from:"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

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 
>

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

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)

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

2022-11-29 Thread 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

2022-10-28 Thread 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

2022-08-30 Thread 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

2022-08-29 Thread 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

2022-07-19 Thread 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

2022-07-10 Thread 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)

2022-07-07 Thread 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

2022-07-07 Thread 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?

2022-07-05 Thread 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?

2022-07-05 Thread 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)

2022-07-03 Thread 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)

2022-07-02 Thread 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

2022-06-28 Thread 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/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https

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

2022-06-27 Thread 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)

2022-06-25 Thread 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)

2022-06-24 Thread 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

2022-06-24 Thread 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)

2022-06-23 Thread 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?

2022-05-28 Thread 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

Re: [board-discuss] Mailing List Moderation

2022-04-11 Thread 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 ...

2022-04-07 Thread 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

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

2022-04-07 Thread 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 ...

2022-04-07 Thread 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?

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

2022-03-31 Thread 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

2022-02-17 Thread 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

2022-02-11 Thread 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

2022-02-11 Thread 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

2022-02-10 Thread 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

2022-02-08 Thread 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

2022-02-08 Thread 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

2021-07-06 Thread 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

2021-02-08 Thread 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] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online freeze-related decisions

2021-02-05 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2021-02-05 10:26, Emiliano Vavassori escribió:

Il 02/02/21 18:10, Daniel Armando Rodriguez ha scritto:

Hi,

I think it's pretty clear that several BoD members, me included, have
misunderstood the implication of such vote. Especially 1b. So, my take
is to vote on Guilhems proposal, detailed bellow. Which I support.

"rewind branches on https://git.libreoffice.org/online and for the 
time

being deny all write
operations to the repository, be it on the git or gerrit side.  It'll
freeze the state of the dashboard, notification, and other clones for
free, and if/when we decide to accept contributions again everything
will be just one switch away."


+1, but I think the proposal misses some bits. I'll try to cope with 
them:


* branches will be rewinded to commit (or the commits before)
4ca4fd34169dd386c2fa57bd28650c00b23d6864 (last commit before changes by
Collabora)
* OpenGrok needs to point to the TDF git/gerrit
* revert decision 1b and (if feasible) point TDF repo on GitHub on
git/gerrit on TDF infra.

After this bits, I think this whole votes needs another round of
confirmation - to be sure that also these bits are consensual.

Cheers,



Yes, obviously the flood of messages that arrive in the inbox makes it 
difficult to follow the thread of all the conversations. Also, Guilhem's 
proposal is splitted into a couple o messages.
However, in the spirit of making progress on this issue and avoiding 
further delays, I think we could consider the vote as inclusive of what 
Emiliano mentions.


If the above is not shared by fellow Board members I will conduct 
another round of voting, or perhaps we can close with a +1 to the 
amendment mentioned by Emiliano. With which, by the way, I agree.





--
DAR

--
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] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online freeze-related decisions

2021-02-02 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


Hi,

I think it's pretty clear that several BoD members, me included, have 
misunderstood the implication of such vote. Especially 1b. So, my take 
is to vote on Guilhems proposal, detailed bellow. Which I support.


"rewind branches on https://git.libreoffice.org/online and for the time 
being deny all write

operations to the repository, be it on the git or gerrit side.  It'll
freeze the state of the dashboard, notification, and other clones for
free, and if/when we decide to accept contributions again everything
will be just one switch away."





--
DAR

--
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

2021-01-20 Thread 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] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

2021-01-14 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2021-01-13 12:28, Florian Effenberger escribió:

Hello,

as discussed in the previous board call, there are some pending
decisions to be made wrt. the temporary LibreOffice Online freeze.
Here's a set of VOTES (for the board) based on the previous
discussions. You may vote on each item individually, or in bulk.

For DISCUSSIONS around this (for anyone), please open a separate 
DISCUSS thread.



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

2. Ask the team to keep an eye on BugZilla, and freeze/make read-only
the BugZilla component for LibreOffice Online, should that be
necessary (to avoid new bugs being filed, but do not delete existing
content)

3. Point the OpenGrok repository to the mirrored Collabora Online
repository, for the time being, as long as the development is not
happening at TDF

4. Adapt the Dashboard for the Online repository and freeze
contributions in the state immediately preceding the fork

5. Ask the team to remove the Online section from the release notes in 
the wiki



-1


--
DAR

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

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

2021-01-13 Thread 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] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

2021-01-13 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2021-01-13 13:25, Guilhem Moulin escribió:

Hi,

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 16:28:06 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:

3. Point the OpenGrok repository to the mirrored Collabora Online
repository, for the time being, as long as the development is not
happening at TDF


It might be helpful to have usage metrics for {OpenGrok online.  During
the past 2 weeks I count 535 hits from 30 distinct IPs, half of which
with ≤15 requests.  In comparison, for core I count 27k hits from 419
distinct IPs, 284 of which with ≤15 requests.

Anyway, why should TDF assist with tooling for a project that's no
longer developed under its umbrella?  IMHO {OpenGrok falls into the 
same

category as build bots, and {OpenGrok's online repository should be
removed just like we shutdown the online build bot.  And if there is
interest in keeping these around, they should point to the state prior
to the fork, not to a new upstream.


Guilhem has a solid point here, if anyone leaves our project why should 
us go behind them?



Bugzilla, the dashboard, and weblate are different and I think it's
important for posterity to preserve (keep that public) issues, metrics,
and l10n contributions of the project from its inception up to the 
fork.


FWIW I also think it's wrong to mirror references of
https://git.libreoffice.org/online
from an external repository.
https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/gVuesWC6ZI0MUequqiqJ3nrc
reads “1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git,
for the time being” and “1b. to switch the 
https://github.com/libreoffice/online
mirror to instead mirror the Collabora repo”.  I assume “freeze” in 1. 
was
not meant to turn https://git.libreoffice.org/online it into a 
read-only

mirror?  That's anyway not how I read the decision.


