focus on that, definitely helps, without competing with our commercial ecosystem. But then still: learning managing in house development, cannot be underestimated. Also many will try to get their most important features, pet-bugs fixed etc.. Needs to be handled in a acceptable way too... money). Tendering also preclude TDF (and its staff / developers etc.) from gaining more knowledge about working on the source code etc. That does not have to be the case. Anyone is free to study the source etc. And help is all around. 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 I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. The ESC is the place where deep knowledge of the product and development is combined. No better place to manage development, I would say. And in case there is a lot to choose from that is evenly easy/good to develop, I think board and ESC are well capable to come up with a mechanism to get input from the wider community. (Anyway, that would be my
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 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
[board-discuss] Re: Drafting Tender "Improve the accessibility checker for PDF/UA"
Hi Olivier, Olivier Hallot wrote on 17/05/2022 18:03: I have updated the tender document with the valuable inputs received. My gratitude to C. Strobbe, S. Mohn and T. Vajngerl for their comments. The tender document file is now https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/Gxw82TWcCWiXRBq for more comments and advise. Thanks for driving this so far and sorry for being late. In general accessibility check can result in errors, warnings, tips and/or more info. It would be great if this can be included somehow in already mentioned UI improvements. In the description of the tender, I would appreciate some more nuance. While it is true that there is clear room for improving the current checker, it is not unreliable for (most) implemented checks and also after the work foreseen, there will be topics for which the check does not give a full reliable outcome. There's so many nuances in a11y. So "improve to a state where it is useful for preferably all of the situations/documents to check' or something in that direction, would be my suggestion. 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] Drafting job posting for "QA analyst"
Hi Xisco, Xisco Fauli wrote on 11/05/2022 16:50: The board would like to work together in public with all of you on this job posting before it gets officially published. The current draft is therefore shared at https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/PsGnyGHBXmjzmqB Thanks for that. I've added some remarks, suggestions and applied few changes. 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] Drafting job posting for "part-time web technology expert"
Hi all, Florian Effenberger wrote on 23/05/2022 10:38: Florian Effenberger wrote on 23.05.22 at 10:37: thanks a lot for your feedback, everyone, and thanks a lot Ilmari for driving this! The latest version is available at https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/CSzrtsKJt4GKY7P For any last comments and edits, please send them in by Friday this week. We then will finalize the job posting and aim for a publication possibly next week. correction: the correct URL is https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/i3ByXJK7a7GNXaC On May 9 I added some suggestions to the Nextcloud version that apparently have gone lost: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Shared=926267 Changed: * Maintain and improve the user-facing (frontend) part of our (custom) web applications and (internal and external focused) websites Remark: * Collaborate with volunteer contributors around the globe. => Collaboration is not a task as such, but a way in which the tasks are achieved.. Changed: * Take care of tools we use for localisation and of accessibility requirements Remark: * Make our tools usable both with desktop and mobile devices => No idea if that is far reaching, in the sense that it can be very complicated? So maybe add 'as far as reasonable achievable' Changed: * Follow web technologies and trends and bring them to TDF web services with suggesting, discussing and implementation. 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 13:07: On 23/05/2022 12:57, Cor Nouws wrote: It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. To evaluate the quality of your proposal. It would have been the responsibility of other fellow members of the board to contribute to a proposal but you may have noticed that the community did such a good job that only a few actual proposal from the board were deemed necessary. It looks as if you are thinking in circles ;) You do not response to the idea to have a trial period etc. I believe you missed some of the interactions on board-discuss as the answer has been already provided: https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05567.html https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05579.html Thanks. Mark is making a valuable point there. The trial as mentioned there is however based on the persons performing and not on TDF's responsibility. 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 12:49: Hi Cor, On 23/05/2022 12:37, Cor Nouws wrote: It is the boards responsibility to evaluate that. It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. To evaluate the quality of your proposal. The board has an employees oversight group which already conducts appraisals which, when conducted in a fair and objective way, help the team in achieving the best outcomes for themselves, TDF and the community. During those appraisals we can provide feedback if we think that things can be improved. Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or fourth time. You stated that I should have answered questions, that in my opinion are answered in page 10 and 11 of the proposal, but I haven't seen from you any actual proposal for improvements. Could you point me to your proposals in board-discuss just in case I missed them? You do not response to the idea to have a trial period etc. 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 11:39: part of the process of providing constructive feedback is to evaluate objectively the information available and then propose improvements. Then who says what is objective evaluation and what is not? ... As described in the document I'm sure that our team, our mentors and our ED will do an excellent job in managing the in-house developers and will implement corrective actions if they feel that the way they are managing their new colleagues needs to be improved. It is the boards responsibility to evaluate that. Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or fourth time. 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Cor Nouws wrote on 14/05/2022 00:11: Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/05/2022 11:15: ... I haven't received any constructive feedback for a while so I presumed This puzzles me, Paolo. What do you consider as "constructive feedback"? I think clarifying this is useful. From what I have read, I could easily conclude that mails that give ideas on where developers could work on, are considered to be 'constructive feedback', and that mails with questions about how we the work of and processes around developers hired by TDF should be managed, are considered _not_ to be 'constructive feedback'. (Again - short - I'm a proponent of a clear trial period to learn about the questions we've seen and find out if/how that can be handled in a way that hiring developers indeed is a reasonable approach to improve on the shortcomings in the development, as discussed in the early phase of your proposal.) 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/05/2022 11:15: ... I haven't received any constructive feedback for a while so I presumed This puzzles me, Paolo. What do you consider as "constructive feedback"? 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] [VOTE] ratify board communication best practices document
Hi all, Thorsten Behrens wrote on 12/04/2022 18:44: * ratify attached best practices as current board communication guidelines (verbatim copy from https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 as of 2022-04-12 1600 UTC) I failed to follow up on my wish to include text about how we handle communication about private board meetings in public. For later.. Vote runs the usual 72 hours, please answer with +1/-1/abstain to this email. For now: really glad with this guide line. Thanks, 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] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi Paolo, More than happy - as always - to discus ways to improve. Naturally we will then have to distinct between assumptions, anxiety, facts and framing. Since wisdom in discussions in not a given per see, and confusion may settle all too easy, let's at least start in the board. Cheers, Cor Paolo Vecchi wrote on 10/04/2022 23:39: Hi all, On 10/04/2022 15:01, Cor Nouws wrote: And while not always perfect, I'm convinced that we are doing a great job in working in a fair, compliant, and transparent way. The system is clearly not perfect and it has been said that changes are necessary for a long time so the fact that your are convinced that we have been doing a great job seems to indicate that warnings are still being ignored. This is of major importance to help that people and companies feel welcome. Commercial contributors are surely welcome especially those that work out business models that do not base their profitability on tenders or in weakening TDF's brands to become monopolies. Actions that may give the impression that companies are seen as threat, are not. Nobody sees companies as a threat but some representative of the commercial contributors in the past wanted to push projects and narratives that would have damaged TDF and the wider community, those threats have been neutralised after long battles but we must remain vigilant as they may be pushed forward again in future. Ciao Paolo -- 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] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 09/04/2022 14:17: In an ideal world we would have volunteers with 20 years knowledge and 100% spare time. Unfortunately bills need to be paid and we need to care about the ecosystem. At least not to work against them. Yes, TDF needs to care about the ecosystem, but that ecosystem should be divers and not dominated by only one or two companies. Of course it is good when there are more companies and more paid developers involved. And I think, looking from where we came (OpenOffice.org with one company having ~all the saying and control) I understand your concerns about a balance. Also I think we did a wonderful job by how we set up TDF: it brings together all sort of stakeholders, people with all sorts of interest in the