Re: [board-discuss] Re: Libreoffice Vanilla
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:42 AM Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > Hi Dennis, > > Dennis Roczek wrote: > > E.g. You know very well how long which MS Windows version is supported with > > which support plan. In the store you can only guess: > > is it > > * a live time license (buy one, only get this major release updates) > > * some X months supported license > > * buy-one-get-forever-updates license > > * something different > > > Fair points. > > Still, before exploring if/how to address one or more of the above > options, what would you (and others here!) consider a fair deal? Depends. Based on Vanilla having a release cycle close to the TDF official releases and Vanilla representing what TDF/Publisher considers general use version. ie Today this would be 7.0.3 per recent TDF announcement. I would like to see a term that ensures no less than two full update cycles and in some circumstances three updates. At no time would the user have a version not receiving active scheduled updates. 18 months I believe fills all three of my requirements. ie. When the user purchases the initial install that is version 0 - today that is LO 6.4.4 and they would receive update 1 (7.0.3) and finish with update 2 (7.1.3) and depending on where the initial purchase was early in the version 0 availability window possibly one more. (Note; IDK is there a general rule as to which minor update 6.4.x constitutes a move from the cutting edge/power user release the for general user status.) Drew > > Cheers, > > -- Thorsten -- 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: Libreoffice Vanilla
I lied - this is really the last comment: 32Bit binary! Why? Of the half dozen versions of LibreOffice I pulled off the MS Store this was the only one that showed up as 32bit - 64bit for all others evern the CIB branded binary. Sorry for the triple post On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:28 PM Drew Jensen wrote: > > Sorry, but one more comment: > > On the MS Store listing it would be good to actually show how long the > buyer will receive updates. > I have in my notes that it is 18 mos, but that came IIRC from the ML > and nowhere on the store listing is that spelled out, at least not > that I can find. > > Thanks again > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:29 PM Drew Jensen > wrote: > > > > Howdy, > > > > I paid for LibreOffice Vanilla from the MS Store last July and I now > > have a few comments and a question. > > > > I see reference in the application to making a donation to TDF. > > Why would I do that (donate) after I already purchased a license? > > (I also purchased LO powered by CIB and Collabora Office and neither > > include these references to making a donation to TDF; why would LOV be > > different? Because it cost $5 less?) > > > > It would be nice if somewhere, either at the MS Store listing or in > > the application, if there was an actual link to a contact at the > > publisher, ie CIB. > > > > Question; Last week TDF put out a statement that LibreOffice 7.0 is > > now considered the proper release for all users. Can I assume that my > > copy of LibreOffice Vanilla 6.4 will be upgraded to 7.0 shortly? > > > > Thank You > > > > Drew -- 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: Libreoffice Vanilla
Sorry, but one more comment: On the MS Store listing it would be good to actually show how long the buyer will receive updates. I have in my notes that it is 18 mos, but that came IIRC from the ML and nowhere on the store listing is that spelled out, at least not that I can find. Thanks again On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:29 PM Drew Jensen wrote: > > Howdy, > > I paid for LibreOffice Vanilla from the MS Store last July and I now > have a few comments and a question. > > I see reference in the application to making a donation to TDF. > Why would I do that (donate) after I already purchased a license? > (I also purchased LO powered by CIB and Collabora Office and neither > include these references to making a donation to TDF; why would LOV be > different? Because it cost $5 less?) > > It would be nice if somewhere, either at the MS Store listing or in > the application, if there was an actual link to a contact at the > publisher, ie CIB. > > Question; Last week TDF put out a statement that LibreOffice 7.0 is > now considered the proper release for all users. Can I assume that my > copy of LibreOffice Vanilla 6.4 will be upgraded to 7.0 shortly? > > Thank You > > Drew -- 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] Libreoffice Vanilla
Howdy, I paid for LibreOffice Vanilla from the MS Store last July and I now have a few comments and a question. I see reference in the application to making a donation to TDF. Why would I do that (donate) after I already purchased a license? (I also purchased LO powered by CIB and Collabora Office and neither include these references to making a donation to TDF; why would LOV be different? Because it cost $5 less?) It would be nice if somewhere, either at the MS Store listing or in the application, if there was an actual link to a contact at the publisher, ie CIB. Question; Last week TDF put out a statement that LibreOffice 7.0 is now considered the proper release for all users. Can I assume that my copy of LibreOffice Vanilla 6.4 will be upgraded to 7.0 shortly? Thank You Drew -- 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] 'Free Beer' Office?
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 11:44 AM toki wrote: > > On 2020/07/25 07:58, Andreas Mantke wrote: > > for those who complains about LibreOffice campains stating free (like > > free beer), here is a current example from the official LibreOffice account: > > > > https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/128692953570496/photo/1 > > Both "No Registration" and "No Vendor Lock-in" are about libre, not > gratis. "No Forced Payments" could be either gratis, or libre. True - on the other hand if you look at the LibreOffice Twitter account bio the first word after the URL is 'Free' - it sets the tone. > > Italo Vignoli's _2020/2025 Marketing Communications Plan (with > additional comments)_ Slide 15: "Digital sovereignty issue will become > pervasive". This is something that LibreOffice marketing should > emphasize. The "No ~" image hints at it, but doesn't make it explicit. > > Your cloud, your language, your documents, your way. > > jonathon > > -- > 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 > -- 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] Invitation to public TDF board meeting on Friday, March 13th at 1300 Berlin time
Got it, thanks. I was planning on joining the call to support Franklin's ideas on Document Freedom Day. Will look forward to hearing about this also. Thanks On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:17 PM Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Drew, > > On 11/03/2020 17:43, Drew Jensen wrote: > > I was wondering about the 'FOSDEM goals' is there something that should > > be read before that meeting or is the meeting meant to introduce them? > > The latter =) the old & new boards came up with some key goals for > the > year a month or go or so at FOSDEM - we intended to publish them at the > time, but havn't got to it yet. > > Hopefully we can get to that, > > ATB, > > Michael. > > -- > michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity > Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks > (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe >
Re: [board-discuss] Invitation to public TDF board meeting on Friday, March 13th at 1300 Berlin time
Howdy, I was wondering about the 'FOSDEM goals' is there something that should be read before that meeting or is the meeting meant to introduce them? Thanks Drew On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:45 PM Florian Effenberger < flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Dear community, > > find below the public agenda for the > > TDF board meeting > with a public part, followed by a private part > on Friday, March 13th at 1300 Berlin time > > For time zone conversion, see e.g. > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20200313T13&p1=37&p2=136&p3=241&p4=589 > > at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard > (We'll use https://meet.jit.si/TDFBoard only as fallback.) > > Public Part > > 1. Q&A: Answering Questions from the community (Lothar and Franklin, > max. 20 minutes) > > Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions > to the new board and about TDF. > > 2. Finalizing and publishing the FOSDEM goals (Lothar, Franklin 10min) > > Rationale: clarifying todos, timeline > Proposal: reread and cluster FOSDEM goals for publishing, Blog about > Goals in the next 14 days, instantiation of a tracking tool for the goals > > 3. Take over Document Freedom Day campaign by TDF (Franklin, 10min) > > Rational: discuss take over, checking about consensus to do, next > steps (vote via email?) > > 4. Status quo about Pending Actions (Lothar 5min) > > Rational: clarifying todos, timeline > > Looking forward to hear you on Friday! > > Florian > > -- > Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer) > Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE > Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ > Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy > >
[board-discuss] Membership Committee position