--
DAR

--
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 7.1 marketing plan

2020-12-09 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-12-07 12:23, Lothar K. Becker escribió:


Find the SLIDES for this vote at

https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/Z6Y2YeDKHoRW3s8

which are a subset of the initially shared PDF, that was made available 
via Nextcloud. Removed from the aforementioned initially shared PDF are 
the following slides, that are irrelevant for the vote: slides 2, 
10-14, 20-26, 36, 50-53, 62-64, 84


In the here shared PDF with the subset, slides 30, 36, 55 and 60 are 
updated to reflect the version number change from 7.0 to 7.1 (in red 
color).


Vote text:

- APPROVAL of the 7.1 MARKETING PLAN, especially the ACTION ITEMS from 
the aforementioned shared slides slide 27 onwards.


- The board ASKS THE TEAM, especially the marketing group with Italo 
and Mike, to WORK on the aforementioned ACTION ITEMS, as they are set 
forth in the PDF.


- The board ASKS THE TEAM, especially the marketing group with Italo 
and Mike, to MONITOR results and RECEPTION of this marketing plan and 
its action items, and COLLECT AND BRING FORWARD PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES, 
REMOVALS AND ADDITIONS when necessary, especially in time for the NEXT 
MAJOR RELEASES and/or snapshots, or the LATEST IN SIX MONTHS' TIME


Notes on the vote:

- The vote on the TAG ("Label") will be sent in a separate e-mail after 
this. It is marked as "TBD" (to be determined) in the slide deck.


I now ask ALL the board members to VOTE with APPROVAL (+1), DISAPPROVAL 
(-1) or ABSTAIN (0).


The vote will CLOSE

Thursday, December 10, 1800 Berlin time

Thanks to everyone for your work on the marketing plan and your 
commitment to making it a success.


--
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)


My vote is APPROVAL (+1) to the Marketing Plan

I think it is necessary to thank everyone for their work on this, 
although I insist that we need this type of consultation to receive more 
participation from the members of the foundation. I encourage everyone, 
once again, to express their opinion when the opportunity arises.
However, this is a significant step forward in finding balances and 
compromises to work with the ecosystem for a bright future. Both 
commercial and volunteer contributors do valuable work.


--
DAR

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice 7.1 tag ("label")

2020-12-09 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-12-07 12:28, Lothar K. Becker escribió:

As announced in the previous mail, as follow-up to the marketing plan, 
the board ALSO has to decide on a concrete TAG ("Label") for 
LibreOffice 7.1.


Find the SLIDES with the THREE PROPOSED TAGS at

https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sTKeS4NipJ6X9XH

which are from the discussion with our members, and also contain 
related information on their strengths and weaknesses, provided by the 
marketing team.


The proposals, in ALPHABETICAL order, are as follows:

a. Advance
b. Community
c. Rolling

Vote text and procedures:

- Please VOTE with a clear RANKING for the three TAG ("label") 
proposals.

No double ranks are allowed. Each ranking can be assigned just once.
3 is the HIGHEST ranking (your most favorite tag), 1 is the LOWEST 
ranking (your least favorite tag).
The winner will be the tag ranked best, i.e. with the highest overall 
number.

We use the ranking to come to a quick and effective decision this week.

Notes on the vote:

- This vote is NOT about possible TRANSLATIONS.
Details of that is to be decided by the local communities together with 
the marketing project.
If no appropriate translation is found, the original term in English 
will be taken.


- This vote is NOT about the ABOUT BOX TEXT.
This will be decided after the tag is chosen.

I now ask ALL the board members to RANK.

The ranking will CLOSE

Thursday, December 10, 1800 Berlin time

--
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)


This is my ranking

3. Community
2. Advance
1. Rolling

I just want to mention that we need this type of consultation to receive 
more participation from the members of the foundation. I encourage 
everyone to voice their opinion when the opportunity arises, while 
thanking those who shared their ideas.


Regards

--
DAR

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

2020-12-02 Thread 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

2020-11-29 Thread 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] MCC questions ..

2020-09-04 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


First of all, it is a public list.
On the other hand, not being a candidate disqualifies me from asking 
questions?


El 2020-09-04 10:47, Simon Phipps escribió:

I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your 
nomination?


S.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez 
 wrote:



El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:

Hi Andreas,

On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:

b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question
to
the candidates!

That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean 
to

the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.


Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes 
than

can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to
know
from each candidate:

What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.

* many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.

+ how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?


Don't need to be 'a lot'


+ Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing


What's the 'more marginal contributions' meaning?


+ what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?

* If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
you encouraged to apply for membership ?

* How many applications have you voted against ?

* Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
between membership and non-membership that encourages
a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
achieve full membership ?

* When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
should other MC members validate that ?

* To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?


Any relation to MC Open Letter?


* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
+ I'm interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.


'Too popular'? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..

2020-09-04 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:

Hi Andreas,

On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question 
to

the candidates!

That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.


Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to 
know

from each candidate:

What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.

* many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
  Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
  number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
  translation, documentation etc.

+ how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?


Don't need to be 'a lot'


+ Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
  more marginal contributions for membership cf.
  https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing


What's the 'more marginal contributions' meaning?


+ what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?

* If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
  you encouraged to apply for membership ?

* How many applications have you voted against ?

* Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
  between membership and non-membership that encourages
  a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
  achieve full membership ?

* When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
  code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
  decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
  MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
  should other MC members validate that ?

* To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
  be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?


Any relation to MC Open Letter?


* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
  system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
+ I'm interested in where we have the situation that
  being too popular can stop you being able to
  engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
  Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
  in the last Board election.


'Too popular'? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?