software we develop and makes sure that it is impossible that any single entity has a power that comes only close to what was in the past: representation in ESC, Board, MC from one single entity is max 33%. And how much we as TDF can work to make the community an attractive place to be and to invest, so little influence we have on how the software market will develop. As is the case for our ecosystem partners too. But business people look to the world with different eyes, searching for or creating opportunities, which is an art on its own. No doubt, it is pretty hard for a community, foundation, as TDF, to have influence on the powers in the market, other then what we do by our open development, efforts in mentoring, and the possibilities and demands of the software license. And of course by tendering parts of development that are good for the whole project, but apparently are not picked up y community/ecosystem developers. And probably there is even a place for in house development to help areas that mostly left orphaned. Our tenders also bring in a possibility for (relative) new-comers to find a place in the community. Tenders have a clear description, people around that can give more info, a number of expected number of days involved (as set by the ESC and/or developer providing info on the wiki). Getting more involved in the development of the software, for sure is one thing that may help growing a position in the market around LibreOffice. And while not always perfect, I'm convinced that we are doing a great job in working in a fair, compliant, and transparent way. This is of major importance to help that people and companies feel welcome. Actions that may give the impression that companies are seen as threat, are not. Thus TDF needs to work on a strategy to solve this issue and attract more supplier (small, mid sized or big). One strategy to get ahead on this topic could it be to contract full-time developer (by TDF). Indeed, I really look forward to spent my time for TDF/the BoD on the real needs of our community: how do we get more people in, more developers, more companies that put trust in us. 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] Dividing & excluding ...
Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 07/04/2022 13:17: Are you, the same one who said 'non coders can't talk', .. I think I explained before, but happy to repeat, that the idea that Michael said that, is at least a huge misinterpretation. 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] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Hi, Thorsten Behrens wrote on 24/03/2022 00:20: calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. Thanks to all involved in the discussion .. and +1 from me, 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal - version 2.0
Hi, Thorsten Behrens wrote on 14/03/2022 21:20: Caolán McNamara wrote: I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security issues mount up, creating a sort of zombie would be a good idea. Indeed, the proposal had a large project (like core or online) in mind. wrt the proposals exact number of devs and commits, I could imagine that on getting atticed a project is categorized into small, medium, large with 1, 3, 6 devs required to de-attic if there is genuine concern about the proposed bar being too high vs a new from scratch project. I like this idea. It nicely addresses the problem. Ah you already made an nice proposal on this matter, Caolán. Sorry I missed that early in the evening :) 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal - version 2.0
Hi, Andreas Mantke wrote on 14/03/2022 18:36: and with the proposal the Android Viewer had to be put the attic and wouldn't currently get the chance to get out of this state (because only one developer looking for it). Fair point. One could think of a way that the activity/nr of devs asked, has a relation with the initial project/project from the past. Emiliano, Thorsten, what do you think? I created two projects for TDF infra in 2011 (and two further in 2012 and 2013). If you'd ask for the same commitment to start / run this so that's not the aim, as I explained. projects as for de-attic a project, this projects wouldn't have been supported / used by TDF. 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal - version 2.0
Cor Nouws wrote on 14/03/2022 17:34: Hi Andras, Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12: the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The barriers to de-attic a project and make it an active project inside TDF are much higher than setting up / starting a new project. That is true. On the other hand: is it reasonable to compare a new project with one that is in attic state? For a new project - and I think TDF will adopt projects all too swift - will _not_ - that should read of course. you create a stage so that there is a place to grow, prove oneself. When a project has been paused at some moment, that will not have been done without thinking, consideration, extra efforts to avoid etc. as well. So based on this, one not make conclusions on the current proposal by 'comparing' the cases. For me the clear demands in the proposal are to prevent a situation where projects restart without a good change on success, which is IMO quite relevant for TDF's good name. 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal - version 2.0
