Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
I stopped following the endless threads on this list a long time ago as I felt the annoyance of having to read the same ridiculousness over and over again. Today I decided to give it a new chance and I find this, and I recognize myself in Emiliano's words. Before coming to the BoD I had an ideal image of the environment within TDF, unfortunately the reality is quite different. I don't quite understand how this modus operandi was maintained over time, but it definitely has to end. It cannot be that certain people attack valuable members of our community in such a blatant manner. Here I also include Paolo who is still suffering from the unfounded CoI accusations against him. I collaborate voluntarily with TDF since its beginnings as such and I think many will agree with me, this behavior by the same characters must stop. El 29.11.2022 07:09, sophi escribió: Hi Emiliano, Le 28/11/2022 à 22:55, Emiliano Vavassori a écrit : Hi all, Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto: Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior. I fully agree with you. Excluding those you disagree with is really not what is expected in our community. I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved. I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone. I am so so sorry to read that, that is just incredible for a person of your kindness. I would like to apologize that you have to live that in our community, I'm speechless... just sorry again. Cheers Sophie -- Sophie Gautier so...@libreoffice.org GSM: +33683901545 IRC: soph Foundation coordinator The Document Foundation -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online
El 29.08.2022 07:44, Mike Saunders escribió: Hi all, We still have this page on the site: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/ ...which has been the same for a very long time. We could update it to say that we're considering the future of LOOL (linking to this mailing list post), and see if people are interested in contributing. What do people think? Mike From my POV, yes. At least to show that there are people interested in the existence of such a version. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online
El 07.07.2022 22:12, Paolo Vecchi escribió: Hi Daniel, On 07/07/2022 22:04, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: The long arm of the supervisor reaches several of us who dared to support the proposal to reopen the repo. In my case, trying to point out what can be said and what cannot. That's not good at all. Indeed. Have you received these types of notifications previously? Yep, from the very beginning of previous term. Several times, several people. Do you know of others that received communications that are meant to dissuade people from expressing their legitimate opinions? I have received some comments that imply that it is. So I encourage all those who have gone through similar situations to express their opinions. Even former directors. Would you, and anyone else that received similar communications, be willing to send a complaint to the CoC team or a trusted director for evaluation? Sure. Anything to have a better environment for us all. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online
El 04.07.2022 06:39, Paolo Vecchi escribió: Dear community, for the record my rejection of the proposal as formulated has not been counted. I repeatedly asked for various elements to be considered and to amend the text before being able to vote on it but that unfortunately hasn't happened. My opinion is that the text doesn't take in consideration feedback and other issues which include: - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day where people are busy with their day job - vote started after less than 21h at 18:53 when people coming back from work could have had time to rush in a comment - comments made during the meeting and in the mailing lists were not considered for inclusion in an actual compromise text - attempts to have an evaluation of the concerns expressed in time met no considerations - some managed to provide their opinion only in the vote reply but still no corrective actions have been taken - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company reselling COOL[0], should have declared a potential CoI and let the vice-chairman deal with the evaluation and inclusions of comments to make sure the process is seen by all as fully impartial regardless of actual CoIs. I could have simply voted against and found ourselves once again in the same split situation we had in the original vote and that's what I wanted to avoid. The main issues and missing elements I see in this proposal are: - LOOL should not be automatically archived, a full evaluation of the situation after a fair period of time should be done - the time frame is too short for a community to form (holiday season making it even more difficult) so 12 months could be a fair period of time - reopening of the repository with due warnings until LOOL is safe to use and activities show a healthy community forming - marketing to promote the creation of a community around LOOL - get more feedback from the wider community at LibOCon about the future of LOOL - finishing evaluating with commercial stakeholders the mutually Without the above IMHO the proposal will lead only to one outcome. Having said the above I ask to reconsider the decision and add it to the public part of the agenda for the next board meeting. Ciao Paolo [0] https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/ Fully support Paolo hoping more voices raise their concerns too. -- 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] Another "merged" proposal of in-house developers
El 22.06.2022 11:49, Paolo Vecchi escribió: Hi all, as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear I've integrated what makes sense to have on a developers recruitment proposal and added a few items clarifying some aspect in version 2.2 (in ODF format) of this "merged" proposal that you'll find here together with the other proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049 Those that don't have access to that folder or don't want to edit/comment it can access a PDF version from here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/BMnj2c4A9XR4oWk What changed: I've adapted a few sentences/words to get closer to the other proposal where possible and eliminated some sentences/words that might not add much to the context. I've also reinstated the app store area as now is not controversial anymore. There is a specific paragraph stating that in-house developers are not bound by ESC decisions. Overall the original logic is still there but showing a lower number of differences to the other proposal. What is still different: The developers do not need to be senior or already capable of mentoring, training them is part of our goals so we should do that The focus is clearly on the development side with mentoring to be done when the developers are ready and willing There is less focus on the ESC handling the task and more on staff dealing with it as developers are going to be part of TDF's staff so they shouldn't be told what to do by non employees of TDF or the Board. What is not there: The section related to "Targeted Developers" as it's a construct that imposes limitations on what TDF's staff can do. We will employ in-house developers that will work for the best interest of TDF and it's wider community which initially will surely focus on specific areas, the "Focus Areas", but over the years could cover other areas if they like it and it's necessary. I believe that a candidate reading that an organisation is looking for "targeted developers" might already feel the limitation of the role and the lack of opportunities for personal growth so we might prefer to welcome in-house developers that won't feel that limitations as full members of TDF's staff. ESC deciding and having a final word on "overlaps in the development of the LibreOffice code" is too broad as it might imply also development related to projects, features or bug fixes on which a third party might have interests expressed through the ESC which at present has no CoI Policy. Limitations imposed on TDF's staff that satisfy the interests/needs of third parties, or in some cases both TDF and third parties, should be part of a separate agreement, not a recruitment proposal. Other similar limitations, including non competition or development of alternative implementation to (eg.) "Collabora Online, mdds, or cppunit" have not been included in this version as they should be covered by separate agreements which are independent to TDF's staff recruitment. Contracts with subcontractors, trainers and specialists do not belong in a recruitment proposal. Additional support or training will be taken in consideration once we have evaluated the candidates and when our mentors will inform us of what is necessary. Development contracts present in the other proposal will follow the due tendering process. I hope that the rationale for not including certain areas, terms and limitations is clear to all in this "merged" proposal and that we can proceed in finding great candidates to join our team as soon as possible. Ciao Paolo It is quite clear that this is the version to take as a starting point as you have done a great job in putting together the various changes requested and makes text more clear. -- 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