--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels

2020-07-18 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-07-18 12:01, Telesto escribió:

Decidim allows to enrich spaces for participation through multiple
available components (surveys, proposals, follow-up of results,
comments and several more).

-> True; as - I think I said - no experience with all participation
tools.. Did try decidim quickly today.  I personally find
https://try.decidim.org not utmost attractive visually (not judging
the functionality, capability's or scale ability). Another part is a
full fetched participation environment really needed. Or is it rather
overblown functionality nobody actually gonna use. The number of
active commenting users isn't extremely large; and the number
responding here even lower.  Even polls at
https://planet.documentfoundation.org/ attract representative amount
of users. I happy already with kind of comment board showing depth (so
responds too) and a moderation score (the moderation can be done by
anyone logged in at the site). Gray means Off-topic / irrelevant; +3
Spotlight. In addition can a vote be added; to support/unsupported.
And maybe a poll functionality Are more options actually needed? I'm
would be quite happy with forum/ bulletin board with decent comment
functionality and possibly to support a comment and/or prioritizing
comments.

This e-mail message board is not my type of thing.  Unstructured, hard
to go through. Bug tracker message system is already a lot better. And
a message board with comments (which easily show who is responding to
what and being able to filter based on votes and or moderation score)
is perfect already. The 'voting'/ supporting should be enough for non
fluent people, I think. And message board maybe even be translated too
by some automatic translation site. Quality is often quite acceptable.
Visa versa people could use a translation side to write their opinion
in native language, while being automatically translated to English
with some  'heading: automatic translation" and the source text below.
That's what I do if there is a posting of a bug in
Spanish/French/German.

And it could environment could be used also on
blog.documentfoundation.org. As I'm talking about message board with
same functionality (except slightly improved comment system). So to
backend or the whole site could shared. Without bloating everything
with again a new environment for participation. Including maintaining
(security updates/ configuration)/ moderating etc. And all the
comments can also send as e-mail message to the e-mail archive if
people like nabble/mailings.


Fair enough,

In my opinion, one cannot always depend on translation tools to say 
something. I usually use them, but many times it is necessary to make 
adjustments to bring the translated text closer to what you really want 
to say.


The case of translating text is different, since even if it is not the 
best result, the idea can be understood.

But that's just my opinion.

In addition, I believe that a full participatory environment is 
necessary. In principle, because it concentrates different tools on a 
single platform.


Regarding the mentions about updates and maintenance, I have already 
expressed my willingness to add my collaboration if necessary.


I also believe that when everyone can feel the benefits of such a 
platform many people will welcome it.




--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels

2020-07-18 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez

El 2020-07-17 15:35, Telesto escribió:

Please don't confuse "making voices heard", which is generally good,
with "offering them a vote", which is generally problematic if they do
not carry any responsibilities upon which their votes might rely and
especially if they are willing to vote for ideas they don't fully
understand on the basis only of personality or identity. Decisions made
in that way have bad outcomes.

+1 for the above

Sometimes I think, don't make it to to complex.

The intention is completely the opposite

As there number of people contributing to the discussion oversee able.
So maybe some kind of news article/news board of system; An
introduction article [Starting point] + comment system like this (not
sure how it's called);
https://tweakers.net/reviews/7694/last/android-11-kleine-verfijningen-zonder-zoete-verrassingen.html#reacties.
The starting point can be created by anybody registered. The response
and the voting makes it easier to keep track of important input
(read-up) and what people support or not. For tapping into the general
public I would prefer a a polling system. Some background story [XXX]
What do you think about Community Edition. Great Idea! Not so, because..
[44 characters or maybe few more to keep it short]. If the want to give
more input they should go you can go to www..

Decidim allows to enrich spaces for participation through multiple
available components (surveys, proposals, follow-up of results, comments
and several more).

The ultimately decision should me made at the board. The community
tools intended to gather input (and should communicated this way).

As Sophi said, "this is not about offering to vote (which can be
disabled in Decidim) but about providing a support to a comment. It's
very different because that allows people not fluent in English to give
an educated opinion and partipate. It's easy when you're fluent to
express yourself, and it takes hours to one who is not, most of the time
he will abandon before."

--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels


El 2020-07-17 15:05, Michael Meeks escribió:

On 17/07/2020 18:52, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:

Well, misunderstanding of ideas can be avoided simply by communicating
in such a way that no aspect is taken for granted when making the
request for feedback.


	I have no problem with tools to get polls / feedback from our 
userbase;

that's great =)

	Of course, for decisions - we are a meritocracy^W doers-decide 
project;
so having some separate means for the members to easily inform the 
board

/ discuss and/or give their input / views on things would also be
extremely valuable. Hopefully some clear separation would make
membership - and more importantly the contribution necessary to achieve
it more attractive to people too (perhaps).

My 2 cents,



Well, the membership base is small enough (221 to date) to condition 
feedback to that group only.


Ideas can add up, grow and take shape with a wider audience. That is the 
spirit behind the initiative.





--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels

El 2020-07-17 15:02, Sophie escribió:

Le 17 juillet 2020 19:32:11 GMT+02:00, Simon Phipps
 a écrit :

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:19 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

El 2020-07-17 13:20, Simon Phipps escribió:
> There is also CONSUL, which was developed as open source by Madrid

City

> Council, transferred to an independent Foundation and is now used
> worldwide. Italo Vignoli is a member of their Board of Directors.

See

> https://consulproject.org/en/
>
> All the same, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to bring
> thousands of voters into a decision making process where they have

no

> responsibilities to moderate their exercise of rights. It will just
> become factional and partisan based on external agendas.

I believe that it is crucially important to allow as many voices as
possible to be heard, and the consequent monitoring process is

greatly

facilitated by the implementation of a tool such as Decidim so,

together

BoD & Community can decide about the issues that matter to us.