Hi Andras, Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12: the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The barriers to de-attic a project and make it an active project inside TDF are much higher than setting up / starting a new project. That is true. On the other hand: is it reasonable to compare a new project with one that is in attic state? For a new project - and I think TDF will adopt projects all too swift - you create a stage so that there is a place to grow, prove oneself. When a project has been paused at some moment, that will not have been done without thinking, consideration, extra efforts to avoid etc. as well. So based on this, one not make conclusions on the current proposal by 'comparing' the cases. For me the clear demands in the proposal are to prevent a situation where projects restart without a good change on success, which is IMO quite relevant for TDF's good name. 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] [DECISION] award text layout tender to Collabora
Hi Andras, Thanks for your mail and interest. Andreas Mantke wrote on 08/03/2022 18:34: two questions: a) who has participated in the voting? b) who has participated in the decision about the budget item and its amount? I think this information is important according to the CoI rules of TDF. As BoD we are always focused on working conform the rules, including CoI, and in a respectful way. You know that in the board we are pretty keen on that. Sharing details on how we complied to a subset of the rules, for in this case tenders, is odd IMO. And also adding extra layers of administration etc. of which I'm not a great fan. I hope you can understand this, Greetings, 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] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.2 of the CoI policy
Florian Effenberger wrote on 04/03/2022 13:30: Dear board, as discussed in https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/nUXiQDLatIR_Od6g63A08xU3 and in the last board call, the following VOTE is proposed on the recently published draft update to the CoI policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we reference version 1.3.2 of the CoI policy: +1 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
[board-discuss] Representation statement
Hi *, I, Cor Nouws elected member of the Board of Directors of The Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in the order set forth below: 1.1. Ayhan Yalçınsoy 1.2. Gabriel Masei 1.3. Gábor Kelemen 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
[board-discuss] Re: Draft document for TDF in-house developers proposal
Hi Paolo, all, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/02/2022 17:01: ... You can find the draft which starts outlining various concepts and lists some of the issues we have to address here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/fM8pCesPnF2JjN4 Thanks for sharing that! From the various quotes/texts under ‘Rationale’, there are some that I consider real arguments to consider hiring developers and others expressing random support, but no arguments. To me, most pressing is improving the work in areas that are badly covered now, so bugs, accessibility issues and maybe some features. Another option, though it is to be seen of that can be realistically combined with the first, is areas like mentoring and new contributors support. Various things I read are a sort of: we need in house developers because we need them. It’s an argument too, but not the type I’m looking for. Then taking – as example – this one: “This drop in contributions, taking the Commercial group back to the 2018 levels, clearly indicates that we need to work to foster new contributors with the help of new in-house developers and mentors.” On what grounds is the statement that this ‘clearly indicates that..’ made? Of course, it could be a possible way to achieve that goal, yes, could be. A goal that “internal developers which will both increase the speed of development and will help with the on-boarding of new external commercial, corporate and volunteer contributors” also will come with some requirements and/or circumstances to make that work, I guess. And also that hiring by TDF is (likely to be) a very/the most effective way to achieve those. I struggle to understand “The additional positive side of creating a team of in-house developers is that TDF will be able to accumulate and share knowledge and become the neutral forum where all contributors can exchange information and learn how to contribute better and more to LibreOffice.” I think this is not meant to say that the current LibreOffice development/team is not providing that? Among the various concerns that have been shared, and not only by commercial contributors.., for me the most problematic are having a good and realistic process to steer the work, and without possibly introducing in-house fighting left and right, as well as effectiveness of the spending, knowing the challenges for larger/complex code work. As expressed before, I’m willing to support a clearly defined trial since I consider that a good way to learn what is realistic and what is just wishful thinking. 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] Advisory Board Membership of Rubitech-Astra
