Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve the attic proposal
Hi Daniel, all, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: > This all goes hand in hand with the refusal to hire developers within TDF. > I don't see where that should have happened. See also Paolo's answer. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve the attic proposal
Hi Andreas, On 31/03/2022 14:49, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hello, Am 28.03.22 um 14:01 schrieb Florian Effenberger: Hello, The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes. Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. once I looked over this decision making process, I find it striking that only four BoD members participated. And also is remarkable that among this participants are only long time TDF members and members which have are part of LibreOffice ecosystem development companies or their contract partner. And because the starting point for this attic proposal (and its first use case) is LOOL (online) it is not the best management, if members with a potential CoI around this first use case participate. I'd expect they abstain. That the attic proposal has been pushed to archive LOOL, IMHO, is clear but is there any CoI at this stage? That's a vote on the text, which still has room for improvement, not a vote to archive LOOL. I proposed to open up the repository for 12 months and see if the community is still interested in bringing it forward or not and then, non CoI'ed directors, could vote on it's archival or not. But independent from this, it is sad to see that there seemed to be already no consent inside the board between the members connected to LibreOffice ecosystem companies and the other members at the start of the new BoD term. Sorry but it seems like there are visions for the future of TDF that sometimes diverge quite a bit and yes heated discussions still happen. I think it's very important that members of the community participate more so that all members of the board understand which direction our community want us to follow. Regards, Andreas Ciao Paolo -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve the attic proposal
El 31/3/22 a las 09:49, Andreas Mantke escribió: Hello, Am 28.03.22 um 14:01 schrieb Florian Effenberger: Hello, The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes. Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. once I looked over this decision making process, I find it striking that only four BoD members participated. And also is remarkable that among this participants are only long time TDF members and members which have are part of LibreOffice ecosystem development companies or their contract partner. And because the starting point for this attic proposal (and its first use case) is LOOL (online) it is not the best management, if members with a potential CoI around this first use case participate. I'd expect they abstain. Indeed, should be that way. But independent from this, it is sad to see that there seemed to be already no consent inside the board between the members connected to LibreOffice ecosystem companies and the other members at the start of the new BoD term. It's not the first time that happens, previous term had a lot of that. However, I believe that a consensus does not necessarily have to be reached. One can disagree. What is of utmost importance is to promote the best decision for TDF. This all goes hand in hand with the refusal to hire developers within TDF. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos. Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org O únete a la Comunidad Hispana en Telegram: https://t.me/libreoffice_es -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve the attic proposal
Hello, Am 28.03.22 um 14:01 schrieb Florian Effenberger: Hello, The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes. Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. once I looked over this decision making process, I find it striking that only four BoD members participated. And also is remarkable that among this participants are only long time TDF members and members which have are part of LibreOffice ecosystem development companies or their contract partner. And because the starting point for this attic proposal (and its first use case) is LOOL (online) it is not the best management, if members with a potential CoI around this first use case participate. I'd expect they abstain. But independent from this, it is sad to see that there seemed to be already no consent inside the board between the members connected to LibreOffice ecosystem companies and the other members at the start of the new BoD term. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] [DECISION] Approve the attic proposal
Hello, The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes. Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. Florian Thorsten Behrens wrote on 24.03.22 at 00:20: Dear directors, calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. Changes since v2.1: * corrected mistakes found during Monday board call * light touch-ups for English * aligned the readme text suggestions with the changes in the prose above Best, Thorsten -%<-- ## Introduction It can happen, within a huge project like LibreOffice, that parts of the project worked on by the community will become obsolete or superseded by other projects. The following proposal will deal with the need to let the code (and/or other forms of text related to the code) be publicly available, while setting the correct expectations around its availability, suitability for a production environment, quality and security. ## What is the “attic”? The “attic” is a special area of TDF's infrastructure where part of the code/documentation/translations, which is not being actively developed, can be stored. This will help to set the correct expectations on its development status, while not losing its fundamental trait of being open source (so its code must be publicly available). In the present proposal, the “attic” would be a single host inside TDF's infrastructure, available via HTTP/HTTPS protocols, responding to a URI similar to: https://attic.documentfoundation.org ## Specificity of the “attic” This “attic” space will have, at a minimum, the following characteristics: • It is supported by Git – the well known VCS developed initially by Linus Torvalds and used to share the sources of the Linux kernel. Being supported by Git will ease forking of the code contained there; • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” or “pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes to the code to be shared as it was the last time it was “atticisized”; • Anonymous access to the repositories has to be made the default access method: we want code present in the “attic” to be always available to everyone; • It should have a recognizable URL – or internet address, less technically: this allows for the code present to be clearly separated by other actively-developed code; • A specific text explaining the nature of the code, its “deatticization” requirements and how to get support for the code inside the repository needs to be present in the README of every repository. The text of these disclaimers and the deatticization requirements will be discussed further on in the proposal. Regarding contacts to get support, the idea is to provide quick and ready information on who/where to ask for anything related to the code in the repository. The proposed implementation of this space is by using git-http-backend [1]. The proposal has already been evaluated by the infrastructure team, and the overhead for maintaining such a solution will be “negligible”. ## Considerations about the approval procedure for atticization/deatticization As per the Statutes of the Foundation, the Board of Directors (BoD) should be the ultimate decision-making body of the Foundation; thus it has technically the last word on the approval or the refusal of an atticization/deatticization proposal. If we analyse the matter at hand, we recognize that there is another codified body inside TDF that is directly composed by the technical part of the community and, as such, should have more insights and knowledge on the parts of the project that are proposed to be atticized/deatticized; that body is the Engineering Steering Committee (ESC). As such, a common and shared understanding of the political and technical impacts of the atticization/deatticization proposal has to be reached by the two bodies, all together, and this understanding should be condensed into a unique, unambiguous preference towards approval or disapproval. The leanest approval process would then be: the ESC expresses its preference, and the BoD agrees with the ESC. The proposal is then officially accepted or refused by the BoD, according to the preference expressed. If this doesn't happen, a shared discussion in a public meeting with the members of both bodies is highly recommended; the goal of such consultations would be to understand and underline weaknesses and threats of the proposal, and eventually to get to a unique preference. Whatever the means of the