Please don't confuse "making voices heard", which is generally good,
with
"offering them a vote", which is generally problematic if they do not
carry
any responsibilities upon which their votes might rely and especially
if
they are willing to vote for ideas they don't fully understand on the
basis
only of personality or identity. Decisions made in that way have bad
outcomes.

This is not about offering to vote (wich can be disabled in Decidim
which I know better than other tools) but about providing a support to
a comment. It's very different because that allows people not fluent
in English to give an educated opinion and partipate. It's easy when
you're fluent to express yourself, and it takes hours to one who is
not, most of the time he will abandon before.

+100 :-D

--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels


El 2020-07-17 14:32, Simon Phipps escribió:

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:19 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez 
 wrote:



El 2020-07-17 13:20, Simon Phipps escribió:
There is also CONSUL, which was developed as open source by Madrid 
City

Council, transferred to an independent Foundation and is now used
worldwide. Italo Vignoli is a member of their Board of Directors. See
https://consulproject.org/en/

All the same, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to bring
thousands of voters into a decision making process where they have no
responsibilities to moderate their exercise of rights. It will just
become factional and partisan based on external agendas.


I believe that it is crucially important to allow as many voices as
possible to be heard, and the consequent monitoring process is greatly
facilitated by the implementation of a tool such as Decidim so, 
together

BoD & Community can decide about the issues that matter to us.


Please don't confuse "making voices heard", which is generally good, 
with "offering them a vote", which is generally problematic if they do 
not carry any responsibilities upon which their votes might rely and 
especially if they are willing to vote for ideas they don't fully 
understand on the basis only of personality or identity. Decisions made 
in that way have bad outcomes.


Well, misunderstanding of ideas can be avoided simply by communicating 
in such a way that no aspect is taken for granted when making the 
request for feedback.




--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels


El 2020-07-17 13:20, Simon Phipps escribió:


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:03 PM Kev M  wrote:

There are other participatory democracy software out there that exist 
but I don't know many that are Open Source.


There is also CONSUL, which was developed as open source by Madrid City 
Council, transferred to an independent Foundation and is now used 
worldwide. Italo Vignoli is a member of their Board of Directors. See 
https://consulproject.org/en/


All the same, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to bring 
thousands of voters into a decision making process where they have no 
responsibilities to moderate their exercise of rights. It will just 
become factional and partisan based on external agendas.


I believe that it is crucially important to allow as many voices as 
possible to be heard, and the consequent monitoring process is greatly 
facilitated by the implementation of a tool such as Decidim so, together 
BoD & Community can decide about the issues that matter to us.




--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels


El 2020-07-17 11:42, Cor Nouws escribió:

Hi Daniel, *,

Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote on 17/07/2020 15:11:
As stated at the meeting, the number of subscribers to the mailing 
lists

is significantly low. The user list, for example, has about 1500
subscribers, the Spanish and Brazilian lists have about 350 people 
each.

TDF has today 221 members and this list only 160 people. Therefore,
beyond the fact that the subscription is voluntary, it cannot be said
that many people are encouraged to participate in the discussions.


It is indeed right that mailing lists are not for _all_ - any more.
/me those were good times ;)


It has to do with a social issue, as someone said, but also with the
language barrier and the ability to argue an idea. And I'm pretty sure
that providing a platform where people can vote on comments/ideas will
allow TDF to attract much more participation, even from those who 
don't

speak English as fluently... as I do.


Of course it is not needed to get votes in the first place, but 
allowing
people to provide input, without the need to set up an email address 
for

that, is indeed important.


To make it clear, this is not an attempt to solve several problems at
once, I don't expect to present a final solution, if there is one. But


I heard a likewise comment in the BoD meeting indeed, and could not 
well

understand it myself.
Maybe the idea was to express that the problem is a complex one, and 
not

only solved by different tooling. Maybe the tooling even is less
important than an attitude that encourages participation.
I remember quite some moments from the past, that on a mailing lists, 
in

a discussion, or at the start of it, it was recognized that we should
try to use more public lists for the kind of topics.. Sometimes that
worked. But to often, with the load of work, difficulty to manage,
moderate (more widely) discussions etc. we fell in old habits.. ;)


as a foundation with a global reach we need to make people willing to
participate. If such behavior modification is achieved through 
technical

change, then we welcome it.


Indeed. Technical means can help.
If a mailing list was available for all, one could say that it would be
sufficient to announce on all channels that discussion.topic is ongoing
there to encourage people to join - if they so wish.
And of course that applies to any preferred tool: make sure that people
in other channels get a ping to make them aware.


Once implemented, of course an invitation will send through all the 
channels

to let people give it a try. I'm thinking in a blog post also.


What I propose is to give the platform a chance without leaving any
other tools aside, for a certain period of time, and then evaluate the
performance.


I did not look into details of https://democraciaos.org/en/


Well, unfortunately DemocracyOS is currently without maintenance. So the 
preferred choice is decidim, which is a most complete and powerfull 
tool.



But I have a high trust in open source and tooling developed to support
democracy. So, with only the condition that it allows to have (some)
interaction with mail (and I guess it has), I'm much in favor to give 
it

a try!


Indeed, notifications are send through email


Maybe with a few projects, topics to start with - not do a complete
remake of our work immediately - it yields good experience.


Of course

And imagine it makes it even easier to improve our attitudes at the 
same time :)







--
DAR

--
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: [libreoffice-website] Re: [board-discuss] Initiative to improve communication channels


El 2020-07-17 11:12, Thorsten Behrens escribió:

Hi Franklin, all,

Franklin Weng wrote:

BTW, even if it becomes 15th useless channel, which can be tweaked,
tried and improved from the running experiences, it will not be a
big deal IMO.


Sure, it would create more silos & further fracture the community.

