Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Come on!!!

Anyone can set up an email on their mobile, at this point, that's a completely 
ridiculous excuse.


El 30 de noviembre de 2022 8:52:34 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens 
 escribió:
>Hi Daniel,
>
>Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
>> And that does not look like a board decision to me.
>> 
>The vote was to document an earlier decision on Friday, July 8th, that
>happened via phone, messenger and chat. Mind that it was vacation time,
>and several directors had no immediate access to their email.
>
>Cheers, Thorsten
>
>-- 
>Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
>The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
>Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>

-- 

Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I wonder if such moderation has anything to do with this???

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00451.html





El 30 de noviembre de 2022 7:54:26 p. m. GMT-03:00, Paolo Vecchi 
 escribió:
>Hi all,
>
>On 30/11/2022 11:39, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>> 
>> Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision
>>> but yours.
>>> 
>> Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods.
>
>Not sure if this will surprise anyone but I was not even aware that the 
>decision was being taken so I've been completely excluded also from that one.
>From a procedural point of view I don't think what has been done is valid as 
>there was no actual emergency for do it.
>Unless, as it seems to be standard procedure, I've been excluded also from 
>evaluating something else that required immediate moderation.
>
>I realised moderation has been decided and implemented at about 16:30 of the 
>8th of July as one of my emails bounced back.
>
>As we all remember it was during a heated discussion about archiving LOOL or 
>not and rediscovering the Foundation roots.
>
>"Fun fact": the last message I received before moderation was activated seems 
>to be the one from Daniel complaining about being harassed by "the supervisor"
>
>> Cheers, Thorsten
>> 
>Ciao
>
>Paolo
>
>-- 
>Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
>The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
>Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>

-- 

[board-discuss] Re: the importance of shepherding this list & TDF

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

This is not about attack someone but to show that all this narrative you, Cor 
and Thorsten built during last term and they continue during this one is 
nothing more than smoke.



El 30 de noviembre de 2022 7:55:39 a. m. GMT-03:00, Michael Meeks 
 escribió:
>
>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.
>
>   It seems to me extraordinary to criticize Thorsten like this for doing 
> his job - in line with the best practices for communications as adopted by 
> the board[1] on this list.
>
>   We badly need our E-mail discussion to get more focused and respectful. 
> Blunt finger pointing: "I don't trust >that person<" seems radically 
> non-constructive to me. Surely better to work on the real issue - ideally one 
> to one first (or bring a friend along if you're concerned about that), then 
> in a larger group if that doesn't work out, before bringing it to everyone 
> (ideally on tdf-internal).
>
>   I would like to read a lot less E-mail attacking the person not the 
> ball. I'd also like to see a lot less public board posturing - it has reached 
> a ridiculous level.
>
>   We have a board director claiming in public that other directors 
> support his proposal, which then multiple directors point out that they in 
> fact don't, before them saying again that they actually do etc. It seems like 
> the Christmas pantomime season complete with comedy audience contradictions 
> has come early =)
>
>   The huge volume of E-mail on these topics doesn't help anyone. I think 
> it is safe to assume that wiser counsel is rather restrained when sending 
> E-mail, and that many read this and think it better not to feed the flames - 
> apologies if I do that here.
>
>   We elect a board to hammer out compromises - ideally these arrive well 
> formed and in a way that commands support or acquiescence of the whole board. 
> In cases where that is impossible then some split vote and ideally a 
> principled objection E-mail, and closing the topic seems wise.
>
>   We don't elect a board to amplify division & to escalate even 
> uncontroversial topics (such as hiring two staff members) into some apparent 
> existential nightmare of posturing to try to 'win' at all costs. It is good 
> to decide topics and move on.
>
>   I'd like also to try to remove some of the poison here with a personal 
> take on Thorsten, with whom I've worked on & off for ~twenty years.
>
>   I don't like unqualified "I trust", or "I don't trust" people - partly 
> because I don't trust myself in some situations[2]; it seems to me a 
> polarizing loss of nuance. Also - I trust even my political opponents to be 
> generally decent citizens. However my sphere of trust for Thorsten is 
> abnormally large.
>
>   Thorsten is someone that TDF is extremely blessed to have in our 
> community; he has contributed in an overwhelmingly positive way to 
> LibreOffice and at significant scale. I don't always agree with him - and I 
> compete with him in the marketplace (as well as partnering) - but his 
> integrity is something I can rely on. His patience when dealing with 
> controversy, his balance and desire to find a workable solution is legendary.
>
>   More than that - we are a statutory meritocracy - and Thorsten has 
> contributed an incredible amount of do-ing to the project not just coding 
> (and apparently cloning himself[3] =) - but innumerable small acts of 
> kindness and nurturing behind the scenes. He repeatedly encourages me to 
> think that: "everyone is really just trying to do what they think is best" 
> when I loose faith in that. Oh - and did I mention his positive input on the 
> ESC, serving from our founding on the Board, doing the jobs that no-one 
> wanted to eg. as an example all the donation book-keeping for many years - 
> which was done with great probity.
>
>   Did I mention his personal investment in allotropia - which contributes 
> lots of LibreOffice code - this could go on and on but this E-mail is already 
> an example of the over-long E-mails we have on the list and I just got 
> started.
>
>   Let me summarize it this way: Thorsten rocks.
>
>   If anyone plans to attack and/or exclude him from TDF - they better 
> bring a large-ish team of people to try to replace the immense good he does 
> here.
>
>   TDF needs good people to shepherd the board, and also this mailing 
> list. It will perhaps be no surprise that I also have received constructive 
> feedback on improving my tone on the list privately from Thorsten: that's his 
> job - it's mine to take that to heart. Let me encourage others to listen - 
> and act likewise.
>
>   Against that - if people believe they are being harassed - they should 
> report that privately to the CoC committee who will investigate that 
> sensitively without fear or favor - there is no tolerance for harassment no 
> matte

[board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Please, I appreciate that you don't treat me as a stupid.

A little search into the mailing list history shows that decision was put in 
place 'some time' after moderation was applied.

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00784.html
Moderation was in place from 8 Jul 2022 on

BUT

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00838.html
Decision is from 2022-07-19

And that does not look like a board decision to me.



El 30 de noviembre de 2022 7:39:06 a. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens 
 escribió:
>Hi Daniel,
>
>Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
>> Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision
>> but yours.
>>
>Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods.
>
>Cheers, Thorsten
>
>-- 
>Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
>The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
>Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>

-- 

Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again? (was: [board-discuss] It's ENOUGH!: Continued Nuisance with private emails)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision but yours.

So, whenever someone says something you don't like the shut up process appears. 
And that's something the people who really care about LibreOffice as a project 
don't deserve.

Sad to say this as people like Emiliano and Paolo give their best, but for some 
time now I feel that this board does not represent me.



El 29 de noviembre de 2022 9:57:25 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens 
 escribió:
>Hi Andreas, all,
>
>[public answer as requested]
>
>Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> I do not want to be threatened anymore by a member of the board. And it
>> seems also others experience similar things, which is what today's
>> emails from Emiliano, who is the vice chairperson, and Daniel, who is a
>> member of the previous board, suggest.
>> 
>It is quite something to frame gentle suggestions to not personally
>attack people, or to take certain parts of a discussion to the
>internal members list - as threats. :(
>
>But it fits nicely with the apparent character assassinations, that
>seem to be going on again currently.
>
>Alas, it is not something that we, as a community, should condone. I'd
>therefore suggest to the board, to put this list, or certain
>subscribers, under moderation again. Or maybe we can pull ourselves
>together this time, please?
>
>P.S.: Andreas' claim of non-consent to private messages is dangerous
>  nonsense - both this list's netiquette, as well as mailing lists
>  moderator practice, ask for exactly that. If someone does not
>  consent to it, then please unsubscribe.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-- Thorsten

-- 

Re: [board-discuss] It's ENOUGH!: Continued Nuisance with private emails

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I stated zillions ago that I was one of the targets of such behaviour in 
previous term. And, indeed, it's fair intimidation.

Also don't think that is quite new and, related to that, what surprises me the 
most is that several boards has passed and no one raise his voice about that.

There are people who have my trust and full support, but Thorsten and Cor are 
not among them.