Hi all, It is of course good and necessary that we take action here. What Putin is doing is clearly wrong. Of course one could have discussions on the international political situation that plays a certain role, but that doesn't change my opinion on this act of violence. Also for me it is encouraging that many people in Russia speak up against this war. Doing that is known to be risky and thus brave and I - at a safe distance - would not dare to expect from anyone to follow the example. Then the fact the people work in military/defense industry, doesn't necessarily make them in favor of what is happening now. I know people that work there because they consider it wise to prepare to defense in case one is being attacked. Further more, we know from recent wars (Yugoslavia, Syria, etc. ) that very good friends became enemies after the powers in that country (the word 'leader' is misplaced there IMO) started a war. Therefore, whatever the TDF statement will be, I find in valuable to (try to) interact with the people involved that are with us in the AB. Furthermore for me the discussion deserves that awareness of the limitations of 'moral right choices'. There are many topics which have important moral aspects (I love them) that can lead to very lengthy and interesting discussions with 'only' arbitrary decisions in the end. And still the talking and listening is valuable, because it helps us to learn; maybe even to learn peace. Thanks for all input - much appreciated! & greetings, 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] Advisory Board Membership of Rubitech-Astra
Hi Simon, Simon Phipps wrote on 26/02/2022 12:23: Thanks to the Board for this prompt action. Lothar's proposal for further steps was a good one. Will TDF be following his proposal? I appreciate Lothars proposal in many aspects. No doubt the board will discuss the situation and next steps (early) next week. 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] [DISCUSS] Proposed update for the CoI Policy: version 1.3.2
Hi all, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 24/02/2022 09:06: On 24/02/2022 03:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote: How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the policy is still considered not ok for some. All of us read and accepted to be bound by the current version of the CoI Policy by being a member of the Board of Directors. I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or wouldn't have ran for a board position. Life can be so complicated at times ;) I do not see a reason not to support the small improvements that are in. 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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Ah - my mail crossed Simons one. Killing this part of the thread now ;) Cor Nouws wrote on 15/02/2022 17:05: Hi Mike, *, Mike Saunders wrote on 15/02/2022 16:01: ... So some kind of bounty system may help to create a more direct link between users (especially donors) and developers. But then Ilmari has written about issues with FOSS bounty platforms before: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2021-January/086741.html Indeed, it is not all that easy. So I don't know what the solution is, but as someone who's monitoring our social media channels, Reddit and other things every day, I see a huge number of feature requests. Many end up on Bugzilla as enhancement requests too, of course. While working on the TDC plan, one of the elements was a channel to bring users, bounties, BugZilla issues and freelance developers together, also with the idea to grow the pool of LibreOffice developers. 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] Bounty Programme/Fund
Hi Simon, *, Simon Phipps wrote on 15/02/2022 16:39: Back in the day, one proposal for handling this was to have a seperate tendering programme for community-initiated feature requests, funded with the income from putting LibreOffice in the Mac & Windows App stores. The features to be implemented would be community-sourced, converted from request to proper proposal by a staff member (possibly also funded from the app revenue), validated by ESC and then voted by users The user voting would require sufficient "karma", e.g. from answering on user forums or by virtue of being a Trustee, or possibly by donating to the fund. We had hoped to prefer "new" contributors in the tendering process, and also make it agile enough to not require a specialist sales-person to participate. That's the undetailed synopsis; I think I have a longer description somewhere in a haunted folder if the new Board is interested. Yes that what I just wrote in the old thread :) : a channel to bring users, bounties, BugZilla issues and freelance developers together, also with the idea to grow the pool of LibreOffice developers. 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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi Mike, *, Mike Saunders wrote on 15/02/2022 16:01: ... So some kind of bounty system may help to create a more direct link between users (especially donors) and developers. But then Ilmari has written about issues with FOSS bounty platforms before: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2021-January/086741.html Indeed, it is not all that easy. So I don't know what the solution is, but as someone who's monitoring our social media channels, Reddit and other things every day, I see a huge number of feature requests. Many end up on Bugzilla as enhancement requests too, of course. While working on the TDC plan, one of the elements was a channel to bring users, bounties, BugZilla issues and freelance developers together, also with the idea to grow the pool of LibreOffice developers. 