As I said during the board call - this is lovely technology, that I
can imagine we can put to good use, for some areas.

But it doesn't solve the 'too many channels' problem (as it was
advertised to do). Let's not fool ourselves.

Unless we're willing to shut down mailing lists & telegram channels,
and actively shepherd community members over.


We have to show the community the usefulness of the platform. We can't 
make use mandatory, that doesn't work.


I already commented on the numbers related to the number of subscribers 
that have some mailing lists, and such numbers are not representative of 
the whole community IMO.





--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels

As stated at the meeting, the number of subscribers to the mailing lists 
is significantly low. The user list, for example, has about 1500 
subscribers, the Spanish and Brazilian lists have about 350 people each. 
TDF has today 221 members and this list only 160 people. Therefore, 
beyond the fact that the subscription is voluntary, it cannot be said 
that many people are encouraged to participate in the discussions.


It has to do with a social issue, as someone said, but also with the 
language barrier and the ability to argue an idea. And I'm pretty sure 
that providing a platform where people can vote on comments/ideas will 
allow TDF to attract much more participation, even from those who don't 
speak English as fluently... as I do.


To make it clear, this is not an attempt to solve several problems at 
once, I don't expect to present a final solution, if there is one. But 
as a foundation with a global reach we need to make people willing to 
participate. If such behavior modification is achieved through technical 
change, then we welcome it.


What I propose is to give the platform a chance without leaving any 
other tools aside, for a certain period of time, and then evaluate the 
performance.









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

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

[board-discuss] Filling the gap

2020-07-13 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez

At the moment we could say that we have divided positions, change the 
label and continue with the schedule and, on the other hand, continue 
the discussion and postpone the implementation until 7.1.
So, in order to bring positions closer together, why not postpone the 
release and continue with the discussion for a couple more weeks?











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

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Personal: and software freedom.

2020-07-13 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-07-13 13:29, Kev M escribió:

K, this is the amazing thing about Vanilla. It's actually black. Well, 
it's actually more ochre-ish.


Also, I get Olvier's point about it being too cartoonish to use 
Vanilla; but I retort: Google uses candybar names for it's versions of 
Android. Debian uses Toy Story characters. I could find many more 
examples where software has a "cartoonish" name.


The nice thing about Vanilla is that everyone implicity knows what it 
means; plain, but it doesn't sound boring like plain, and Vanilla can 
be Vanilla, like the ice-cream, or Vanilla the substance, which again, 
is black.


I second Olivier here, not everyone knows outside the geek circle.






--
DAR

--
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] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable

2020-07-10 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez

, convince them,
make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if
there is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key
parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn't be where we are
without all of you, all of the community.

I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than
with a negative. As such, I seriously doubt we will convince people
and bring across a good message if we communicate with too strong
words. Positive wording and directions are always better than
negative. And I think it's also much easier for the community to
communicate that. Maybe we tried with messaging that was not
successful so far, fair enough, so let's improve the message, but I
would like to work on a positive framing, than on a negative one.

TDF is no different in this regard! We ourselves, we use lots of free
software as an organization - be it for web, database, file services,
mail, chat, conferencing and other servers. We have the skills
in-house and we often rely on pre-compiled binaries from free software
projects. We do contribute back e.g. by supporting upstream
development, doing advocacy and working together on a common goal.

We don’t do this because of strong taglines and texts, but because
we’re convinced of doing something good to the benefit of many, making
improvements for us and others, achieving a common goal. Contributing
and being a "good citizen" can be done in various ways.

It’s this message I would like to transport also for LibreOffice.

In the end, I trust the marketing team, I trust the board, I trust the
community - and I’m sure our collective wisdom will bring up what is
best for the project.

I know constructive discussions in public are not trivial and can be
really demanding, especially on such an obviously emotional topic.
Part of the positive progress we do make is also exactly this
discussion - working together constructively, positively and creating
things is what will set, literally, the foundation for the next decade
of our Foundation, and everyone who is part of the ecosystem around
it.

Florian







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

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [board-discuss] Initiative to improve communication channels

2020-07-09 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-07-09 06:05, Ilmari Lauhakangas escribió:

Thorsten Behrens kirjoitti 9.7.2020 klo 11.44:

Ilmari Lauhakangas wrote:

DemocracyOS vs. anything we currently have is an apples to oranges
comparison meaning we *can't* shut anything down.

But how would DemocracyOS then help to solve the too-many-channels 
problem?


In my view it would not help solve that specific problem. I guess the
idea was instead to have a channel geared towards a very specific
purpose (feedback to TDF governance) with an interface that would be
pleasant for the majority.


Ilmari did the reading I was aiming at.

One example, spanish ML has 329 subscribers so far. Takign just the 1% 
of the spanish speaking people worldwide, which is about 500 millions, 
that number is not even insignificant.


That's the main reason that motivates me, to bring new users closer 
through a channel more in tune with the current times and, therefore, 
something that most computer users are used to.





--
DAR

--
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] Initiative to improve communication channels

2020-07-08 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez

In my opinion, and based on recent experience, I consider it necessary 
for TDF to be open to community participation in a more modern and 
accessible way to everyone.


In this sense, it is clear that the use of mailing lists, IRC/Telegram 
channels does not allow to reach the majority of LibreOffice users, free 
software advocates and community members and that is why I would like to 
propose the adoption of a platform that favours participation, debate, 
interaction and collaborative elaboration of lines of action between TDF 
and the community.


In this sense, the ticket 
https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3251 has been created in 
the interest to present alternatives to reach the proposed goal and get 
feedback from the community about the topic.


Everyone is invited to participate.







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

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Involvement of the board in the Marketing Plan

2020-06-26 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


Hi, I was at the meeting too.