In order to facilitate seating of all Membership Committee rolls via election by the Document Foundation general membership, I hereby resign my position on the committee. Sincerely, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] membership application/language and supporters
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 08:25 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:36 AM, sophie wrote: > > This is what language communities are supposed to do : give those who don't > > speak English a chance to be part of the project. We can't rely only on > > English speaking people to grow the community and represent it every where > > in the world. This is why settling each of our actions on an i18n point of > > view first is very important. > > That conjure to me the following quote (from a brazillian TDF member > on the aooo-dev ML) > > "4 - Suddenly, TDF was requesting that every person who wanted to be called > a "contributor" should fill a agreement request in order to be > "recognized". So we became to be concerned about that huge amount of people > who contributed and didn't want to fill a formal agreement to a foreign > organization that don't speak their language and has a lot of "channels", > many of them obscured. > 5 - In addition, people who we were fighting bacame key persons in TDF. One > of them became a "brazilian" member of the BoD, with 70 votes, when > brazilian accepted members in Brazil were less than 15 and most of them > didn't vote for him." > > Which, to me, indicate that the language barrier is being use and > abuse to mislead (*), and the underlying 'nationalism' is disturbing > to me. the notion the TDF should be the UN with 'national > representative' is pretty scary (**) :-( > Hi Norbert I think you make too much of the statement from one person. Some people will leave in a huff, no matter what policies are in place. I also think that what you refer to as a problem with Nationalism is not, rather it is a problem with external organizations, and the relationship between them and TDF. No place is this more true, currently then in Brazil, but it is not exclusive to Brazil. It is true that these secondary (from the TDF perspective) organizations are predominantly defined, partly, by location and therefore Nation. //drew > > (*) TDF does not _require_ anything to 'contribute'. for code > contribution we ask for the proper licensing... but that is true of > nay project. > member need to be contributors but contributors are not required to be > member. For instance last time I checked Tor is not a member, yet he > is undeniably a contributor. > Sure, to become a member, one is asked to agree to the tenet of the > organization one want to become a member of... nothing shocking about > that... > > (**) the notion of 'brazillian' member is shocking to me, just like > the notion of 'French' member or 'Finnish' member... a member is a > member, his national origin is irrelevant. > And voting for a BoD member based on such irrelevant criteria is > disturbing to me. >
Re: [board-discuss] MC minutes from 2012-03-19
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 15:19 +0200, Volker Merschmann wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/4/18 Florian Effenberger : > > find attached the meeting minutes from the MC meeting on March 19th. > > > > This message is to be archived by the BoD and its deputies. > > > What about > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Committee_Meetings#Meeting_Minutes > ? I just realized that some minutes are missing there. > Even a link to the minutes-mail in the archive should be added there. > > IMHO. > Others? > Hi Volker Yes, you are correct the page does need updates. I'll get about doing that, directly. Thanks //drew
Re: [board-discuss] AB-Member and ESC-Member on TDF-Website
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 17:14 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:58 PM, drew jensen > wrote: > > In the case of individuals a meeting of the AB in their capacity as > > members of the ESC, > > no, no you are conflating two distinct issues. > disclosure requirement for AB members and disclosure requirement for > ESC member... Not quite - but I did jump threads... > > Norbert > > PS: just being invited to speak at an AB meeting does not make one an AB > member. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Community Bylaws
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 21:31 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi Drew, > > drewjensen wrote on 2012-02-28 20:47: > > I simply wanted to comment on one aspect of Florian's email - the idea that > > discussion regarding community by-laws was taking place in private. I > > personally can not imagine any scenario where such would be acceptable. > > what exactly are you referring to? The community bylaws have not even > been drafted yet in the form we legally need them as defined in the > statutes. > Hi Florian From the first email in this thread: > Hi, > > Charles-H.Schulz wrote on 2012-02-06 18:25: > > > Private sending first. Attached are a set of similar yet simplified > > community bylaws. What was modified: > > sorry for being so late on this, Charles. Replying in public, since I > think the topic is interesting to everyone. Does it make more sense now - also it need not be a major discussion, it's just a comment. //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] General questions
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 20:46 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, drew wrote: > > Hi, > > > > A few questions: > > > > The Advisory Board > > > > 1 - Where would I find a rooster of what corporations constitute the > > board and who their representatives on the board are? > > I think the list has been advertised... So did I, but darned if I can find where. > but I not sure the actual > names of the people delegated to represent such companies are > relevant. > An AB seat is bound to the sponsoring entity, and they get to > designate whom-ever they want at any time to represent them. > AB is the only entity where people are not there as individual but as > representative of some other entity. > So I agree that the list of entity should be public, but the > individual's name of the representative... not so sure it is required. Right enough - just wanted to understand who represents TDF in those meetings? [this point I may have just overlooked in my reading] Then, how does what comes from those meetings work it's way to the general membership? > > > > > 2 - Minutes from AB meetings, where would I find those? > > I don't think that such minutes are published, nor should they. Actually public minutes are specifically mentioned on the wiki pages discussing setting up the AB - though I, like you , expect to see them heavily redacted and that is also covered on the wiki pages. > If you want honest and frank advices/opinions from big corporation, > you can't have these advice being published publicly. > > Similarly in order to get advice from these actors, I expect our > representatives to present to them ideas, line of inquiry, nascent > projects that are being considered... most of them in a state of > development that would render them premature for public disclosure at > that time... > So once you remove all that meat from the minutes, you would be left > with nothing substantive... I don't see the point. I feel strongly however, that who and when are important to have out there. > > > > > Current Budget (expenses paid primarily) > > > > 1 - Where, or when will financial statements become public, either for > > general availability (my preference but I know that cuts across the > > grain form many), or restricted to TDF membership? > > Since we are collection money from the public, under charitable > status, I think we should publish publicly at least a top-level > 'Income Statement' and Balance Sheet. > > Members on the other hand should have the ability to audit the full > detailed accounting ledger, provided some confidentiality requirement > (every member is entitled to see the books, but not to publish or > disclose to non-member information contained herein that has not > otherwise been made public. the idea is to empower the membership to > trust-but-verify, not to allow competing entity to gain inside > knowledge) Yes - I'd be in favor of public top level figures but for details, absolutely there should be a condition of confidentiality. > > Otoh the stifung was just created... up to now the accounting were > somehow mixed with frodev... so I would no expect to have anything > published for a while. Realistically public disclosure of some > accounting would prolly be an end-of-fiscal-year event... since the > work needed is already done for tax purpose it would not be an extra > burden on our volunteers. I'd fall of my chair if someone said, 'it's all put together already' - though end-of-year figures with nothing but sub totals is no real disclosure, IMO. > > Norbert //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[board-discuss] General questions
Hi, A few questions: The Advisory Board 1 - Where would I find a rooster of what corporations constitute the board and who their representatives on the board are? 2 - Minutes from AB meetings, where would I find those? Current Budget (expenses paid primarily) 1 - Where, or when will financial statements become public, either for general availability (my preference but I know that cuts across the grain form many), or restricted to TDF membership? Apologies if this is just my lack of searching skills. Thanks, //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] call recordings or only minutes?