El 29 de noviembre de 2022 5:12:49 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke 
 escribió:
>Hi all,
>
>I stated already twice on this list that I find this form of cautionary
>private emails pestering and not appropriate for an open Free Software
>project. I didn't published the name of the sender because I thought, he
>got the message and would change his behavior. But my assumption proofed
>wrong. I got bothered again with this sort of emails with strong advise,
>what I hadn't to talk about. Thus I decided that I have no choice and
>had to make the sender public now: it was always Thorsten Behrens.
>
>He is continuing ignoring that he has no permission to sent me emails in
>private. He loops in also other people into his agenda. At least TDF's
>employees only have a Hobson's choice how to react to that.
>
>I personal perceive the whole actions of the sender intrusive.This is
>intimidating. But that is only my personal perception as person
>concerned. But the intention seemed clear to me, that he wants to shut
>me up.
>
>I'm looking forward to work with the community on an improved
>environment at TDF, where an open and critical discussion will not be
>censored or blocked.
>
>I do not want to be threatened anymore by a member of the board. And it
>seems also others experience similar things, which is what today's
>emails from Emiliano, who is the vice chairperson, and Daniel, who is a
>member of the previous board, suggest.
>
>Regards,
>Andreas
>
>--
>## Free Software Advocate
>## Plone add-on developer
>## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog

-- 

[board-discuss] Funding opportunity

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

The NLnet Foundation (https://nlnet.nl) have substantial quantities of funds 
available for FOSS projects that Libreoffice is eligible for: up to 5€ per 
project. If someone has an idea for a big project or feature you've always 
wanted to do but lacked the funding for, here's your chance.

The Open Call (https://nlnet.nl/news/2022/20221001-call.html) ends on December 
1st, so there's still plenty of time for anyone to apply to get a project 
funded.
-- 

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Oh, I had not understood it that way. If so, count me in.


El 30/8/22 a las 13:01, Andreas Mantke escribió:

Hi Daniel,

I think there is wide field of tasks available, not only tasks for
hacking on source code. And also doing smaller task will help to drive
the project forward.

Best,
Andreas

Am 29.08.22 um 21:59 schrieb Daniel A. Rodriguez:

I wish I could but, unfortunately, that task is out of my scope.

However, it's important to highlight that there's an ongoing work.

El 29 de agosto de 2022 3:02:33 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke
 escribió:

    Hi Daniel, hi all,

    Am 29.08.22 um 14:51 schrieb drodrig...@libreoffice.org:

    El 29.08.2022 07:44, Mike Saunders escribió:

    Hi all, We still have this page on the site:
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/
    ...which has been the same for a very long time. We could
    update it to say that we're considering the future of LOOL
    (linking to this mailing list post), and see if people are
    interested in contributing. What do people think? Mike

    From my POV, yes. At least to show that there are people
    interested in the existence of such a version.

    You could join the work on that project currently on Github:
https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online

    I plan to move the work to the LibreOffice project ressources back
    later. Currently I don't want to work under the sword of Damocles 
on TDF

    ressources and had to move forth and back again.

    And there is no shortage of tasks from different kind. Thus every
    helping hand is very welcome! ;-)

    Regards,
    Andreas

    --
    ## Free Software Advocate
    ## Plone add-on developer
    ## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog


    --
    To unsubscribe e-mail to: 
board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org

Problems?https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
    Posting guidelines + 
more:https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
    List 
archive:https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/

    Privacy Policy:https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy



--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog



--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I wish I could but, unfortunately, that task is out of my scope.

However, it's important to highlight that there's an ongoing work.

El 29 de agosto de 2022 3:02:33 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke  
escribió:
>Hi Daniel, hi all,
>
>Am 29.08.22 um 14:51 schrieb drodrig...@libreoffice.org:
>> El 29.08.2022 07:44, Mike Saunders escribió:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> We still have this page on the site:
>>> 
>>> https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/
>>> 
>>> ...which has been the same for a very long time. We could update it to
>>> say that we're considering the future of LOOL (linking to this mailing
>>> list post), and see if people are interested in contributing. What do
>>> people think?
>>> 
>>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> From my POV, yes. At least to show that there are people interested in
>> the existence of such a version.
>> 
>You could join the work on that project currently on Github:
>https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online
>
>I plan to move the work to the LibreOffice project ressources back
>later. Currently I don't want to work under the sword of Damocles on TDF
>ressources and had to move forth and back again.
>
>And there is no shortage of tasks from different kind. Thus every
>helping hand is very welcome! ;-)
>
>Regards,
>Andreas
>
>--
>## Free Software Advocate
>## Plone add-on developer
>## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
>Problems? 
>https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
>Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>

Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-internal] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 13 de julio de 2022 10:22:09 a. m. GMT-03:00, Mark Hung  
escribió:
>-1
>
>I think BoD should handle LOOL repository according to attic / deattic
>policy, measuring how many people devote their time to improve the code and
>make release happen, instead of based on how many people want it, by
>replying +1.
>
>Just check our own marketing material [1] that compares LibreOffice and
>Apache OpenOffice on the number of releases and code changes. That's what
>attic policy is trying to avoid. And I bet it's far from enough just
>satisfying the deattic threshold in order to be an active project. For the
>project to sustain, you'll need core developers, regular contributors, and
>other newbies who have potential to make contribution. Based on my
>observation, LOOL has none of them now.

As LOOL repo was frozen 18 month ago there's no chance to contribute directly, 
that's why the two alternatives mentioned where cited in the first place.

>Given that repositories of LOOL, LODE, OSSII are competing the scarce
>resources, i.e. developers.
>As a developer, I'll choose the project that is most active to contribute
>to and advice others to do so. I tried to make few patches for Apache
>Office even after I had started to contribute to LibreOffice many years
>ago. I stopped doing so because it took  me more than twice effort since
>the code had diverged. Not to mention that developers need to collaborate
>with each other. Considering these, I think LOOL under TDF little chance to
>grow again. I'd advice accept the fact that the developer community has
>moved away. Just let it go as if it had never happened. Do better and form
>a robust developer community first next time.

Maybe some developers followed the decision of one company, but both 
alternatives shows that it's possible to work with scarce resources.

>OTOH, I think the idea of facilitating access to information and
>communication is admirable. It's worth us to brainstorm the method to
>achieve the goal. There are other technology worth considering, for
>example, investing on Android version or WebAssembly port of LibreOffice.
>LOOL need not to be the only solution. It is not even a feasible solution
>at the moment.

Well, TDF has a commitment that cannot be avoided. So, in the terms proposed, 
it's feasible.

--
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] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding 
the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice Online. 
Considering the mission of facilitating access to information and 
communication technologies as a fundamental and strategic achievement of 
inclusion and exercise of digital sovereignty.


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.


We intend with this message, an absolute rethinking of the vote that 
established the current condition of the repository, which belongs to 
the community and should welcome improvements from all over the 
community, as we consider it goes against the objectives outlined by The 
Document Foundation.


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.


Support Andreas Mantke's effort to revive the LOOL project. Who has 
already succeeded in upgrading the pre-fork code base to current 
libraries and dependencies versions. 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00684.html)
Implement the OxOffice On Line Community Version fork that already has 
several improvements before the LOOL version has been frozen, including 
those implemented in the commercial versions, and bugs fixed by them as 
they see fit. 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00694.html)


In any case, since this is a community version TDF must show its 
commitment to its core values and do everything in their power to grow 
LOOL community in order to continue development.


Sincerely yours, LibreOffice Community Members and Activists around the 
world.




--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org

[board-discuss] Re: [DISCUSS] atticization for LibreOffice (was: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 7 de julio de 2022 6:05:49 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens 
 escribió:
>Hi Andreas, all,
>
>[changing the subject to reflect the discussion character]
>
>Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>Just to clarify - the attic decision talks about developers (volunteer
>or not - should not make a difference).
>
>The ESC proposal, on which this is based, considers Online to be of
>medium complexity. To be able to maintain that code over longer
>periods of time, 3 developers where deemed necessary.
>
>So any comparison should count all commits I guess (that also makes
>evaluation much easier - just run a git shortlog -n -s).
>
>> The last part of this 'communication strategy' reached me in private on
>> July, 3rd at 7.29pm, when I was told that I should contribute objective
>> reason / points to the debate around LOOL and the decision about its
>> atticization for LibreOffice Online.
>>
>And thanks for keeping the conversation here constructive indeed.
>
>I suspect what happens was adherence to the board communication best
>practices, which recommends to take bits of the conversation, which
>are of no particular public interest, private.

mmm, another take would recognize those messages as an intention to control the 
discussion in certain way.