Given the importance of adopting a medium-term plan such as the one 
under discussion, in my role as a Board Member I recognize that it is 
extremely important to hear different voices. In fact, I would have 
liked yesterday's meeting to have been attended by more than 11 people. 
In this regard, I believe that greater emphasis could have been placed 
on the dissemination of such activity.


However, in relation to the latter, language should not be a barrier for 
anyone. We are not all native English speakers in fact and it is 
important to stress that TDF has usual channels of communication to keep 
up with the news or participate.




El 2020-06-26 12:32, Sam Tuke escribió:

Hi All, thanks to yesterday's marketing call, marketing team members
had an opportunity to discuss the 5 year Marketing plan currently
being drafted by Italo.

It seems like only one member of the current Board of Directors was
present in that meeting (though there may have been some who stayed
silent; please correct me).

A 5 year marketing plan, on the 10th anniversary of a project, will be
a great step forward, and a critical piece of strategy for the future
of the organisation. No doubt the Board has been deeply involved in
putting the drafts together. I appreciate this has taken considerable
energy.

Nevertheless, the absence of more Board representatives in the
Marketing meeting, which may be the only meeting of the marketing team
about the plan before it's adopted, raises some interesting questions
for we marketers:

- If the Board's involvement was already completed privately, to what
extent is the marketing team intended to participate in its drafting?
- If the Board's involvement is ongoing, then how do they intend to
interact with the marketing team? With one representative in a single
meeting?
- If TDF Marketing staff are intended to be the messengers between
Board and marketing team, what is the intended process or workflow of
that?

If input into the plan from the marketing team is desirable to the
Board, then we as marketing team members need a clearer understanding
of how that should be provided.

I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with the
team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team it seems
like a sensible move).

But coordinating such a plan as this between Board, staff, and
voluntary team takes more than passing on a largely inflexible
document to a team of experts towards the end of the process. Product
Managers call it "throwing it over the wall" when opportunities for
meaningful input ended before handover.

The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan itself,
on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice Online
situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to hint that
some topics are out of bounds in this way because they are stuck
between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such things to
discourage input on controversial issues which can have no effect.

This is a question of leadership for the board, not for TDF staff in
my view, as it is fundamentally a question of how much control over
the marketing plan should be given to the marketing team, and what
parts it is desirable for them to contribute to, and how that should
be communicated to them. This is a matter of the social contract
between the Foundation and volunteers -- not just marketing.

There are many options here, to suit the Board's needs, and doing
things differently need not make finding consensus on already hard
topics, more difficult. The current draft plan is broad in scope,
covering community management, branding, and touching on ecosystem
design. Tough topics could be split into other sections, or strategy
documents if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to
influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain. With
some brainstorming or reference to other Open Source projects,
additional means of cooperating with the team could no doubt be found.

Sam.


--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience

2020-05-26 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


Agree


El 2020-05-26 11:02, Heiko Tietze escribió:

Always good to have bike-shedding questions in such a list ;-). First,
we have to agree on such a survey including what exactly we want to
learn and which questions we have to ask. The proficiency
self-estimation is just a way to split answers into more or less
experienced people. So back to Stallman/Thorvalds/Musk/Trump, the
better option is maybe "I'm a professional system administrator"
(whatever we put there, it's clear that this is the maximum option).

On 26.05.20 16:52, Paolo Vecchi wrote:


On 26/05/2020 16:09, Brett Cornwall wrote:


On May 26, 2020 6:10:44 AM PDT, Paolo Vecchi 
 wrote:

4 I think lately Richard Stallman has been involved in controversial
stuff. Maybe it's safer to use Linus Torvalds to avoid comments?
Further, Stallman is actually not very technically proficient these 
days and makes for a poor example of a 'God-tier' hacker.

:D True.

So shall we settle for Linus Torvalds or there are other suggestions?

Paolo



--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience

2020-05-26 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-05-26 09:10, Paolo Vecchi escribió:

That's a very good proposal Heiko.

Just some amendments:

1.1
(I guess only a few will answer LibreOffice Online as AFAIK isn't that
easy to build)
Maybe we should also add Collabora Code and Collabora Online?
I have several instances with Collabora Code as at present it's the 
only

available on platforms like Univention.

Maybe the following sounds better?
2 2 Should enterprises (and even individuals) be able to deploy their
own LibreOffice Online to have a self-hosted/cloud based collaborative
office suite?


Indeed


4 I think lately Richard Stallman has been involved in controversial
stuff. Maybe it's safer to use Linus Torvalds to avoid comments?


Why not just saying a 'tech guru'.


We could also add the following questions to see if individuals would
sponsor the project and business users want/need paid for support 
services?


6 As individual users would you like to make a donation to TDF
specifically to support the development of LibreOffice Online?

7 As a business user would you prefer to use the paid for versions of
LibreOffice Online delivered and supported by partner organisations?

Ciao

Paolo

On 26/05/2020 14:43, Heiko Tietze wrote:
Thanks for the input. The draft for a survey is on Nextcloud 
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/ZCX4wrx3wipr5mQ


Framing the questionnaire as input for future development we might get 
a feeling what percentage of users is interested in LOOL. And 
hopefully some have experienced success or failed and can reply what's 
needed for a one-click installation.


Cheers,
Heiko



--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] Quarterly TDF 2020 Key Goals update

2020-05-24 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


And the meeting before, it has been promised by the board to inform the
community on the status of the 'TDC project', the plan that envisions 
to

deal with products in app stores and possibly tendering and maybe more.
That update is to expected very soon.


Let me rephrase, [...] the plan that envisioned to deal with products in 
app stores and raised several concerns within the community.





--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience

2020-05-23 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-05-23 16:32, Sam Tuke escribió:

On 23/05/2020 19:04, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
* Shall enterprises (and even individuals) can deploy their own LOOL 
to have a cloud based collaborative office suite?