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 09:30 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Florian Effenberger > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I was wondering whether we should upload call recordings as we did in the > > past, or only keep them internally until the minutes are done, and then > > upload them to the wiki. > > > > I seriously doubt anyone listens to the recordings, as the minutes provide a > > much easier way to keep up to date. > > actually, I do, when I'm not on the call itself... > Norbert > same here.. I'd like to see the recordings stay. //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] [RESULT] New Membership Committee voted by the board
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 14:08 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Dear candidates, > > as logged here > > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_Decisions > > the TDF board of directors has now formally approved the following > individuals as members of the new Membership committee: > > * Andre Schnabel > * Fridrich Strba > * Norbert Thiebaud > * Simon Phipps > * Sophie Gautier > > and the following individuals as their deputies: > > * Cor Nouws > * Drew Jensen > > We would like to ask all successful candidates to formally accept > their vote, by replying to this email. > I do and am looking forward to not just helping but the chance to learn even more about our global community. Best wishses, Drew "Deputy-Dawg" Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Vote for MC ...
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 14:42 +0100, Volker Merschmann wrote: > Hi, > > 2011/11/8 Michael Meeks : > > Hi Volker, > > > > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 11:19 +0100, Volker Merschmann wrote: > >> >Either way - we should put this to a vote on the public list. > >> > >> I offered my help as I thought form the discussions that more persons > >> are really needed. If this is not really the case, I am fine with > >> withdrawing my offer. > > > >Sorry about that; thanks for volunteering & hopefully you'll stand > > for > > the next MC election ? :-) > Yes of course, I do. > Hello Volker That's good to hear - I have no doubt you are a great fit for this role. Best wishes, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
Howdy Micheal, et al, On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 16:59 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Drew, > > On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 10:57 -0400, drew wrote: > > It was my intent to run for a seat on the MC, it is my understanding now > > that the elections will be moved to next year (the reasons seem quite > > reasonable IM). > > Oh - sorry that was a spoke in your wheels. Hopefully that'll get fixed > in a few more (hectic) months. as I said, the rational for the change makes sense to me. > > > If I understand correctly there is however one slot currently not > > filled, for a generic deputy. If this is correct then I would like to > > offer my services for this position. > > That's right. Of course, the board will need to approve the lucky > (haha) candidates in due course ;-) You have my vote - based on the > great work I've seen you doing. Thanks > > Having said that - we've sounded out previous appointees more > informally beforehand, which is perhaps harder here. Clearly this is a > responsible role, and part of our formal governance. As such, some may > have queries about your involvement with the Apache project, it'd be > helpful to know what your plans are there. Huh, it never crossed my mind that this would come up...ok, reality. Well, my plans - truthfully I'm not sure how my activity will progressive within the Apache OpenOffice poddling. Presently I'm not really doing anything there, my intent is to help out some with support and QA tasks - if I can incorporate that into my schedule in such a way that my efforts are useful I'll continue and if not quietly remove myself from the project management committee. Surely I could expand on my ideas of the two projects but am not at all certain that would add much to the decision process here - I will add just this, I don't feel that I would have any problem compartmentalizing my activities between the two projects and should it arise that there is some conflict would quickly take steps to resolve it, as needed. If there are any other concerns on this point please, anyone, feel free to ask and I will take the time to address them as best I can. > Similarly, it'd be nice to > know your thoughts on the membership committee's role, criteria for > membership etc. in the bylaws. If you'd feel happier sharing that > privately - feel free, and I'll make sure it gets to the board. (In the sniped paragraph) You use the term "administrative task" and I would say that this particular role is and should be best described by just such wording. In my understanding of the by-laws as written the goal of the membership committee is first and foremost to ensure that a fair and sensible measure is applied during the decision process regarding an individual's meritocratic contributions to the foundation's activities. I believe that I bring a number of personal attributes that fit quite well to such a task. A good general understanding of all the processes that go into growing and maintaining our community and our projects/products. A good working relationship with many of the individuals that make up the foundation, both the official membership and our broader group of supports. The above will help to expeditiously process the applications. Finally - IMO I also bring a good sensibility to such a task, meaning that while I have no problem making my own decisions I try not to be dogmatic, remaining open and receptive to input from the other people involved on tasks. Once again if there are any questions from anyone else please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[board-discuss] Membership Committee
Hi, I've been reading over the BOD-discuss list with regards to the MC makeup/elections. It was my intent to run for a seat on the MC, it is my understanding now that the elections will be moved to next year (the reasons seem quite reasonable IM). If I understand correctly there is however one slot currently not filled, for a generic deputy. If this is correct then I would like to offer my services for this position. Sincerely, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] List renamed to board-discuss@documentfoundation.org
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:19 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > Florian Effenberger wrote on 2011-11-02 14:14: > > > as previously announced, this list has been renamed to > > > > board-discuss@documentfoundation.org > > Drew: Can you adjust nabble? Thanks! ;) Done //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Limited Access lists ( was List discussion & purpose )
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 12:42 -0400, drew wrote: > > Alright - referring to another email, since I poked the nest I'll take > the task of creating a wiki page - no URLs. Created this page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Lists/limited_access set reference to the page from http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website#Communication_Channels //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 18:08 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > drew wrote on 2011-08-12 17:52: > > Is it exhaustive? > > I just checked the mailing list system. There still is the conference > jury mailing list, where all paper submissions are being sent to. > Everyone had a chance to join the jury, we made a public call. Jury > discussions are not meant to be a secret, but I doubt speakers would > like to have their proposals immediately public, as they might contain > private data. Paulo alluded to this type - situational, or what I call one-off, one-time, use. > > What was missing from the list is the internal discussion list of the > membership committee, where the members of the membership committee are on. Right - that was one other that came to my mind, wasn't sure though. Alright - referring to another email, since I poked the nest I'll take the task of creating a wiki page - no URLs. Best wishes, //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 17:48 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > yep, your list is correct. Is it exhaustive? Tanks, Drew > Some details: > > Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-08-12 16:20: > > > SC private > > Contains of steering committee plus deputies, plus a few people who have > been involved in the discussion of setting up a foundation, even before > TDF was born. Recipient list should be re-defined by the new board of > directors then, it's their decision who should stay on the list and who > shouldn't. > > > AB private > > Contains advisory board representatives, plus all the steering committee > members and deputies. > > > Web infrastructure > > Contains all the administrators (everyone who has root access, that is). > > > Security > > Contains LibreOffice developers, and representatives of various > distributions. > > > Marketing private (for pr drafting and readiness) > > Currently has a list of local team representatives, we're right in the > process of setting up a marketing network to determine/add recipients. > > I would not propose to add these lists to our main mailing list page - I > am not too keen of revealing the URLs and aliases, even if they are > password protected. However, if someone wants to add the lists to a wiki > page, feel free to do so. > > Hope that helps, > Florian > > -- > Florian Effenberger > Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation > Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 > Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 20:28 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hi Drew, > > While there's a list for confidential matters and it would be good to: 1- Disclose _all_ private lists used by TDF, along with who in the community is on those lists. To do otherwise is to have both private and secret lists. 