>This is a list with more than 200 subscribers - every not-so-relevant
>email that people don't need to read, because it wasn't sent to the
>list (or every email at least without a fullquote), leaves our
>community more time & energy to do fun & productive work on the
>project.

I dedicate my time an energy in what I care, no need someone to tell me what 
should I do.

--
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

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 7 de julio de 2022 3:54:59 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke  
escribió:
>Hi Paolo, all,
>
>although I have not too much spare time for a research I try to answer
>your questions.
>
>
>Am 06.07.22 um 22:46 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> On 06/07/2022 20:08, Andreas Mantke wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Am 04.07.22 um 03:11 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
 Dear community,

 the following vote happened after our Monday board call, on request as
 a private email vote:

> The board sees positive & constructive news around renewed
> developer interest in LibreOffice Online. To further encourage
> initiatives to collaborate on a single, TDF-hosted repository, the
> board resolves to postpone formally atticizing Online for three
> more months. Unless the de-atticization requirements [1] (3
> different developers contributing non-trivially) are fulfilled by
> then, and/or if necessary binding corporate commitments are not
> made by 2022-10-01, Online will be automatically moved to the
> attic.
>
> [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.
>>
>> It's odd you say that as IIRC Mr Meeks said that since they move the
>> project to Microsoft GitHub they had more contributors.
>>
>> Are you by any chance able to substantiate your statement?
>
>I made a short research on the commits of about the last four month (the
>board decision has also only a three month period in mind).
>
>So lets have a look on the commits of the last four month of the fork
>(without the localization work, copied from Weblate):
>
>* March 2022:
>
>- 4 volunteers, one of them was already for long time active in the
>LibreOffice design team
>- work done: two lines in a readme, some lines of JS, CSS and icons
>
>
>* April 2022:
>
>- 4 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member,
>another one is a current member of the board with an JS one liner
>- work done: unify ui naming menubar js file, docker image build script,
>CSS and the one line in a JS file
>
>
>* May 2022:
>
>- 2 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member
>- work done: CSS
>
>
>* June 2022:
>
>- 2 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member
>- work done: CSS and an icon
>
>
>Noticeable: except the long time LibreOffice design contributor the
>volunteers committed only a very few patches and were only in one month
>active (without one of them, who submitted another patch in a second
>month, a further icon).
>
>
>>
>>> It seemed there is a big interest to set high barriers in that area and
>>> to block initiative.
>>
>> Even the number of voters in favour of that decision are fewer than
>> those required to pass the barrier ;-)
>Yep.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Are you anyway continuing to prepare a version of LOOL that could be
>> presented a candidate to start creating a community around it?
>>
>I'm working on that too, but that need some more time. I'm happy, if
>someone wants to join me and create e.g. a docker build from the source.
>
>
>>>
>>> And what I've learned within the communication during the last week(s).
>>> There is no open communication and part of the game is to lead you by
>>> the nose.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on that?
>>
>> I'm not sure I fully grasp the meaning of the above sentences.
>
>The last part of this 'communication strategy' reached me in private on
>July, 3rd at 7.29pm, when I was told that I should contribute objective
>reason / points to the debate around LOOL and the decision about its
>atticization for LibreOffice Online. And just some hours later on July,
>4th, 3.11am the results of the decision were published on this list.
>I had also the impression that I'm in a extra supervision here (and with
>private emails).
>
>>
>>> And as we are saying in Germany: Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopfe her.
>>  
>> That's the same saying we use in Italy but it's not clear what you
>> mean with it or to what/whom you are referring to.
>>
>Hope the above helped a bit.
>
>Regards,
>Andreas


The long arm of the supervisor reaches several of us who dared to support the 
proposal to reopen the repo. In my case, trying to point out what can be said 
and what cannot.


--
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?

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 5 de julio de 2022 6:21:08 p. m. GMT-03:00, Cor Nouws 
 escribió:
>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.

If, as you said, participation is intended, all the necessary stuff has to be 
provided. Foremost considering TDF has members not only in Europe.

>> Maybe, at least, a pad with questions could be enabled.
>
>Yep, sure.
>
>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] re-discovering the Foundation roots?

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

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.

Maybe, at least, a pad with questions could be enabled.


El 5 de julio de 2022 1:03:14 p. m. GMT-03:00, Marina Latini 
 escribió:
>On 05.07.2022 14:45, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>Hello Cor,
>
>> 
>> 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.
>
>Unless I'm missing something, the Board of Trustees includes already all the 
>informally called "members" (AKA Board of Directors + Membership Committee + 
>Members).
>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).
>
>> 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.
>
>My two cents,
>Marina
>

--
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)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 1/7/22 a las 17:16, Cor Nouws escribió:

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



Shouldn't you use your corporate email when you are in fact wearing your 
corporate hat?



--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org

Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 2 de julio de 2022 7:21:50 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens 
 escribió:
>Hi Andreas, all,
>
>Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the
>> member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected.
>> 
>Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an
>interest in something, and the determination of an actual conflict of
>interest. At the time, the vote was called & the decision published &
>acted upon (so apparently there was no CoI determined).
>
>I don't think it is constructive to revisit the details of a decision
>the previous board took in 2020.
>
>If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your case
>to the current board, with arguments not attacking an old vote, but
>why the actual change would be needed.

I do think such decision needs to be undone, as it was a clear mistake in first 
place. Would be nice to had all this discussion here back then.

--
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

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 28/6/22 a las 18:00, Cor Nouws escribió:

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.


Why, why, why offer an online version is seen as a competition??? As 
many people needs it, TDF has to. What we need is to build a scenario 
where all the actors involved feel less uncomfortable.


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...

Seriously?
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


What about the people who have indicated, and not for the first time, 
that the LOOL development/building had an artificially high barrier to 
entry?, that is not something that can encourage anyone to participate.




--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.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/b

Re: [board-discuss] TDF, the online version, and its missions

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 27/6/22 a las 19:28, Cor Nouws escribió:

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.


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.
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.


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.
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.
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.


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 
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?


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 ;)


I believe that neither TDF nor the community can be blamed for not 
satisfying the whims of a company.



--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.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)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 25 de junio de 2022 8:53:54 a. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke  
escribió:
>Hi Sophie, all,
>
>Am 25.06.22 um 01:44 schrieb sophi:
>> Hi Andreas, all
>> Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
>>> visuals, I added two ones.
>>>
>>> https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate and welcome
>> the efforts :) Maybe what we should do is to have an online meeting
>> between you, Franklin, Daniel, Paolo and of course who in the
>> community is interested to follow-up.
>>
>> The new online version is a really good news for me (thanks a lot
>> Franklin and Andreas for that), and I guess for a large part of the
>> non European community (as well as for students, SMEs and so on).
>> There is a clear interest in the community to have this online version.
>+1
>>
>> This is for me rejoining part of the Foundation roots.
>>
>> But we also have to think about the ecosystem and the value they have
>> built upon this version and for us. I'm also concerned about this. We
>> should not ignore it.
>>
>> I'm really happy that TDF come back in this dynamic, however I think a
>> serious discussion have to take place between the ecosystem and TDF,
>> not to stop TDF in acting like it was in the past, but to find a fair
>> place to live for everybody.
>> I'm sure this place exists if all parties are ready to make an effort
>> to reach a common goal.
>
>I think such common ground could be reached, if not one side try to
>dominate the other one. I don't see the necessary respect for the work
>of every individual in the LibreOffice community and all talents. It
>looks like if the developers think they are the only important part in
>the community. And then there is the issue that the LibreOffice
>(commercial) ecosystem is not divers enough. This leads to a situation
>comparable with the situation in OOo community during the years before
>the start of LibreOffice.
>
>I want to state here that I have no issue with creating and selling
>(commercial) derivatives from OSS projects, but I think there should be
>the common ground of an upstream project, where all participants could
>add their commits. And the hosting/administration of this upstream
>project should be done by the LibreOffice community and TDF and not by
>any vendor.
>
>I think good citizens of a OSS community like to work together on a
>common ground owned and administrated by the community.
>
>And as far as I know the MPL and LGPL allows to make (commercial)
>derivatives from this source with different flowers and for different
>needs of customers (and if a customer agreed modifications on the source
>code were committed back to the upstream project).
>
>>
>> I ask, if I may, everybody taking part to the discussion to have a
>> deep thought to the international community we, at TDF, are committed
>> to represent.
>>
>+1
>
>I hope my statement above is a starting point to get back to the root
>spirit of TDF and the LibreOffice community.
>
>Regards,
>Andreas


Nothing no add, just want to express full support to previous 

--
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)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Andreas thanks for taking the time to put all those bits together in 
your post. And would like to add that you are not the first developer 
stating that there were an artificial barrier for LOOL development and 
that is reflected in the lack of contributions back claimed by Lazlo.