+ Yes
+ No
+ Other (explain)


Rather than asking what people think /should/ happen, it's better to
ask them about their past behaviour, because that is a more reliable
indicator of their needs.

For example (based on questions proposed so far):

- Have you edited documents in a web browser within the last month?
- Which of the following software deployment systems have you used to
succesfully install software?
- When was the last time you hired professional help to setup
self-hosted software?

This approach is common in US product development research.

Sam.


Thanks for the hints Sam, very good point.

Any other ideas?




--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience

2020-05-23 Thread Daniel Armando Rodriguez


El 2020-05-22 10:33, Heiko Tietze escribió:

On 22.05.20 16:09, Simon Phipps wrote:

A survey form would be the best way to go a about it


Happy to support this but no idea how to start. Ordinary users cannot
answer "What's the best solution for you to get LOOL?" neither "Which
kind of authentication do you prefer? [OpenFoo, LibreBar, PublicQux]".
And isn't the setup kind of a stack that needs to be installed with
(Next)Cloud, LOOL backend, and (COOL)-UI?

So what I'd need for a survey is a couple of simple questions that
everybody can answer. My preferred type of question is multiple-choice
with additional "Other" option.



My initial take,

* Shall enterprises (and even individuals) can deploy their own LOOL to 
have a cloud based collaborative office suite?

+ Yes
+ No
+ Other (explain)

* Deployment on cloud servers under your control or on-prem should 
require high-level technical expertise?

+ Yes
+ No
+ Other (explain)

The platform should allow the possibility of adding integrations with 
other software platform?

+ Yes
+ No
+ Other (explain)




--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 17:26, Cor Nouws escribió:

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote on 22/05/2020 22:49:

What makes my worry is the response you got about C'bora under TDF's 
IRC


It would be good to hear what you think of today's board meeting, and
what has been presented there about community health and ecosystem.
(Well, we tried to chat later, but kitchen duties were calling me ;) )


What I think is no one can get such answer from TDF channel, period.

And I take you words "an easy way to deploy LOOL" should be provided 
by

TDF, as TDF's mission is to offer a free product to the end user. And
that offer should allow a painless implementation.


That is a reasonable possible way of looking at it, for sure.
TDF's mission speaks about "software made available for everyone ..
freely and without restrictions". So indeed you can read that as
'binaries for business use without payment', but just as reasonable as
'code for all individuals without restrictions'. Or maybe even
interpretations in between :)


No one is talking of the first, and I'm reading it over and over again 
with different wording.



So that's the good thing for primary the board, but if needed the whole
community: our freedom to look at what is really wise to do for TDF's
mission.
Maybe the Ecosystem & Sustainability presentation gives some good input
to further talk about that aspect of how our world looks. So lets do 
that :)


If TDF offer a product for free, and states the commercial suport is up 
the ecosystem companies what's the problem?

Whoever is looking for such support will knock their doors.



--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 16:05, Andras Timar escribió:


Hi,

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:40 PM Marco Marinello - Mailing lists 
 wrote:


This was totally a pain. The lack of any consistent documentation 
(until
May 5 in the INSTALL file there was just written "Left as an exercise 
to

the reader") was one of the biggest problems. The only way was to rely
on old blog posts found on the internet.


Until recently the consensus was that TDF releases source tarballs for 
LOOL. So there was no demand to write documentation how to create 
packages, how to build a "product".


It's not about creating a product but implementing a solution, that's 
the key.


On the other hand it is fully documented in the source code in README 
files how to build as a developer, if someone wanted to hack on the 
code.


The docker/l10n-docker-nightly.sh is also quite self-explanatory. (For 
those, who don't know what it is: it builds a docker image from 
source.)



Another totally undocumented topic (obviously I refer to the official
documentation on wiki.documentfoundation.org) was the configuration of 
a
reverse proxy to work with LOOL, essential since configuring LOOL to 
use

a non-self signed certificate is even harder.


As TDF did not release binaries, I don't know who would look for such 
documentation in TDF wiki. Collabora published documentation for CODE, 
e.g.:


https://www.collaboraoffice.com/code/apache-reverse-proxy/
https://www.collaboraoffice.com/code/nginx-reverse-proxy/

But there are other good sources of information, too, from integrators.


From the community you may want to make implementations that, for 
example, do not show warnings. If the implementer is willing to deal 
with that, why not let them?


Another hot topic, for me at least is to provide vendor neutral 
information.



I even agree with Simon: deploying online is horribly hard. I've been


I disagree. It's a myth. Yes, it can be hard, when firewalls, load 
balancers, 5 users etc. are involved. It's the case when one needs 
professional support. But for the hobbyist, how hard is it to install 
CODE with a few clicks in Univention, or to follow my "5 minute" 
guides?


https://www.collaboraoffice.com/code/quick-tryout-owncloud-docker/
https://www.collaboraoffice.com/code/quick-tryout-nextcloud-docker/


Vendor neutral point applies here too.

And I am aware that without C'bora/CIB there would probably be no LOOL, 
but we are TDF.




--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 15:22, Ilmari Lauhakangas escribió:

Cor Nouws kirjoitti 22.5.2020 klo 22.15:

Hi Marco,

Marco Marinello - Mailing lists wrote on 22/05/2020 20:39:


Therefore, I totally endorse Paolo's proposal. TDF should, in my
opinion, definitely release working stable binaries of online. Many 
many

associations out there don't have the money or simply don't need a
professional support just the same way it happens for the client 
version.


Thanks for bringing this forward and good to see a future contributor
possibly ;)


Marco has already written docs in the wiki for some months:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/BuildingOnline
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Configuring_a_reverse_proxy_for_LOOL

Ilmari


He has really done a great job, but TDF cannot depend on the goodwill of 
the members for a product to be implemented. All documentation should be 
provided to make life a lot easier for everyone.