2 - Disclose what is being discussed and what decisions are being made on private lists, this can be done in a way that retains enough specific detail to keep confidences, while being open and transparent to the community at large. > we intend and want to have a > dexision making process that's transparent. Weekly public SC meetings, already in place. > This list was designed with the > notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD > members, etc.) Nothing there requires a separate list. > and a communication tool for important an urgent matters. You have each others email addresses and indeed email/contact information for SC members is public. You have an official announcement list, blog, facebook and twitter accounts for urgent messages to the community. > My > opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions > would be lost in endless threads, Meaning you would have to live with it, just like the rest of us. > not followed by developers If they are not interested then why make them watch. > and in a few > weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision > making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid > distraction and create a more solemn / official list. Well, that reads to me as - if the SC where forced to use only the tools the rest of us are stuck using, it would find it bothersome and distracting to the point that people wold either stop contributing or start doing things in private to avoid the distractions. Respectfully, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:10 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hi, > > This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been setup > to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it > accomodates SC members & requests from project members. While we do > appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on other > lists. Hi Charles. With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake. There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_ required, is there not? For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as the rest of us. Sincerely, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 17:06 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > Tom Davies wrote on 2011-08-10 16:45: > > if it could be that simple then it would be easy to give quick answers to > > requests. I'm not sure what the relevance of Debian is. > > > > > > Could there be an agreement now to allow any distro in the top 100 (or > > just top > > 50?) at DistroWatch > > > > > > http://distrowatch.com > > to use 'the proper' logos and splash-screen rather than the community > > versions. > > Any other distros that contact TDF could be dealt with one at a time but it > > might help to have a blanket agreement covering the most popular ones. > > I would not give general permissions. Permissions that are different > from the standard policy should always be granted on an individual basis > / case-by-case basis. +1 It would make sense I suppose, looking at Linux distro's for instance, to construct a reasonably simple mechanism for non-commercial users to request the logo - perhaps a web form, the request could be sent to a mailing list, a standing practice _could_ be to allow use after some period of days after request assuming no one objects. (just a off the top of the head thought) //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:31 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Caolan McNamara wrote: > > > > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for > > > > builds > > > > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell > > > > people > > > > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed > > > > via TDF resources. > > > > > > that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think? > > > > Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing > > however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force > > maintainable of duplicate logos, etc. > > > It makes the whole thing much more consistent, therefore it makes a > lot of sense to me. > > The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo > website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not > permitted, unless permission explicitely granted. +1 So, if OpenSUSE wants to use the TDF logo in the distro all they need do tis ask - but if 3 guys on an IRC channel decide to roll their own Linux Distro, then on day one it would be the Community Logo. [Side note - hopefully when future decisions are made to allow commercial operators to use the TDF mark the community will be involved in that decision, in some way] //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] funding for system operations meeting
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 17:46 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 2011-07-29 17:35: > > Now you are getting me really confused. > > > > Who decided what, and who is paying what ? > > the board of directors of the German association, which will stay an > independent entity also after TDF has been funded, but in the meantime > is the legal entity behind TDF, decided that in their board of > director's meeting. > > So, a decision by the German association, *not* by the TDF SC. OK - that sounds as if the decision by the FrODev BOD was to expend the 1,000 euro from the FrODev account, not the the TDF account, yes? > > However, since more money then offered by the German association is > needed, and the weekend was for the TDF admins, Actual costs exceeded projection by 60%. > I'd like to ask if the > SC is agreeing to spending some of the TDF money for it. Is the SC agreeing then to pay the entire 1,600 euro from the TDF fund now, or just the 600 excess? Thanks, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] BOD elections
Hi, Thought I'd pass this along. Just finished casting my vote(s) in the BOD elections at Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (spi-inc.org) It seems to me that they are using the same voting mechanism as has been discussed for our use and they have a fairly nice web interface to handle it. So, if folks are becoming active on setting this up perhaps it is worth an email to see what software they use for their purposes and perhaps it will work for us also. Best wishes, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 15:31 +0200, Italo Vignoli wrote: > Tom Davies wrote: > > > I agree with Italo that the different teams have different requirements to > > achieve different results. > > As a member of the SC, I would personally avoid to have the SC discuss > this issue (which, in my opinion, is not an issue). This is something > that teams should discuss internally, and I see the SC get into the > discussion only if something unreasonable happens. > > I will confirm and support this choice during the SC meeting. Hi Italo, I would like to agree with you on this point and also with Christoph's remarks, one email behind here, about the SC making only a suggestion, _if_ anything at all. Best wishes, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Request for official statement about dedicated logos for community groups
So the finished email follows: On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 12:35 -0400, drew wrote: > Sorry guys that was supposed to be a draft - not a send... > > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 12:24 -0400, drew wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 00:35 +0200, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > > > Hi Florian, all > > > > > > Florian Effenberger schrieb: > > > > Hi Bernhard, > > > > > > > > Bernhard Dippold wrote on 2011-06-10 00.25: > > > >> There has been a reply by Sophie, but I didn't make out any formal SC > > > >> discussion or decision on this topic. > > > >> > > > >> As this covers more than just design and visual identity questions > > > >> (definition of teams, how to advertise teams and external groups) I > > > >> don't think that this decision should be left to any of the teams like > > > >> marketing or design. > > > > Hi Bernhard, > > > > I agree - but why kick it to the SC - why not start the discussion on > > the general discussion list and lets work out what it would mean to be a > > local team - what general rules folks would want in place, what > > responsibilities and requirements would be expected and the like. > > > > IMO right now any decision about a logo policy is premature, whether it > > is by your team, marketing or the SC, on this particular point - as > > there is still no definition of what a local team is, what it can and > > can not do. The use of a custom logo is only one piece of that. > > > > I know that there never seems to be enough time for these kinds of > > discussions, but that is never going to change - so speaking for myself > > I would make time this coming week to actively engage in a discussion > > and work on putting a draft together on the wiki with what comes out of > > such a discussion. > > It's also obvious that the clock is ticking on this issue, the folks in Paraguay are off and running from what I can see, folks (or folk) in Venezuela are eager to get going, the German team has always been in place and hold a dominate position in our organization precisely because they where able to form a strong team, focused on their specific and local concerns during the previous decade. > > > > I'm really concerned that if only a logo use policy is put in place > > there is a chance for continued problems from misunderstanding what the > > use of such a logo will imply. > > > > Then afterwards that draft could be presented to the SC for adoption. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > //drew > > > > > > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Request for official statement about dedicated logos for community groups