/me don't like the idea to "recommended" any version at all, user 
(person/corporate) has the right of make its own choice. What TDF should 
do, and already does if I'm not mistaken, is emphasize that 
organizations in need of dedicated support should turn to the companies 
in the ecosystem, not one in particular.


Also support Sophi's proposal about the needing of a *serious discussion 
between the ecosystem and TDF with the aim to find a fair place for 
everybody*.





--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.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: LOOL is about to be archived

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

As Franklin mentioned, the university where I work (UNAU) is using OxOOL since 
2020. And works like a charm have to add.
Would love to have it's features as LOOL base.


El 24 de junio de 2022 1:37:32 a. m. GMT-03:00, Franklin Weng 
 escribió:
>Hi,
>
>
>Here I have a proposal: to have LOOL respository sync to another LOOL-derived 
>suite:
>
>https://github.com/OSSII/oxool-community 
>
>
>OxOOL is developed by OSSII in Taiwan, derived from LOOL.  It has commercial 
>version, which is several versions advanced to community version, while the 
>community version is also open sourced.  Currently National Development 
>Council Taiwan, the main dominant unit of ODF policy in Taiwanese government, 
>uses (forks) this community version into "NDCODFweb":
>
>https://github.com/NDCODF/ndcodfweb 
>
>which is also mainly supported by OSSII.
>
>Besides NDCODFWeb and some other Taiwanese government units, OxOOL is also 
>used in different companies and products.  For example, it is integrated into 
>ASUS cloud Omnistor Office (https://www.asuscloud.com/omnistor-office/), 
>OpenFind SecuShare Pro (https://www.openfind.com.tw/taiwan/secusharepro.html). 
> It is migrated into Pou Chen Group (https://www.pouchen.com) and some other 
>big anonymous companies.  Also, it is deployed in UNAU 
>(https://www.unau.edu.ar/la-universidad/ ).
>
>OxOOL v4 will be released in a month and can be a good and useful base to 
>LOOL, also good to the LibreOffice community.
>
>I'm not a representative of OSSII, but the GM of OSSII told me that they are 
>happy to share the community version.
>
>In this proposal there are two ways to relive LOOL:
>
>1. To sync current LOOL with patches from OxOOL community v4, which may 
>technically take more time and efforts.
>
>2. Start a new repository from OxOOL community v4, which I'll say that it is 
>actually a "fast forward" from current status since OxOOL is also derived from 
>LOOL, though a bit far before. It will be technically easier than 1., just 
>that maybe some community people may feel uneasy or unhappy with this way.
>
>Both ways are okay for me, as long as LOOL can be relived. However no matter 
>which way, IMO TDF needs to employ in-house developers (independent from *any* 
>ecosystem member) for rerunning LOOL.  The second option, which is my prefer 
>option, is a lot easier technically and in-house developers would just need to 
>(cowork with community members and OSSII to) maintain LOOL repository.
>
>Features in OxOOL commercial version are mostly (customized) requests from 
>customers and hence may not necessarily need to be backported (to community 
>version), but the GM of OSSII also promised that OxOOL Commercial version 
>functions (which they think good / necessary to be back ported) and bugfixes 
>will be back ported to LOOL (and OxOOL community version too).
>
>Of course, after reliving LOOL all developers are welcomed to contribute to 
>LOOL.
>
>Details can be discussed with OSSII.
>
>
>Regards,
>Franklin
>
>
>Paolo Vecchi 於 2022/6/21 20:15 寫道:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with proposals 
>> in regards to LibreOffice On-Line.
>> 
>> As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the major code 
>> contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not contribute back to TDF's 
>> repository.
>> 
>> At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing actionable 
>> seems to have been proposed by the community since then.
>> 
>> Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL [0] and 
>> during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed for doing so [1].
>> 
>> The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive obsolete projects, 
>> states that the Board will need to vote on the archival process to confirm 
>> ESC's choice.
>> 
>> It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the community 
>> would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small window of 
>> opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it heard.
>> 
>> If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so that it 
>> could be brought back into an usable form for the community then the board 
>> might have to vote for having LOOL archived.
>> 
>> Ciao
>> 
>> Paolo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [0] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/088982.html
>> [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/089018.html
>> [2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic
>> 

Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Hi Andreas, Paolo, all

El 23 de junio de 2022 1:44:39 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke  
escribió:
>Hi Paolo, all,
>
>my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to
>put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free
>software company made some name changes in the source code of their fork
>to make it more difficult for the LibreOffice community.
>That is a behavior I'd not expect from a good citizen of a free software
>community. And if I look over the fence into another open source
>community they work more collaboratively and don't raise such barrier.
>But the difference may be that there is not only one big player in the
>room and more diversity in the development community (and among the free
>software companies).

Have to say Thank You for your work and also for sharing those serious issues.
I do agree with your take about needing a more diverse development community. 
That idea was raised in the last term and received a "non-coders can't talk" 
almost inmediately, glad to know people doesn't see pink elephants flying.

>I'm curious if other want join me in my efforts and like to share some
>ideas how to proceed LOOL further.
>In my opinion the online version with collaboration features is a
>necessary development line for the future of LibreOffice and its
>community. If TDF drop this line it will decline the importance of
>LibreOffice and its community further (with appropriate consequences
>e.g. in donations).


The pandemic placed great emphasis on the need for an alternative to 
proprietary tools. And TDF should not be left out.

>Regards,
>Andreas
> 
>Am 23.06.22 um 17:09 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
>>
>> Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
>> especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to
>> make it viable.

IMO, an open repo will attract several people from all around the world.

>> It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
>> been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation.
>>
>> In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide
>> enough time for a community to form around it?
>>
>> It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed
>> and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and
>> sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the
>> longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository.
>>
>> If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain
>> that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL.

The community will certainly show their love & passion for LO.

>> It would be great to know if others have other
>> takes/options/alternatives on this subject.

Every organization needs a tool that provides solidity while responding to 
daily needs, but above all that allows it to collaborate in its development 
without any limitations or impediments. So, do you know any organization 
commited to eliminate the digital divide in society by giving everyone access 
to office productivity tools free of charge, to enable them to participate as 
full citizens???

--
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] Objective: Postponing Hiring TDF-Developer To 2024 or Later?

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

So, why no one raised their voices when members of the ecosystem gave their 
opinions in public interviews defaming TDF's activities, huh?