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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Michael Meeks wrote on 10/02/2022 19:08: On 10/02/2022 14:53, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: This reminds me of a comment by MMeeks where he made reference to the fact that those who do not code have no say. Which is a total absurdity. That has slipped my memory. Mine too ;) Then I imagine what Daniel thought to remind, is a (irresponsible) simplification of a complex situation. Black-white: "users only use and developers do everything so they decide." Reality: "there is a huge variety of users and developers and the process of developing is more than (the fine and complex art of) coding." TDF as community is set up around meritocracy: people that do the work have a saying. And it is up to us to make all work smoothly :) Also: at the moment, there is no mechanism in place run bounties by e.g. bundling of donations of users. Would we have that, then it could be a way to allow donations to steer (a tiny bit of) development. Lacking that, it is the competence of the board to take care for good spending of the donations. 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] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/02/2022 12:47: Now that we know we want in-house developers, the team and the ... It is recognized that in-house developers (...) may be a (partial) solution some of the issues we face. So I really look forward to the proposal you are working on that will address all the ideas and questions we saw in the discussion so far. 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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Thorsten Behrens wrote on 09/02/2022 18:11: sophi wrote: Do you have any insight into why the community has not chosen to fix the issue please? Reading through the bug (which was only an example) and other contributions, I don't think we can say that the community has not chosen to fix their issues. Wasn't that meant to be tendered? Yep. -- 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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi Andras, Andreas Mantke wrote on 08/02/2022 18:58: The best person that can teach you how to fish is an experienced fisherman. My example would be fruit grower and fruit picker (after all, the apple came before the fisherman ;) ) but apart from that: but it wouldn't improve the situation, if - like today - the experienced fisherman / fishermen take every new talented fisher immediately from the free software developer (volunteer) market. Could be. After all it is one of the ideas behind for example GSoC. On the other hand, in case it works out like that, it is good news on two fronts: apparently the commercial ecosystem party has enough income to hire someone extra; and also there still will be budget for us to hire mentors. We also know that developers from commercial ecosystem parties are involved in getting mentors up to speed. So the whole picture does not have to look that bad, I think. So spending that are intended to further grow the possibility of (relative new) developers to contribute (by mentoring, tooling, events), are a strong impulse to grow that side of the developer community and enabling more working people to help with code they think is useful. Thus there is now chance for a divers market with a lot of small and local businesses around the LibreOffice project. Thus the (business) I remember we discussed possibilities in the past, that would enable relative independent new developers to get funded for work on LibreOffice. I think that is a good idea to grow the commercial ecosystem. user of LibreOffice will not get the opportunity to choose between different service provider. Compared to various other open source projects, TDF/LibreOffice isn't doing that bad. On the other hand, we can't blame projects for how they work as long as people are free to study, change, share, fork, .. If this situation will not change immediately the LibreOffice certification program will not give a competitive edge. I love TDF for its work: being the place where all stakeholders meet and try to bring the best in the shared projects. Then with my experience in a broad variety of commercial, volunteer and public entities, I'm far from convinced that it leads to anything good when a foundation tries to bend the forces that drive a commercial market. 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] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/01/2022 20:56: > Maybe you missed the point here. > > Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others > trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and > negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn't a priority. Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand." And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :) Cor -- Cor Nouws Business Development Collabora Productivity Ltd. https://collaboraoffice.com/ cor.no...@collabora.com Signal: +31 6 2520 7001 Phone: +31 6 2520 7001 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] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/01/2022 20:56: > Maybe you missed the point here. > > Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others > trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and > negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn't a priority. Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand." And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :) 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 07/01/2022 20:28: > Am 07.01.22 um 18:11 schrieb Cor Nouws: >> (...) >> I'd like to mention that one of TDF's main goal is to foster a >> sustainable developers community. (...) > > I'd recommend to read through paragraph 2 of the statutes. The goals of > TDF are written down there. Sorry for my rough summary, Andreas. I realized myself later, and corrected it in the other mail. 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 07/01/2022 19:47: > Thank you for your valuable contribution Cor. > > On 07/01/2022 18:11, Cor Nouws wrote: >> To add to that: in the meeting where you proposed to change the >> situation, you expressed a clear conviction that other open source >> projects show that it is perfectly possible to have a similar paid >> product and a free product side by side, without breaking the economics. >> After it was suggested (among others by me) to come with good examples, >> solid plans, before breaking anything, you said you would do that. >> I'd like to mention that one of TDF's main goal is to foster a >> sustainable developers community. So any proposed change in the way of >> working, can of course only be considered if it comes with solid report >> on that subject. >> >> Still waiting... > I'm not sure why you say you are still waiting. It's easy to spend a lot of words that do not give a single insight on the question if your proposed changes are respecting the boards duty to foster a sustainable meritocratic community. 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] Draft text: an "attic" proposal
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 07/01/2022 17:08: > Very brief summary of the events: > > Back in March 2020, other new board members and I, started making > enquiries in regards to why we weren't making available an up to date > LOOL to the community. We were clearly "advertising" LOOL on the website > ... To add to that: in the meeting where you proposed to change the situation, you expressed a clear conviction that other open source projects show that it is perfectly possible to have a similar paid product and a free product side by side, without breaking the economics. After it was suggested (among others by me) to come with good examples, solid plans, before breaking anything, you said you would do that. I'd like to mention that one of TDF's main goal is to foster a sustainable developers community. So any proposed change in the way of working, can of course only be considered if it comes with solid report on that subject. Still waiting... Cor (Possibly others may have time or interest to rebut other 'single side framed' details of your mail) -- 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
[board-discuss] Re: Acceptance of role in the Board of Directors
I, Cor Nouws, elected director of the board of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start February 18, 2022. Signed: Cor Nouws Ich, Cor Nouws, gewähltes Mitglied des Vorstands der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 18. Februar 2022. Unterzeichnet: Cor Nouws Marina Latini wrote on 07/01/2022 00:10: > Dear Cor Nouws, > > let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you for > having been elected as member of the board. Then I kindly invite you to > officially accept your position in the board by answering to this > message with a "Reply to all". > > On behalf of the Membership Committee, > Marina Latini -- 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] Candidacy to the BoD elections: Cor Nouws
Ah well, there should of course be only one Cor standing for the Board ;) Cor Nouws wrote on 25/11/2021 22:45: > Dear people, dear members, -- 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] Candidacy to the BoD elections: Cor Nouws
Dear people, dear members, All good things come in threes: for the third time I would love to stand for the elections of the Board of Directors. Often I tell people about my enthusiasm and gratitude for our community. What we have set up in 2010 with The Document Foundation, turned out to be marvelous: a wonderful combination of all sorts of stakeholders. Because we took advantage of the lessons learned in the years before, diversity and inclusion of multiple vendors is anchored in our statues. So we bring together people and organizations with all sorts of backgrounds, with interest in free office software and open document standards, in a community that respects the principles of meritocracy. I love to continue working on further growth by again serving in a team of board members. To that extend, I bring with me a wide experience in all sorts of societies, foundations and representing bodies, helping judging the balance in all situations. And not less important: a long history in our community. After having worked in the OpenOffice.org community, involved in a nice mix of volunteering in QA, marketing, local activities, I had the honor to be one of TDF's founders. Spending less time for QA etc - alas - but having served many years in the MC and now two terms in the BoD. The work for my small Dutch open source office service provider Nou evolved as well. Still helping a rich set of small to large customers around LibreOffice, most of my work is now for Collabora Productivity. All good things come in threes: TDF Lives, that we are Free People, and together we Pursuit Improving! Full name: Cor Nouws Email: c...@nouenoff.nl Corporate affiliation: Nou, Collabora Productivity <75 words statement: It would love to continue continuing contribute to the Board and the wider community for the third time. Using my long experience in the LibreOffice community and using my broad background in other foundations, groups etc. With an open mind for what our world of today and tomorrow is asking for, respecting the foundations unique position, great variety of interests, meritocratic nature and its principles of freedom and inclusiveness. warm greetings, Cor -- 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] Candidacy to the BoD elections: Cor Nouws