Sorry guys that was supposed to be a draft - not a send... On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 12:24 -0400, drew wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 00:35 +0200, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > > Hi Florian, all > > > > Florian Effenberger schrieb: > > > Hi Bernhard, > > > > > > Bernhard Dippold wrote on 2011-06-10 00.25: > > >> There has been a reply by Sophie, but I didn't make out any formal SC > > >> discussion or decision on this topic. > > >> > > >> As this covers more than just design and visual identity questions > > >> (definition of teams, how to advertise teams and external groups) I > > >> don't think that this decision should be left to any of the teams like > > >> marketing or design. > > Hi Bernhard, > > I agree - but why kick it to the SC - why not start the discussion on > the general discussion list and lets work out what it would mean to be a > local team - what general rules folks would want in place, what > responsibilities and requirements would be expected and the like. > > IMO right now any decision about a logo policy is premature, whether it > is by your team, marketing or the SC, on this particular point - as > there is still no definition of what a local team is, what it can and > can not do. The use of a custom logo is only one piece of that. > > I know that there never seems to be enough time for these kinds of > discussions, but that is never going to change - so speaking for myself > I would make time this coming week to actively engage in a discussion > and work on putting a draft together on the wiki with what comes out of > such a discussion. > > It's also obvious that the clock is ticking on this issue, the folks in > Paraguay are off and running from what I can see, folks (or folk) in > Venezuela are eager to get going, the German team has always been in > place and dominates here > > I'm really concerned that if only a logo use policy is put in place > there is a chance for continued problems from misunderstanding what the > use of such a logo will imply. > > Then afterwards that draft could be presented to the SC for adoption. > > > > Thanks, > > //drew > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Request for official statement about dedicated logos for community groups
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 00:35 +0200, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > Hi Florian, all > > Florian Effenberger schrieb: > > Hi Bernhard, > > > > Bernhard Dippold wrote on 2011-06-10 00.25: > >> There has been a reply by Sophie, but I didn't make out any formal SC > >> discussion or decision on this topic. > >> > >> As this covers more than just design and visual identity questions > >> (definition of teams, how to advertise teams and external groups) I > >> don't think that this decision should be left to any of the teams like > >> marketing or design. Hi Bernhard, I agree - but why kick it to the SC - why not start the discussion on the general discussion list and lets work out what it would mean to be a local team - what general rules folks would want in place, what responsibilities and requirements would be expected and the like. IMO right now any decision about a logo policy is premature, whether it is by your team, marketing or the SC, on this particular point - as there is still no definition of what a local team is, what it can and can not do. The use of a custom logo is only one piece of that. I know that there never seems to be enough time for these kinds of discussions, but that is never going to change - so speaking for myself I would make time this coming week to actively engage in a discussion and work on putting a draft together on the wiki with what comes out of such a discussion. It's also obvious that the clock is ticking on this issue, the folks in Paraguay are off and running from what I can see, folks (or folk) in Venezuela are eager to get going, the German team has always been in place and dominates here I'm really concerned that if only a logo use policy is put in place there is a chance for continued problems from misunderstanding what the use of such a logo will imply. Then afterwards that draft could be presented to the SC for adoption. Thanks, //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [steering-discuss] Joining the OASIS Consortium
Thanks much for the details. //drew On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 15:42 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Since I am receiving reminders about my individual membership in OASIS, I can > answer that question: > > No. There is no specific enrollment period or fixed calendar of memberships. > Annual memberships are for the full year from the day a membership > application is accepted. > > Since you are talking about an institutional membership, there will need to > be an official who approves the participation of others on individual OASIS > Technical Committees. > > Also, there are IP-policy conditions that apply to membership and > contribution to each OASIS TC. TC members affiliated with TDF should not > have a conflict with requirements that they are subject to as a condition of > their employment elsewhere. > > I also don't know how closely associated someone must be with the TDF to be > able to participate under the TDF membership in OASIS. If that is not clear > from the application information for organizations, I am sure there are > contacts who can answer any questions about that. > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:24 > To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org > Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Joining the OASIS Consortium > > On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 20:18 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-06-18 16.50: > > > I think that if we go down that path we'll lose some valuable time > > > revoting > > > on it. The SC's mission ends when the BoD is elected and that is very > > > clear, but until then, if decisions have to be made we should not refrain > > > from making them. (Although I understand the need not to rush anything - > > > but > > > joining the OASIS is not exactly a rushed decision). > > > > well, I have no problem with deciding, but still, decisions are not > > binding for the future BoD, so we should keep that in mind. :-) > > Hi, > > Just wondering, is there some membership window, a period of time each > year when new memberships are accepted at OASIS? Is that an issue here? > > Thanks > > Drew > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Joining the OASIS Consortium
On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 20:18 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-06-18 16.50: > > I think that if we go down that path we'll lose some valuable time revoting > > on it. The SC's mission ends when the BoD is elected and that is very > > clear, but until then, if decisions have to be made we should not refrain > > from making them. (Although I understand the need not to rush anything - but > > joining the OASIS is not exactly a rushed decision). > > well, I have no problem with deciding, but still, decisions are not > binding for the future BoD, so we should keep that in mind. :-) Hi, Just wondering, is there some membership window, a period of time each year when new memberships are accepted at OASIS? Is that an issue here? Thanks Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Reminder: TDF SC call in CW 20
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 22:18 +0200, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 05/23/2011 10:06 PM, drew wrote: > > > My email to you was an inquiry about budgets for general show material. > > > In any case, we should have some > budget for giveaways and other small marketing expenses. > Hi, Yes, it would help to have some guidance, perhaps if only towards general expectations for planning purposes. To re-cap there are three upcoming events that I am reasonably certain about our ability to have a presence - OSCON [1] (not sure on size, large) in July, a linux fest[2] ( with ~1,000 ppl) in 2 weeks and another Linux fest[3] in September ( > 1,000 ppl). Of those three I would say that all other things being equal I would recommend more TDF expenditure emphasis on OSCON, over the two linux fests. Of course that is contingent on what exactly we could put together for staffing at OSCON. Thanks and best wishes, Drew [1] http://www.oscon.com/oscon2011 [2] http://www.southeastlinuxfest.org/home [3] http://ohiolinux.org/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Reminder: TDF SC call in CW 20
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 21:52 +0200, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 05/21/2011 12:02 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > > So, no general objection to the proposal, but more a new task seeking > > for volunteers, to draft a budget plan we can stick to. :) > > We should also start discussing some small marketing expenses. Drew has > spent 50 bucks for a table at a Linux expo, and we should be able to > refund such a small amount of money. Ah, I never said that - in fact the last email from the SELF organizers was: "I think we're all happy LibreOffice saved the OO.org effort from Oracle doom, and they're still getting organized themselves, I don't think there will be much objection to comp'ing LibreOffice a booth" My email to you was an inquiry about budgets for general show material. I'm covering travel and lodging expenses for for 2 of us (~650.00 USD) and do not expect reimbursement, but I can not cover swag on top of that. Thanks Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: User Groups in each country approved LibreOffice
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 01:43 +0200, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > I tried to describe the difference between local marketing teams and > general language based teams for user support and all the other > activities in my replies to these threads. > > Drew is working on a similar topic for the North American team (he > just > mentioned this in his last mail in the second thread from above). > > I hope these links give a bit more background information without > taking > too much time for you! Hi Bernhard, The only thing I'd add for this particular email, is that I would not worry about taking up anyone's time on this, IMO, this is a rather important discussion for us to have and important decisions to come from it - so it should take some of our time, and shouldn't necessarily be rushed. (nor should it be left un-addressed either) So, Thanks for getting to this email, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [us-marketing] Re: [steering-discuss] Re: User Groups in each country approved LibreOffice