El 28 de mayo de 2022 12:09:33 p. m. GMT-03:00, Simon Phipps 
 escribió:
>Thanks for this, Jeremy.
>
>Since this is not the first time this user has behaved in a manner
>detrimental to the discourse on the list, including displaying the patterns
>of behaviour you describe towards me as well, I join you in your complaint
>and ask the Board to intervene.
>
>Cheers
>
>Simon
>
>On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 7:15 PM Jeremy Allison  wrote:
>
>> Paulo,
>>
>> As a result of this email I have made a complaint about you violating
>> the Document Foundation code of conduct.
>>
>>
>> https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/#:~:text=Please%20be%20helpful%2C%20considerate%2C%20friendly,exemplary%20behaviour%20by%20all%20participants
>> .
>>
>> Specifically, "Please be helpful, considerate, friendly and respectful
>> towards all other participants."
>>
>> Your emails are full of passive aggressive insinuations about other
>> Board and Document Foundation members. Examples include:
>>
>>
>> 
>> "Some, for odd reasons, seem to be less keen in putting their proposals
>> under the community's scrutiny."
>>
>> "On some topics we work constructively together while in others it looks
>> like some changes are being violently pushed back by some.
>>
>> The rationale for opposing some changes is generally not expressed in
>> full but, reading a recent comment, some community members seem to be
>> forming a clear opinion about it."
>>
>> 
>>
>> If you have evidence of mal-intent, please present it directly with
>> the names of the people you are accusing.
>>
>> I respectfully request you stop behaving in such a way. If you
>> persist, I will request a sanction on your participation on this list.
>>
>> A community is defined by what behaviors they allow. I do not accept
>> your behavior on this list.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeremy Allison.
>> Document Foundation Advisory Board member.
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 2:54 AM Paolo Vecchi
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > On 25/05/2022 08:54, Michael Weghorn wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Andreas, all,
>> > >
>> > > On 24/05/2022 23.09, Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> > >> I follow the thread(s) about hiring two in-ho use developers by TDF
>> for
>> > >> some month yet. I got the impression that there are some TDF members
>> > >> which might have no real interest in getting this task done. They are
>> > >> asking only questions and didn't submit any solutions or proposals for
>> > >> solutions. And once all valuable input from TDF members had been
>> > >> incorporated in the document the beforehand mentioned members try to
>> > >> start the whole process with a new proposal.
>> > >>
>> > >> It seemed there is a approach behind this behavior: postpone the whole
>> > >> topic as far as possible. And try to frustrate the members who try to
>> > >> drive this topic forward.
>> > >
>> > > I agree that it is frustrating to see what is going on and to get the
>> > > impression that it seems to be impossible to work together on a common
>> > > proposal.
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, I am not able to judge what each one's motivation is.
>> > >
>> > > However, from following the discussion so far, I don't think it is
>> > > fair to blame only "one side" for the state of affairs.
>> > >
>> > > While I am generally in favor of Paolo's proposal, I share the
>> > > impression that various concerns or suggestions have not been dealt
>> > > with adequately so far.
>> > >
>> > > For example: Michael has asked for an ODF version of the proposal so
>> > > that he could suggest changes and he pointed out some specific issues
>> > > he saw in the proposal e.g. in [1].
>> > > Unless I'm missing something, he didn't receive any reply to that (at
>> > > least none on the public mailing list) and at a quick glance, (most
>> > > of) the mentioned passages are still unchanged in the current version
>> > > of the proposal.
>> >
>> > You are right, I did not provide Michael Meeks an ODF version as I
>> > wanted this process to be transparent for all.
>> >
>> > I've asked from the beginning for everyone to make their proposals in
>> > board-discuss so that everyone would see what changes were being
>> requested.
>> >
>> > You may have noticed that there are still calls by some to create a
>> > small group within the board to discuss changes behind closed doors. I'm
>> > still wondering why as no rationale has been provided on board-discuss
>> > or within the board.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, I can't speak for him, but I could at least understand to
>> > > some extent in case he felt unheard and that doing an own
>> > > counter-proposal would be the only way of his suggestions not just
>> > > being ignored com

Re: [board-discuss] Mailing List Moderation

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Personally I believe that the possibility of speaking freely (whether trustee, 
member of the staff or BoD) should be encouraged, it cannot be that when 
someone says something I don't like, I invite them to shut up.




El 11 de abril de 2022 9:27:39 a. m. GMT-03:00, Simon Phipps 
 escribió:
>Dear Board,
>
>I'm writing to ask you to implement some form of moderation on this mailing
>list.
>
>In the last week or so, we have seen participants abusing a [VOTE] thread
>and then a director further abusing it to chide the Board Chair for
>attempting to stop the abuse. We have seen over-frequent posting. We have
>seen content-free hostility expressed to long-established contributors.
>We've seen posts making no attempt to find positive content earlier in the
>conversation to amplify. While there have been one or two positive
>examples, this list has become a case study in a hostile online environment.
>
>Specifically I would ask the Board chair and vice-chair to act to remedy
>this situation so that this list becomes a safe place to contribute, and
>one where it is safe to make imperfect contributions that can be
>collaboratively evolved open-source-style towards better contributions.
>
>Many thanks!
>
>Simon
>-- 
>*Simon Phipps*, * Trustee, *The Document Foundation

Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 7 de abril de 2022 12:28:00 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke  
escribió:
>Hi,
>
>I'm put out by your reply. You try to move the subject to an emotional
>we versus them or bad cop versus good cop.

That's a repeated pattern, indeed.

>There were 10 TDF members which decided to stand for the board at the
>end of last year. Seven of this members were elected board members and
>the other three deputy member.
>As they decided to candidate for the board they knew about the CoI rules
>of TDF. Thus they decided to follow this rules. A member of the board
>(also a deputy) could only wear one head on the both sides of a table.
>The whole board is responsible for the whole budget including e.g. items
>for tenders. Thus ihe/she could not vote on the budget and be part of a
>company / organization which bids for one of the tenders.
>And to add: if CoI rules have no pain they are no real such rules. In
>such case they wouldn't be worth the paper (and effort to write them down).
>
>And to add further: the whole thread has nothing to do with a judgment
>about the work of any (deputy) member of the board!
>
>Am 07.04.22 um 11:58 schrieb Michael Meeks:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of
>> this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea
>> that there should be major concessions on one side only.
>>
>> I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten
>> & Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they
>> (along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) -
>> bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a
>> decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly
>> and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I
>> have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to
>> be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of
>> TDF & LibreOffice.
>>
>> I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from
>> fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on,
>> how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes.
>>
>> Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole
>> board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with
>> Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly
>> no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with
>> themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions
>> are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of
>> the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and
>> mandate of the members.
>>
>> Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used
>> maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their
>> main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it
>> should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the
>> intention when it was created.
>>
>> So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for
>> whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very
>> things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should
>> exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when
>> Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice
>> votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be
>> reflected our budget.
>>
>> Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to
>> spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check
>> with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any
>> decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the
>> remaining pool for tendering.
>>
>> Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might
>> (independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending
>> related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this
>> argument aired here recently.
>>
>> It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people,
>> while walking all over our statutes.
>>
>> TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders -
>> and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer.
>>
>> TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful
>> people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only
>> just about enough.
>>
>> TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a
>> fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who
>> wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open
>> to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas -
>> and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members
>> to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is
>> typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the
>> board, then the board takes this into account as

Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

It's not an idea, I don't imagine stuff. It was a BoD only mailing list thread.

That kind of thing is not said in public.



El 7 de abril de 2022 9:12:26 a. m. GMT-03:00, Cor Nouws 
 escribió:
>
>
>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
>

Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 7 de abril de 2022 6:58:39 a. m. GMT-03:00, Michael Meeks 
 escribió:
>Hi there,
>
>   Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of
>this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea
>that there should be major concessions on one side only.
>
>   I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten
>& Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they
>(along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) -
>bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a
>decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly
>and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I
>have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to
>be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of
>TDF & LibreOffice.
>
>   I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from
>fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on,
>how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes.
>
>   Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole
>board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with
>Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly
>no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with
>themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions
>are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of
>the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and
>mandate of the members.
>
>   Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used
>maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their
>main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it
>should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the
>intention when it was created.
>
>   So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for
>whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very
>things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should
>exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when
>Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice
>votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be
>reflected our budget.
>
>   Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to
>spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check
>with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any
>decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the
>remaining pool for tendering.
>
>   Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might
>(independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending
>related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this
>argument aired here recently.
>
>   It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people,
>while walking all over our statutes.
>
>   TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders -
>and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer.

>   TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful
>people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only
>just about enough.

Are you, the same one who said 'non coders can't talk', saying that just the 
people you mentioned are competent enough and helpful to represent trustees?