--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 14:39, Marco Marinello - Mailing lists escribió:

Hi all,


in September 2019, to get another project up and running (in which the
main component is NextCloud), I found myself working on LibreOffice 
Online.


This was totally a pain. The lack of any consistent documentation 
(until
May 5 in the INSTALL file there was just written "Left as an exercise 
to

the reader") was one of the biggest problems. The only way was to rely
on old blog posts found on the internet.

Another totally undocumented topic (obviously I refer to the official
documentation on wiki.documentfoundation.org) was the configuration of 
a
reverse proxy to work with LOOL, essential since configuring LOOL to 
use

a non-self signed certificate is even harder.

I experienced how the community was once helpful (e.g. addressing me to
the l10n-docker-nightly and explaining the branches) and once, let's
say, less helpful (quote from the IRC "and why do you think we
(Collabora) would want to help you in creating a competing product?").
Needless to say, this has left me stunned: certainly if I write to the
community I don't expect someone to judge if I'm able to declare a
variable in Javascript or not.

Since then, however, much has been done: Online now has at least a
decent documentation which covers the build of a stable version of the
docker container. Many information are though still missing, a reliable
evaluation of the resources needed to have a stable instance and how
many users it could serve, for example. Clustering LOOL even seems to 
be

an untouched topic for now (to the public, at least).

Therefore, I totally endorse Paolo's proposal. TDF should, in my
opinion, definitely release working stable binaries of online. Many 
many

associations out there don't have the money or simply don't need a
professional support just the same way it happens for the client 
version.


I even agree with Simon: deploying online is horribly hard. I've been
working on some Ansible playbook since a while and I think they could 
be
soon released. The aim is to provide sysadmins (even myself) an easy 
way

to deploy LOOL. If we have on the Docker HUB an arm64/amrhf image,
having it working on a RaspberryPi would be just a side effect.


All the best,

Marco


Thank you for valuable input Marco

What makes my worry is the response you got about C'bora under TDF's IRC

And I take you words "an easy way to deploy LOOL" should be provided by 
TDF, as TDF's mission is to offer a free product to the end user. And 
that offer should allow a painless implementation.




--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 12:30, Simon Phipps escribió:

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:37 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez 
 wrote:



El 2020-05-22 10:33, Heiko Tietze escribió:

On 22.05.20 16:09, Simon Phipps wrote:

A survey form would be the best way to go a about it


Happy to support this but no idea how to start. Ordinary users cannot
answer "What's the best solution for you to get LOOL?" neither "Which
kind of authentication do you prefer? [OpenFoo, LibreBar, 
PublicQux]".

And isn't the setup kind of a stack that needs to be installed with
(Next)Cloud, LOOL backend, and (COOL)-UI?

So what I'd need for a survey is a couple of simple questions that
everybody can answer. My preferred type of question is 
multiple-choice

with additional "Other" option.


In this case our end user should understood, IMO, be Certified
professionals, members or IT responsible people.

So, maybe this thread can drop such questions as a result.


That is not acceptable. We should be serving the public,  not a 
technical elitre.



That's a missleading, those profiles can help us to reach the endusers.

My personal take is we should get a product as easy to deploy as 
WordPress, for instance, to let the end user take the control of their 
own cloud.





--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 11:52, Thorsten Behrens escribió:

Hi Heiko, all,

Heiko Tietze wrote:

So what I'd need for a survey is a couple of simple questions that
everybody can answer. My preferred type of question is
multiple-choice with additional "Other" option.


Thus my (perhaps unintuitive) suggestion to start discussing the
details on the design list - Daniel already listed a number of
different personas (members, certified professionals, and sysadmins),
and it is not unreasonable to assume they might have different needs.



The point has to do with the smooth process they/any must find when 
deploying such a solution.





--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 10:09, Simon Phipps escribió:


A survey form would be the best way to go about it.

Also note that - regardless of package availability - as conceived 
Libreoffice Online is beyond the scope of most individuals as it 
requires access to cloud infrastructure, familiarity with certificates 
and a willingness to manage web security. That's why I have proposed 
LiOn Pi, which is targeted at individuals.


At least a sysadmin would be willing to deal with, but as far as I know 
currently is hard enough even for such profiles.




{Terse? Mobile!}

On Fri, 22 May 2020, 14:36 Thorsten Behrens, 
 wrote:



Hi Daniel, all,

Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:

I believe we should know what people expects when downloading a
docker img, if it fits the needing or what do they have to deal
with.


Depends on who's the target audience of that question, I guess.

Possibly the design, or the website list are better places to discuss
this?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten



--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 10:33, Heiko Tietze escribió:

On 22.05.20 16:09, Simon Phipps wrote:

A survey form would be the best way to go a about it


Happy to support this but no idea how to start. Ordinary users cannot
answer "What's the best solution for you to get LOOL?" neither "Which
kind of authentication do you prefer? [OpenFoo, LibreBar, PublicQux]".
And isn't the setup kind of a stack that needs to be installed with
(Next)Cloud, LOOL backend, and (COOL)-UI?

So what I'd need for a survey is a couple of simple questions that
everybody can answer. My preferred type of question is multiple-choice
with additional "Other" option.



In this case our end user should understood, IMO, be Certified 
professionals, members or IT responsible people.


So, maybe this thread can drop such questions as a result.



--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience


El 2020-05-22 09:34, Thorsten Behrens escribió:

Hi Daniel, all,

Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:

I believe we should know what people expects when downloading a
docker img, if it fits the needing or what do they have to deal
with.


Depends on who's the target audience of that question, I guess.


Members, Certified Professionals, sysadmins


Possibly the design, or the website list are better places to discuss
this?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


--
Daniel Armando Rodriguez

--
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] LOOL user experience