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:19 -0400, drew wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 15:32 +0300, sophie wrote: > > > > > I already gave my opinion on this topic to > > Daniel and Daniel, so they know that I'm all for their action. > > I'm the one battling the most I think for the language groups to be the > > only official representation in the project, > > Hi Sophie, others > > Alright - this is the part I find difficult to reconcile "only official > representation". Naturally there are certain functions here, such as > translations where the language based association of individuals should > make a team and that team should have responsibility for that function. > sorry - poor typing However, once you step past translation work I do not see the clear line that says this group has official responsibilities with other functions performed. > Could you expand on that for me, what you mean by 'only official > representation' - it would help me understand. > > > > but I completely understand > > the needs for local marketing and support. So of course, I support the > > creation of the material you're designing and also really appreciate > > your work on this. > > As I tell you, there is already various associations existing in > > different countries that support local actions, more or less officially > > representing LibreOffice. I would like that we have a more clear and > > defined affiliation and support between these associations and the TDF, > > but I didn't get the time to think enough about it yet. > > In any way, if you want to set such associations in Venezuela or > > Argentina, I don't see any issue. > > If I follow what you are saying - if you create a legal entity of some > kind, outside of TDF, and then want to work with us that is OK - that is > a fairly high bar to set, IMO. > > Thanks > > Drew > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: User Groups in each country approved LibreOffice
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 15:32 +0300, sophie wrote: > I already gave my opinion on this topic to > Daniel and Daniel, so they know that I'm all for their action. > I'm the one battling the most I think for the language groups to be the > only official representation in the project, Hi Sophie, others Alright - this is the part I find difficult to reconcile "only official representation". Naturally there are certain functions here, such as translations where the language based association of individuals should make a team and that team should have responsibility for that function. However, once you step past translation work I do see the clear line that says this group has official responsibilities with other functions performed. Could you expand on that for me, what you mean by 'only official representation' - it would help me understand. > but I completely understand > the needs for local marketing and support. So of course, I support the > creation of the material you're designing and also really appreciate > your work on this. > As I tell you, there is already various associations existing in > different countries that support local actions, more or less officially > representing LibreOffice. I would like that we have a more clear and > defined affiliation and support between these associations and the TDF, > but I didn't get the time to think enough about it yet. > In any way, if you want to set such associations in Venezuela or > Argentina, I don't see any issue. If I follow what you are saying - if you create a legal entity of some kind, outside of TDF, and then want to work with us that is OK - that is a fairly high bar to set, IMO. Thanks Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: [es-marketing] Re: User Groups in each country approved LibreOffice
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 14:05 -0430, Daniel Gonzalez wrote: > On 04/12/2011 08:02 AM, Daniel Gonzalez wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I wonder if there are any process to validate a LUG or TDF Group > > LibreOffice users in a given country. > > > > Venezuela is being born in a group of users after Flisol LibreOffice > > Caracas and one of the questions that we asked is whether the stand we > > had and the group that was building had approval by TDF. So far there > > hispanic community encompassing all Spanish-speaking countries but I > > think it is necessary to jump to something more localized due to local > > activities that may be generated in each country. > > > > Saying? > > > > Greetings > > > Hi Guys > > Sorry to insist on this thread, but I think it is very important to the > community in general LibreOffice Hi All, I believe that is correct. > > I also think that the best way to integrate the Hispanic community in > our case > > -Use the local user groups in each country to attract people to > government projects as "The Hispanic Community LibreOffice" > -Centralize the efforts and resources around TDF through local user groups. > -Use existing resources supported by TDF such as mailing lists, irc > channel, forums, wiki, among others. > "The local user groups must not use existing resources and approved by TDF > > PS: I know no other person particularly in Venezuela that LibreOffice > collaborating on the project, this can occur for many reasons. > > 1 .- Do not know how to collaborate in the project LibreOffice. > 2 .- Do not want to collaborate. > 3 .- Do not know about LibreOffice. > 4 .- many others. > > Is that local user groups in each country can be a great benefit to the > community Global LibreOffice My offering here would be to not emphasis the national aspect so much, which is to say that a group could be at a national level in some places, however I can see places where could be multiple groups active within a nation, or a group that encompassed more then one national boundary. The key is the people - you say that there is no other person in Venezuela active promoting/support LibO/TDF - but I'm not sure declaring a Venezuela User Group is the only option, perhaps you would be best served by focusing on an even smaller region, your city or province (state, not sure the term there). I can't, nor can anyone, really answer that question directly for you. My opinion is that a team, or a group, to be call itself such requires more then one person. So one person can say - Hey I want to start a team/local group, and start trying to recruit other like minded individuals to join in with you. If the idea as merit there will be others found, but on a pragmatic note you have to assume you, the person trying to organize the team, is going to be doing most everything your self at first. anyway - I only wanted to comment on that one point - this idea of local teams being national based, looking at a broad policy I would not necessarily, or at all, use that as a basis, I think some places that would happen. @Daniel, I'll back up and comment on some of your other points in further emails. Thanks Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] SC call recording from CW 16 online
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 14:52 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > ? Meaning - the files download just fine, if one actually downloads the files, versus right clicking on the link and downloading the secondary wiki page for each instead. > > drew wrote on 2011-04-22 14.12: > > :=-/ Never mind > > -- > Florian Effenberger > Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation > Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 > Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] SC call recording from CW 16 online
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 13:58 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > drew wrote on 2011-04-22 13.52: > > Thanks for seeing to this for everyones benefit. > > > > There seems to be a problem with the last two meeting recordings > > however, each after download is 16.01 K in size. > > which ones do you mean, can you send me the links? http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Minutes_2011-04-21 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Minutes_2011-04-15 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] SC call recording from CW 16 online
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 08:08 -0400, drew wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 13:58 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > Hi, > > > > drew wrote on 2011-04-22 13.52: > > > Thanks for seeing to this for everyones benefit. > > > > > > There seems to be a problem with the last two meeting recordings > > > however, each after download is 16.01 K in size. > > > > which ones do you mean, can you send me the links? > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Minutes_2011-04-21 > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Minutes_2011-04-15 > > :=-/ Never mind -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] SC call recording from CW 16 online
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 13:28 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hello, > > the SC call recording from calendar week 16 is online at > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Minutes_2011-04-21 Hello Florian Thanks for seeing to this for everyones benefit. There seems to be a problem with the last two meeting recordings however, each after download is 16.01 K in size. Neither is recognized by any player I possess. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind checking that, when you have a chance. Best wishes, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:12 +0100, Christoph Noack wrote: > Hi Charles, hi all! > > > LOGO POLICY > > I've overhauled the logo policy, although the naming of some items seems > still to be strange (I'd like to have some shorter names like: TDF Logo, > Community Logo - or something like that). > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy Hi, Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG with 'registered trademark", while on the trademark policy page it seems that maybe it is just a "tm" that is appropriate at this time. Thanks so much, in advance Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Trademark Policy - Final?