>   TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a
>fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who
>wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open
>to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas -
>and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members
>to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is
>typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the
>board, then the board takes this into account as it ranks this in the
>budget.
>
>   There is no corruption here.
>
>   Although - it can appear that this talk of conspiracy &
>malfeasance is primarily an attempt to overturn the will of the
>Trustees as reflected in the election results.
>
>   Not every board member or Trustee is going to like every
>proposal - I would suggest that a "take it or leave it" approach to
>improving such proposals is deeply counter-productive.
>
>   We go no-where good fast when we turn to attacking the
>motivations of those who want to improve any proposal instead of
>working together collaboratively to improve things.

Huh? It seems your memory is not so good

>   So lets stop this nonsense for the good of TDF.
>
>   Lets engage with critiquing the issues and proposals, and not critique 
>the people who are trying hard to do a good job on the board.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Michael.
>

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreo

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve the attic proposal

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 31/3/22 a las 09:49, Andreas Mantke escribió:

Hello,

Am 28.03.22 um 14:01 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote
needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which
gives 4.

A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

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

Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.


once I looked over this decision making process, I find it striking that
only four BoD members participated. And also is remarkable that among
this participants are only long time TDF members and members which have
are part of LibreOffice ecosystem development companies or their
contract partner.

And because the starting point for this attic proposal (and its first
use case) is LOOL (online) it is not the best management, if members
with a potential CoI around this first use case participate. I'd expect
they abstain.



Indeed, should be that way.



But independent from this, it is sad to see that there seemed to be
already no consent inside the board between the members connected to
LibreOffice ecosystem companies and the other members at the start of
the new BoD term.



It's not the first time that happens, previous term had a lot of that.

However, I believe that a consensus does not necessarily have to be 
reached. One can disagree. What is of utmost importance is to promote 
the best decision for TDF.


This all goes hand in hand with the refusal to hire developers within TDF.



Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog



--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana en Telegram: https://t.me/libreoffice_es

--
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] Decidim startup proposal

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 16/2/22 a las 17:17, Emiliano Vavassori escribió:

Dear members and community,

With the present email I'd like to share a (slightly redacted) version 
of the proposal I made to the Board of Directors for the ongoing 
effort of implementing a platform for participatory democracy, Decidim.


You may find all the details in the document at:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4BQ6S82PJqMb2YQ

I am available, of course, to clarify any doubts the provided proposal 
will raise.


Cheers,



Thanks Emiliano for putting all this stuff together.

In my opinion there's an area where a tool like Decidim can make a 
significative difference: BoD discussions / voting. There are not few 
examples of long and tedious discussions in mail threads. Very hard to 
follow from my POV.


So, maybe the new BoD would be interested in exploring such alternative 
to improve communication.






--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana en Telegram: https://t.me/libreoffice_es

Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 10/2/22 a las 15:08, Michael Meeks escribió:

Hi Daniel,

On 10/02/2022 14:53, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:

El 10/2/22 a las 08:30, Stephan Ficht escribió:
So, everyone and everything being an important piece in the mosaic 
for the big picture for a FLOSS office suite, called LibreOffice.


Crystal clear, for some of us at least

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.

Perhaps you could share a reference to this comment and its 
context to substantiate your summary.


And it's rather unfair asking you this - when I get a blizzard of 
this sort of misrepresentation left & right from others, but I have 
come to expect better of you Daniel =)


Me too, no doubt about it.-



--
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

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 10/2/22 a las 18:32, Andreas Mantke escribió:

Hi,

Am 10.02.22 um 16:54 schrieb Jan Holesovsky:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v St 09. 02. 2022 v 19:58 +0100:


once I read this sentences the first time, I thought I was in a
different film in 2010. But maybe I didn't understand the situation
in OOo project at that time.

I may be wrong, it is a long time ago, but from what I remember, the
problem was not the domination per se [though please don't understand
me as supporting domination ;-)], but the unwillingness to communicate
& seek consensus how to improve the situation for contributors.


it seemed there are different worlds for developer and other community
members.

I and others had the impression that the project domination by one
company at that time wasn't healthy and that the engagement of this
dominant player would end very soon (because of their business
management model).

This was the reason why we get involved in the LibreOffice project from
day one.

We, the majority of the German speaking community members, left the OOo
project and had to fight against accusatory mails from employees etc.

But we withstand this violating situation and invested a lot of our
spare time and resources to make the German language project vital.

Thus I think it is important for community members, which remember the
situation of 2010, to avoid a situation, where only or nearly only one
company dominates the project and especially one area of the project.

The incorporation of a foundation was meant to avoid such situation. But
currently I think, the idea behind this action was not shared by all TDF
members and maybe we had to have set stricter rules to avoid cluster
risk in the TDF bodies.

And one thing which I take with me from this discussion is the evidence
that it is (nearly?) impossible to wear two hats at the same time.

Regards,
Andreas




Completely agree with what you said.


--
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

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 10/2/22 a las 08:30, Stephan Ficht escribió:

Hello,

wrt the subject line and reading through this thread comes in my mind:

"contributors of code" is subset of "contributors of anything" is 
subset of "community" is subset of TDF to fulfill its written objectives.


So, everyone and everything being an important piece in the mosaic for 
the big picture for a FLOSS office suite, called LibreOffice.



Crystal clear, for some of us at least

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.



Perhaps trivial, but it is just as easy to constructively get behind 
these TDF objectives instead of getting lost in the details, treading 
water and getting nowhere.


Cheers,
Stephan



--
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

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 8/2/22 a las 17:06, Andreas Mantke escribió:

Hi Simon,

Am 08.02.22 um 19:44 schrieb Simon Phipps:

Hi Andreas!

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:59 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:


    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.

    Thus there is now chance for a divers market with a lot of small and


corrent sentence: 'Thus there is _no_ chance for a divers market with a
lot of small and'



And such chance exists right now?



    local businesses around the LibreOffice project. Thus the (business)
    user of LibreOffice will not get the opportunity to choose between
    different service provider.

    If this situation will not change immediately the LibreOffice
    certification program will not give a competitive edge.


Do you believe TDF could spend donated funds on the salaries of
developers who write LibreOffice, Andreas? As I recall when we were on
the Board you asserted this would be an improper use of TDF's funding
under its bylaws?


The only way to employ developers is for education and for science and
research (according to the statutes and the tax exemption). But the goal
has to be teaching others to work on the code and get some knowledge
(e.g. for the education part).

But if new volunteers get that knowledge, a certificate and were
talented developer they get very soon partner / staff of the biggest
market player. That would never lead to a divers service environment
around LibreOffice. Thus everybody who needs service around LibreOffice
will never get the opportunity (one strength of OSS) to choose between
service providers. There are other communities / OSS projects with
companies of different size and a divers project structure and no
company is dominating the project / community.



I think Andreas hits the nail on the head when he mentions that in other 
projects no company dominates the project or the community.


TDF has a development mentor, why shouldn't he be the one who decides 
what gets written, and how? I think it's not about competing with the 
valuable members of the ecosystem, it's about the foundation taking the 
reins of the project.



--
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: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El 7/2/22 a las 15:16, Paolo Vecchi escribió:

Hi all,

many of you voted for me as you wanted me to promote and achieve the 
goals set in my candidacy statement:


https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00279.html

Point 1 is what leads me once again to share with the community my 
intention to push forward point 3 and 4 so that you can all provide 
your objective contributions to help me and the rest of the board in 
doing the right things for TDF and our community.