Dear people, dear members, All good things come in threes: for the third time I would love to stand for the elections of the Board of Directors. Often I tell people about my enthusiasm and gratitude for our community. What we have set up in 2010 with The Document Foundation, turned out to be marvelous: a wonderful combination of all sorts of stakeholders. Because we took advantage of the lessons learned in the years before, diversity and inclusion of multiple vendors is anchored in our statues. So we bring together people and organizations with all sorts of backgrounds, with interest in free office software and open document standards, in a community that respects the principles of meritocracy. I love to continue working on further growth by again serving in a team of board members. To that extend, I bring with me a wide experience in all sorts of societies, foundations and representing bodies, helping judging the balance in all situations. And not less important: a long history in our community. After having worked in the OpenOffice.org community, involved in a nice mix of volunteering in QA, marketing, local activities, I had the honor to be one of TDF's founders. Spending less time for QA etc - alas - but having served many years in the MC and now two terms in the BoD. The work for my small Dutch open source office service provider Nou evolved as well. Still helping a rich set of small to large customers around LibreOffice, most of my work is now for Collabora Productivity. All good things come in threes: TDF Lives, that we are Free People, and together we Pursuit Improving! Full name: Cor Nouws Email: c...@nouenoff.nl Corporate affiliation: Nou, Collabora Productivity <75 words statement: It would love to continue continuing contribute to the Board and the wider community for the third time. Using my long experience in the LibreOffice community and using my broad background in other foundations, groups etc. With an open mind for what our world of today and tomorrow is asking for, respecting the foundations unique position, great variety of interests, meritocratic nature and its principles of freedom and inclusiveness. warm greetings, Cor -- 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
Thorsten Behrens wrote on 24/11/2021 00:41: > 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. > > [1] > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/2/21/Mike_BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_1.pdf > [2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules +1 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] Conflict of Interest Policy
Hi Emiliano, all, Emiliano Vavassori wrote on 08/10/2021 11:37: > The proposed amendments were known to the full Board before publishing > and the proposed policy has been in discussion for over a month. Since > there was no unanimous consensus about it, but a fully shared > understanding that a written CoI policy is needed, I proposed the vote. More then the length of a discussion, I would suggest to look at if there is the understanding in the board that all topics have more or less been discussed so that there are ~no questions left, only maybe that members have a different opinion on the facts. (Apart from that, I'm not convinced - as explained before - that a written policy will help to improve the work of the board; at least it is not the fact that something is on paper, that will make possible problems disappear.) > So we have to start somewhere. A similar policy has been prepared by > fellow members drawing from years of experience in various bodies, > reviewed directly by our legal consultant (mandated by the Board itself) > and then voted by the MC with a large majority. We then asked our legal What I asked myself recently: when the MC worked on this, clearly also with the intention to prepare it for the board, would it not have been a good strategy, and a sign of transparency, to discus it/parts with the board right away? > I really appreciate your activity in the project and the Foundation. I > will welcome very thankfully your involvement (and by extension, of any > other volunteer) for the future versions of a CoI Policy. We already > discussed how to make changes in a future version, but as said, we need > to make a start with an initial version. Various members have expressed their concern earlier that with the proposed version, members of the BoD with interest in how the policy reads, may be excluded from voting about future versions, simply, if the majority of the board decides they are in a CoI situation. > For myself, I am eager to start discussing it right after the vote. The world upside down ;) 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