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 22:49 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > er... almost. We're voting/fixing the latest bugs. Hello Charles, Well I'll just have to be patient then...*smile*..I must admit there was one interesting, to me anyway, late edit, which I didn't expect. It would be great if you could give a high sign when the actual vote is finished. Thanks very much, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Trademark Policy - Final?
Hi, Listened to the Feb 28th SC meeting recording - so the question - Is the trademark policy as stated on the wiki page now official? Sincerely, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [us-marketing] Reminder: Marketing ConfCall in 5 hours
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > I explicitly do *not* want to talk about the > Drupal topic in this call, please let's focus on the 3.3 release > first. I totally agree - -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] ODFAuthors live!
On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 21:32 +0300, sophie wrote: > Hi Olivier > On 15/01/2011 21:07, Olivier Hallot wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is an interesting news that passed too quickly among the LO > > folks. I think we should say some king words on their initiative and > > advertise it stronger in our lists and channels. > > > > http://www.odfauthors.org > Well, it seems it has not been announced yet by Jean (I was with Florian > too early also ;-). May be we should just wait for Jean, Sigrid or > Andreas to make the official announcement and then, bring the support > you mentioned. Hi, Jean announced the site open today on the mailing list there. - already pushed a blog entry and a few tweets on it...but a more official one would be nice. Thanks, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 00:15 +0100, Christoph Noack wrote: > Hi all! > > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 23:47 +0100 schrieb Christoph Noack: > > And if there are still some concerns, my proposal would be: > > forename.lastn...@community.libreoffice.org > > Sorry for this proposal, I totally missed Florian's earlier mail > containing a statement concerning sub-domains. Bad if one starts reading > from the most recent mails ;-) > oh well - it looked good;) //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 23:47 +0100, Christoph Noack wrote: > Hi all! > > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 20:45 +0100 schrieb Italo Vignoli: > > On 1/14/11 8:21 PM, Olivier Hallot wrote: > > > > > So, nickn...@libreoffice.org > > > > > Leave the mail for TDF oficials as @documetnfoundation.org > > > > I totally agree with Olivier. Just to make the concept stronger, and > > to protect us from possible email trolls, we can add a specific > > paragraph in the bylaws. > > Yep, agree as well. (Especially since we'll never get rid of less > informed people who spread strange information ... independent of any > email address.) > > And if there are still some concerns, my proposal would be: > forename.lastn...@community.libreoffice.org > Howdy, I like that construct. You could also flip the problem or solution on it's head. Instead of an adornment such to remove authority use it to state it. forename.lastn...@bod.documentfounation.org forename.lastn...@esc.documentfounation.org Part of taking responsibility for the role is receiving such an address, when or if your roll reverts to community member only. nickn...@libreoffice.org Perhaps a special case of: forename.lastn...@documentfounation.org for paid staff. Just a thought - but again Christoph's change is pretty good IMO if that is the way you choose to go IMO. //drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 20:53 +0300, sophie wrote: > Hi, > On 14/01/2011 20:33, Volker Merschmann wrote: > [...] > > > > For the rest: I do not like any of the offered domain names, they all > > are too long. I would like to see nickn...@libreoffice.org for the > > members. > Agreed with Volker here, wouldn't be possible to have it as simple as > > nickn...@libreoffice.org? > > Other wise, my preferred choice would go to > volunteer.nickn...@libreofficecommunity.org for the same concern as > Christian's brain ones ;) Howdy, If you are going to issue email addresses just use the real name, if the risk is perceived as large then just say no. If you decide to issue these vanity email addresses I can see for leading word volunteer: nickn...@libreofficecommunity.org is a better choice IMO. Adios, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
7;t want you to resign. I would like to offer my help and > any time you need to discuss further how we work. Most of us are in open > source projects for quite a long time, we have had to learn also, if I > can help you, it sincerely will be my pleasure :) > > Kind regards > Sophie > Hi all, @David - I've been trying to draft an email on this question also, as you already know - Sophie just said what I was thinking much better then I could of. Thank you Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Update on the Foundation
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 17:52 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Dear friends, > > The Steering Committee would like to provide you an update regarding > the status of the establishment of our Foundation. > > We have spent quite some time evaluating the legal, fiscal, financial > and practical options that were available to us. Assessing these took > us considerable efforts and the involvement of lawyers we would like to > thank. > > We finally came to the following decision. We will incorporate a > Foundation in Germany (called "Stiftung" in German) in early 2011. A > german foundation will provide us with many advantages of various > kinds, among them, 100% tax-deductible donations. Hello Charles, et al. "100% tax-deductible donations." Just to be clear here, you mean that donations to this foundation will be deductible by the individual making the donation? _or_ The foundation will incur no tax-liability by receiving monetary donations? > > In order to incorporate there we will however need some initial capital > and resources (around fifty thousand (50,000) Euros). If we do not > manage to collect this sum in a reasonable amount of time, we will > switch to our second best option and incorporate a charity in the > United Kingdom, which is much cheaper. Could you put some sort of time-frame to "reasonable"? [just your folks thoughts on what reasonable is here] > > We will of course keep you updated. Meanwhile, the donations to the > German OOoDEV association are still accepted and much welcome ! > > The last days of 2010 will be busy with Season's Holidays as well as > the release of LibreOffice 3.3 and the LibreOffice website. > > Until 2011, we wish you all the best for the New Year. Thanks to all the SC members for their efforts here. Best wishes, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:08 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Last call: are we good on this? > > Le Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:19:18 +0100, > Florian Effenberger a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > Cor Nouws wrote on 2010-12-06 08.09: > > > If those two or three employ so many developers on LibO that they > > > can have a very large majority when voting for BoD seats, that > > > could happen. But hey, two or three major sponsors cooperating in > > > such an harmonius way in the project, would be so great ;-) > > > > generally, yes, but on the other hand, this once again makes us very > > dependent, while we claim to be independent. Who can ensure that > > decisions are not made just for corporate benefit (once again playing > > paranoia)? :) > > > > Well, I'm totally undetermined on this point, so just as a thought > > from my side. :-) > > Hello Charles, Florian, et al, The document reads like a final statement of intentions for me. Florian's earlier points regarding not excluding all TDF employees from the board made good sense, particularly given the size of the foundation currently,and a board consisting of 9 members, fewer board members (half that) and I might disagree. The one month governor in the solemn address clause I think was a good addition. Opening us up to unwarranted agitation in the community was my biggest concern in raising the point regarding a call for early elections and this is a good way to mitigate that risk. As for the later points on future full autonomy vs control by a small group of corps. I think in the end there is no way to codify that risk away, it just comes down to the people here. I would suggest that if the board members act as stewards versus owners of the roles they take on for the community, then the community and therefor the foundation should flourish, independently. Given what I know of, who I know here, my belief is that there is a good chance of just that happening. IMO the likelihood of our staying independent, is much more dependent, on the next phase