The following is a summary of the points that support the need and the 
feasibility of the proposal:


Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house 
developers to address our donors specific needs


  * As shown by Italo's slides at FOSDEM again and by others, TDF is
not contributing as much as it could
  * Up to now no strategic decisions have been taken to make TDF a
more regular and active code contributor
  * Members of the ecosystem and others also suggested that we should
spend more money in development
  * Bugs, a11y issues and features can be harder to taken care of by
volunteers and are not always addressed by the ecosystem
  * We need to build up internal skills and development capabilities
to speed up innovation
  * Lack of suppliers diversification, mostly 2 at present, is a
suboptimal situation for TDF, LibreOffice and its community
  * Internal developers can grow to cover areas like mentoring and QA
while also helping with new contributors support
  * TDF needs to expand its internal capacity to deal with publishing
in app stores directly and manage variable levels of complexity
due to ever changing rules
  * Some proposed projects could be developed internally instead of
outsourcing them, which helps to grow in-house skills and capacity
to address our donors needs
  * Potential App Stores revenues may allow for more developers and to
invest in developing other projects
  * Our development mentor together with the team should propose to
the BoD projects for internal development
  * While internal projects may cover different areas tenders and ESC
proposals will be also evaluated to avoid effort duplication
  * This is not "just" a new project, it's an essential and
strategical move for TDF to grow further in its second decade
which widens the horizon for new visions and opportunities to do
more and even better things for LibreOffice and our community
  * Funds are available for at least 2 developers allowing us to start
employing them straight away
  * Next steps: create and publish the job offers for developers and
on-board them ASAP


The proposal will be publicly discussed this Friday 11 of February so 
I'm looking forward to your constructive feedback to make it a better 
proposal for all.


In the meantime I hope you appreciated my efforts in relation to point 6:

https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2022/01/27/bug-bounties-finding-and-fixing-security-holes-with-european-commission-funds/


Ciao

Paolo
--
Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



I believe that the arguments in favor are way more than enough. TDF must 
set the course and have its own weight within ESC.
In addition, projects that are not attractive to the valuable members of 
the ecosystem could be divided into smaller parts and dealt with within 
the foundation itself.
We must avoid reaching an instance similar to LOOL, where one part 
simply closed the door. In that sense, influence and/or dependence on 
just two providers is not in the best interest of the foundation itself 
or the LibreOffice Community.

[board-discuss] Vote about Certification Updates

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

+1 from my side

-- 
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] LibreOffice Online information in the release notes

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Apologies for being late here, mail flood is hard to manage.

+1 from my side


El 2 de febrero de 2021 9:15:44 a. m. GMT-03:00, Florian Effenberger 
 escribió:

  
> 
>  Hello,
>    
> 
>    
> based on the previous discussion, putting the following to VOTE now:
>    
> 
>    
>   Ask the marketing team to summarize the new LibreOffice Online
>    
> information website (see vote item #1 in
>    
> https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/4bCUE2Lh2ffa-M8da8zEfPF7) in the release
>    
> notes, adding a link to the full page
>    
> 
>    
> [Note: The content of that website is currently edited and discussed
>    
> and
>    
> should be finished soon.]
>    
> 
>    
> Florian
>    
> 
>   


--
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] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Lothar's words are a good start point.


El mié., 20 de enero de 2021 06:08, Mike Saunders <
mike.saund...@documentfoundation.org> escribió:

> Hi,
>
> On 19.01.21 16:07, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Ask the marketing project to make a proposal to revamp the
> >> LibreOffice Online website
> >> (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) to reflect
> >> the status quo
> >
> > Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstain, 1 disapproval.
> > One deputy is in favor, one deputy is not in favor.
> > Decision: The proposal has been accepted.
>
> I helped to create and update that page, so I can take on that task, if
> nobody objects. We'll need to define a specific vision we have for LOOL
> in the long run and express it clearly on that page.
>
> Mike
>

>
>

Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Don't think the kindness being an issue here. Especially if you consider
that the fork arises as a result of not being able to mold TDF to taste,
let's be honest with that.

El mié., 13 de enero de 2021 14:28, Simon Phipps 
escribió:

> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:53 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
> drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Guilhem has a solid point here, if anyone leaves our project why should
>> us go behind them?
>>
>
> The people involved have not left our community or the LibreOffice project
> (yet). They continue to be our colleagues, friends and indeed contributors
> of all kinds, including upstreaming LO improvements that arise from COOL.
> Please be kind.
>
> There's a dispute in progress that eventually could be resolved if only
> the words being used about it were conciliatory. Provocations don't
> generally resolve disputes.  While it makes sense to "freeze" (interpreting
> that sensibly for each part of the matter) it does not make sense to behave
> as if we are removing every trace and building a competing project (yet).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
> --
> *Simon Phipps*
> *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
> *Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I consider that contributions to COOL, should not taken into consideration for 
TDF membership.


2 dic. 2020 12:47:18 Lothar K. Becker :

> Hi Guilhem,
>
> thanks for your differentiated view! And let me stress again at least from my 
> side, this is a temporary freeze, meanwhile to engage for new or old code 
> contributors, so that we are able to have or to maintain at least a "secure" 
> code base for TDFs LOOL.
>
> I already have started some activities for this purpose (as it is also an 
> independent issue from frozen or not) and I urge everybody to help here 
> (board, team, members, community, others) to meet this temporary period, so 
> yes from my side, this is the plan in my pov.
>
> Thanks again, Guilhem, all the best,
> Lothar
>
> Am 02.12.2020 um 15:58 schrieb Guilhem Moulin:
>> Hi Florian,
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2020 at 12:23:22 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>>> Result of vote: 3 approvals, 3 disapprovals, 1 abstain.
>>> One deputy approves, one deputy disapproves.
>>>
>>> As the vote is a tied vote, § 9 IV of the statutes come to effect. The
>>> Chairperson has the deciding vote, and voted +1 to the proposal.
>>> Therefore:
>>>
>>> Decision: The request has been accepted.
>>> This message is to be archived by the BoD members and their deputies.
>>
>> AFAICT this outcome stems from the fact there it was a yes/no type of
>> vote, so yays “for a short-term period” (quoting Lothar, but there were
>> other BoD members with that understanding) were counted alongside
>> enthusiastic yays.
>>
>> Given the short-term period isn't binding, in practice the vote might be
>> interpreted as a definitive +1.  Could the BoD clarify the short-term
>> period and maybe even commit to revisit the vote say, before the end of
>> their term?
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> --
> Lothar K. Becker, Member of the Board of Directors
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> mail: lot...@documentfoundation.org
> phone: +49 7202 9499 001 (c/o .riess applications gmbh)
> -- 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] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

>From TDF we must recognize the strategic importance of LOOL. That is why the 
>repository must remain active. That way, those who wish to join and make the 
>project shine, can do so. At the same time, as Paolo mentions, we must make 
>sure that the set of tools offered is friendly enough for newcomers. But 
>always maintaining the FLOSS preference.



29 nov. 2020 08:36:04 Simon Phipps :

> Please will those voting against the proposal explain their reasoning and the 
> alternative outcome they are supporting?
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:03 AM Florian Effenberger 
>  wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> last Friday, the board discussed about LibreOffice Online. [1] During
>> the call and in the discussions following, the request for a vote has
>> been expressed, which I am hereby posting to this list.
>>
>> I start this here as a VOTE thread. For any discussions, please reply in
>> the separate DISCUSS thread, which I will initiate as well.
>>
>> The vote that has been proposed is the following:
>>
>> 1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for the
>> time being
>>
>> 1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to
>> instead mirror the Collabora repo, for the time being, and make sure we
>> catch pull requests there, e.g. via the mentoring alias on TDF side
>>
>> 2. to freeze (not delete) the translations for online in Weblate, for
>> the time being
>>
>> The decision will then also be announced and shared with the various
>> community mailing lists, to keep all the projects in the loop.
>>
>> Florian
>>
>> [1] Find the minutes at
>> https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/enpAg8Q93rwP_69yePZQnKFT
>>
>> --
>> Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
>> Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
>> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
>> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe e-mail to: 
>> board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org[board-discuss%2bunsubscr...@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
>>
>
>
> --
> Simon Phipps  
> Office: +1 (415) 683-7660 or +44 (238) 098 7027
> Signal/Mobile:  +44 774 776 2816
>

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

26 nov. 2020 07:03:43 Florian Effenberger :

> Hello,
>
> last Friday, the board discussed about LibreOffice Online. [1] During the 
> call and in the discussions following, the request for a vote has been 
> expressed, which I am hereby posting to this list.
>
> I start this here as a VOTE thread. For any discussions, please reply in the 
> separate DISCUSS thread, which I will initiate as well.
>
> The vote that has been proposed is the following:
>
> 1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for the time 
> being

-1

> 1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to instead 
> mirror the Collabora repo, for the time being, and make sure we catch pull 
> requests there, e.g. via the mentoring alias on TDF side

-1

> 2. to freeze (not delete) the translations for online in Weblate, for the 
> time being

-1

> The decision will then also be announced and shared with the various 
> community mailing lists, to keep all the projects in the loop.
>
> Florian

-- 
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 BoD role

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I, Daniel Armando Rodriguez, elected Director of the Board of "The Document
Foundation", hereby accept this position within the Stiftung bürgerlichen
Rechts "The Document Foundation". My term will start February 18, 2020.

Signed: Daniel Armando Rodriguez

Ich, Daniel Armando Rodriguez, gewähltes Mitglied des Vorstands der "The
Document Foundation", nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen
Rechts "The Document Foundation" an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 18. Februar
2020.

Unterzeichnet: Daniel Armando Rodriguez

[board-discuss] Candidacy for BoD

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Hello, everybody,

I have been working voluntarily with TDF since January 2011 and I am a
member since 2013. Whenever possible I try to evangelize regarding the
advantages of adopting the ODF standard and LibreOffice as an office
suite.
Considering the number of people living in this region of the world, I
consider the need to add more volunteers to the community and,
eventually, more members to the foundation to be a continuous effort.
A significant weakness has to do with the language barrier as the
number of English speakers in this part of the continent is relatively
low. For this reason, I translate and publish on the Hispanic blog
press releases, interviews and articles that help raise awareness of
the strategic importance of adopting free tools and open standards.
I work in a high school with technical orientation all day. I live in
Misiones, Argentina (northeast of the country), an small province
between Paraguay and Brazil.
I'm averaging the 40's, father of two, a boy and a girl, and live and
I've been living in a couple for almost 20 years.

Full name: Daniel Armando Rodriguez

E-mail address: drodrig...@libreoffice.org

Affiliation: None

Declaration of candidacy:
If I am elected as a member of the Board of Directors, my goal is to
get more people involved in the project on a regular basis. I pledge
to continue to do my best for the benefit of the project and to work
hard to make the regional conference a recognized event.



Greetings

-- 
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] Conference attendance

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

El mar., 16 jul. 2019 a las 5:48, Florian Effenberger
() escribió:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose consider having a person to make hotel reservations
> > and book flights so members from different corners of the world can
> > attend a conference. Say international or regional.
> > Such person not need to work the whole year as a few months would enough.
> > IMHO, such figure is needed as many members can afford the costs
> > involved, even thinking in reimbursement.
>
> thanks for your mail!
>
> We are aware of the problems that travel booking can cause. So far,
> Sophie has been handling individual bookings manually, which is quite a
> tedious process. People change flights, sometimes flights can only be
> booked from a foreign website, and lots of other unexpected issues. It
> can easily take a few hours of time for more complicated bookings, as we
> had learned the hard way.
>
> For quite a while already, we've been investigating working with a
> travel agency to overcome that problem, but sadly, most of them were not
> willing to work with us or had incredibly high costs associated.
>
> I'd like to make another approach soon. If anyone has trustworthy
> contacts to travel agencies or ideally knows how other FLOSS projects
> solve that problem, insight is very much welcome!
>
> Florian


It's good to know that find a solution is in the agenda. Thanks.

--
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] Conference attendance

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I'd like to propose consider having a person to make hotel reservations and
book flights so members from different corners of the world can attend a
conference. Say international or regional.
Such person not need to work the whole year as a few months would enough.
IMHO, such figure is needed as many members can afford the costs involved,
even thinking in reimbursement.

Thanks

[board-discuss] To take into consideration

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Jami is free software for universal communication which respects
freedoms and privacy of its users.
Its main goal is to provide a communication framework and end-user
applications to make audio or video calls, send text messages and make
generic data transfers.
As a free software its sources are licensed under the
GPLv3.

https://git.jami.net/savoirfairelinux/ring-project/wikis/home

Re: [board-discuss] About LibreOffice Online

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I mean to deploy in a local server

El mié., 10 de oct. de 2018 11:20, Michael Meeks <
michael.me...@collabora.com> escribió:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 10/10/18 14:51, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Is there any plan to add another way to deploy LibreOffice Online to the
> > current docker image alternative?
>
> https://hub.docker.com/r/libreoffice/online/
>
> Has a LibreOffice Online image.
>
> HTH,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
> Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
> (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe
>

[board-discuss] About LibreOffice Online

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Is there any plan to add another way to deploy LibreOffice Online to the
current docker image alternative?

I was asked about such feature.

[board-discuss] Candidacy for BoD

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Hello everyone,

First of all I must admit that it had not crossed my mind to present
my candidacy until I received a message from Olivier. I collaborate
voluntarily with TDF since January 2011 and I am a member since 2013.
I always try to contribute to the dissemination of ODF and LibreOffice
to the Hispanic people.
I consider it necessary keep working to enhance the synergy between
volunteers and members of Spanish-speaking countries. To add more of
the first and increase the number of seconds, united by the will to
empower the end user to be the owner of the information produced
effectively.
A significant weakness has to do with the language barrier since the
number of people who speak English in this part of the continent is
relatively low. For this reason I dedicate myself to translate and
publish in the Hispanic blog, press releases, interviews and articles
that help raise awareness about the strategic importance of adopting
free tools and open standards.
I work in a technical secondary school the whole day. I live in
Misiones, Argentina (north east of the country) with the mother of my
two children.

Full name: Daniel Armando Rodriguez

Email address: drodrig...@libreoffice.org

Affiliation: None

Declaration of candidacy:
If I result chosen as a BoD member my goal is to get more hispanic
people involved into the project on a regular basis. I commit myself
to give my best effort for the benefit of the project and to work hard
to put a regional conference in the map.



Regards

-- 
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/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [board-discuss] Candidacies to the BoD elections so far

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

> Hi Daniel,
> Le 26/11/2015 00:27, Daniel A. Rodriguez a écrit :
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Am 25.11.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Daniel A. Rodriguez:
>>>>
>>>> I just thought that is nice to see some faces
>>>>
>>>> http://s9.postimg.org/ur0iv0zxb/TDF_Board_Candidates.png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sorry for the missing picture by the way
>>>
>>>
>>> You've forgotten Joel and Andreas.
>>
>> Joel was there already
>> Now I've added Andreas and Simon
>>
>> Bitmap
>> https://owncloud.documentfoundation.org/public.php?service=files&t=38ba3c67a1100b50ba395f7c79a0a082
>>
>> Source
>> https://owncloud.documentfoundation.org/public.php?service=files&t=3f866658a78efcd0a1ac92dd10f9e1d1
>
> It's a great idea, thanks a lot for that!
> Cheers
> Sophie


I've updated it with the latest candidacies







Comunidad LibreOffice Argentina
www.libreoffice.org.ar

https://telegram.me/daniel_rodriguez

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [board-discuss] Candidacies to the BoD elections so far

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Am 25.11.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Daniel A. Rodriguez:
>>
>> I just thought that is nice to see some faces
>>
>> http://s9.postimg.org/ur0iv0zxb/TDF_Board_Candidates.png
>>
>>
>> sorry for the missing picture by the way
>
>
> You've forgotten Joel and Andreas.

Joel was there already
Now I've added Andreas and Simon

Bitmap
https://owncloud.documentfoundation.org/public.php?service=files&t=38ba3c67a1100b50ba395f7c79a0a082

Source
https://owncloud.documentfoundation.org/public.php?service=files&t=3f866658a78efcd0a1ac92dd10f9e1d1











Comunidad LibreOffice Argentina
www.libreoffice.org.ar

https://telegram.me/daniel_rodriguez

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[board-discuss] Candidacies to the BoD elections so far

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

I just thought that is nice to see some faces

http://s9.postimg.org/ur0iv0zxb/TDF_Board_Candidates.png


sorry for the missing picture by the way







Comunidad LibreOffice Argentina
www.libreoffice.org.ar

https://telegram.me/daniel_rodriguez

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[board-discuss] LibreOffice presence for DFD 2013

[Daniel A. Rodriguez]

Please consider using some funds to accentuate the overall positioning of
LibreOffice taking advantage from this year's DFD. A TV spot maybe.


best regards.-