of the Foundation's history. Constructing by convention and act, rather then text, the 'nitty gritty' details of how, as teams we will work together. Guess that's a long winded +1 on the current draft as final. (typos not withstanding :-) Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 21:05 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote: > drew wrote (03-12-10 19:08) > > > What there is not, that I can see, is a way for the general membership > > to remove the board, or a particular member of the board, beyond the > > annual elections. > > [...] > > Without offering any specific details on mechanics for the moment, what > > I'm thinking of is a way for the general membership to call for an early > > election of the board in such an extraordinary situation. > > > > I think the proposed possibility for the members to call on the > BoD on their responsibility, should be a part of the by-laws. > Hello Cor Right, a clause that one writes with the hope it is never needed. That said however; it is important, even more so IMO then having the ability to call a special election at all, that the mechanism for doing so is constructed such that it is not easily done. While not so onerous that it is impossible. So would you call an election because one person was unhappy, of course not. What if ten people wanted it, or even 20% of the members, IMO no. 50%, maybe. 66% of the general membership calling for the chance to change the makeup of the board - yes. One thought here - The one year term for the board members lowers the need for such a clause, but IMO doesn't drive it to zero. Well, I'll look forward to reading the ideas of others on this and work on refining a more specific proposal over the next one or two days. Best wishes, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Howdy, General comment on the ByLaws. Overall I'm quite happy with how the ByLaws are evolving, and I feel it is getting very close to a final cut. I would suggest that there is a good mix of checks and balances with one exception. Reading over the last draft it appears there is quite a bit of power being handed to the BOD, which is rather natural. From my reading of the ByLaws then I believe the following would be true: The Officers of the foundation server at the pleasure of the board. The ESC, in fact, exists at the pleasure of the board. There is even a well defined and specific process for one member to ask for the removal of another from the general membership. What there is not, that I can see, is a way for the general membership to remove the board, or a particular member of the board, beyond the annual elections. Consider the following situation: The ESC makes a decision regarding the code that the BOD disagrees with and exercises their rights under the ByLaws to place the ESC under administration. Telling the ESC to either conform to the board's wishes or to disband and allow the BOD to appoint a new ESC. The general membership is completely locked out of the process from my reading of the current ByLaws. What if the general membership however sides with the ESC on the particular issue. There should be a way for the membership, which through their vote is after all the source of authority exercised by the BOD, to step in and remove the board. Firstly - this would be IMO an extraordinary circumstance of course, and whatever mechanism one would put in place _must_ present a rather high hurdle in order to trigger application. Without offering any specific details on mechanics for the moment, what I'm thinking of is a way for the general membership to call for an early election of the board in such an extraordinary situation. Any thoughts from others on this point? Thanks much, Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] marketing confcall record online
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:19 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > the marketing confcall from yesterday is online now at > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/ConfCalls#1-Dec-2010 > > Thanks a lot to everyone for joining, and thanks a lot to Drew for > moderating! > > BTW, did anyone take notes? Yes - I'll put them up today. Thanks for taking care of the recording. Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: missing tomorrow's marketing call
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:18 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > I just configured the room so that dial-in is possible > with the regular PIN. As soon as two people dial-in, the conference is > up. What would be good is a moderator, who takes care that discussion > goes. :-) > Well, if anyone else would like the role today it would be good with me. Otherwise, I will be on the call/IRC and don't mind filling in as a moderator - don't mind playing it by ear when the call starts. Anything special needed to generate the recording of the call, or is that automatic at the service provider? (I would assume the later) Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] missing tomorrow's marketing call
Howdy Folks, I did not expect to be able to make this call, but it looks now as if yes I can. If it is just a matter of punching in a special ID in order to open the lines, then to move the agenda along, I can do that. Let me know Drew On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 23:32 +0100, Christoph Noack wrote: > Hi Florian! > > I'm sorry as well ... since my day job is kind of insane at the moment > (the amount of things to do, not the job itself *g*), I'm unable to say > that I will be available that time. Thus, may anybody else be able to > host the call? > > Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 20:26 +0100 schrieb Florian Effenberger: > > Hi, > > > > I'm sorry to say, but I totally overlooked that I'm out tomorrow evening > > on a family birthday party, so I most likely will not be able to make it > > to the marketing confcall :-( > > Please enjoy the party ... send pictures of delicious cake :-) > > Cheers, > Christoph > > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] By-Laws / BOD elections
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 15:09 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > I'm not sure I understand it though; I don't > remember where we set an annual membership meeting (do you mean a > yearly conference?), but in any case I think that we have a regular > online vote once a year in mind. Hi Charles, http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Voting This section changed a little bit with the last revision. In the first posting it did mention voting in person, IIRC, in the current text that is not mentioned. Just wanted to be sure. Thanks drew -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 12:13 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > This is how GNOME works; thus far the 'release team' has not gone bad, > and plenty of people have come and gone through the team. > > > Good suggestions, though I'd like a fixed number of ESC members too. > > On the contrary; I would like it flexible; so if RedFlag > joins, or IBM > joins, we can immediately offer them permanant representation (eg.) > rather than having to pick who to kick off ;-) or waiting for another > election cycle. > > Meritocracy is great, but a quiet, relational process works > rather well > too IMHO, and having a small group of people who can actually decide > things and work together effectively is really useful. Hi, May I ask here then, the term 'release team' is used above and this is a question that has been on my mind for a few days. I suppose this is a question specifically for Michael, but not exclusively so. The ESC, do you see this as a very active group, for instance working as the release team, meeting often and looking at individual issues? Thanks much, Drew -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] By-Laws / BOD elections
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 15:40 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Members get the right to vote, and to elect other > Members, on a one member, one vote basis - that really was the question, not specific logistics. Great, no need to follow up any further on this here, for me. Best wishes, Drew -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] By-Laws / BOD elections
Hi, My question regarding the by-laws deals with the act of voting for the BOD. It is not clear to me if the BOD vote is in-person at the annual membership meeting? If so, and given the dispersed nature of the membership, would you give a quick run down on the rational for this requirement. Thanks much, Drew -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] THD governance, project organization and membership - update needed
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 21:24 +0800, David Nelson wrote: > I was looking at the Nabble, which > must be misconfigured: Does look like it is not picking up SC mails - will take care of that ASAP. Drew -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
