Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Kendy, that's an interesting turn. I guess you could have helped out Michael Meeks 3 months ago as it seemed to be such a big issue for him, I mean he's your boss so it would be natural for any employee to help out if he can't find a way to do it. It is also interesting to see that you haven't contributed for 3 months and suddenly Michael Meeks' proposal provided you with inspiration and an urge to act. Could you please at least rename the file so that people don't get confused? Ciao Paolo On 25/05/2022 15:38, Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hello, Jan Holesovsky píše v St 25. 05. 2022 v 14:18 +0200: To me it seems like those two proposals can be merged together to create something good for TDF, if there is a will for that. And there is from my side. And to show I mean it, I've converted the document to an editable version. Please check it here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049 Would be great if anybody independent can confirm it is 100% same as the original PDF from here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe The document I've shared is editable for any TDF member and the change tracking is turned on there, please feel free to fix stuff in case you find anything wrong. All the best, Kendy -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Kendy, On 25/05/2022 14:18, Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v St 25. 05. 2022 v 13:41 +0200: Michael Meeks made a completely different proposal to employ a mentor. That is not my reading of the proposal. You may have missed a few details: The proposal is: "Hire a Targeted Developer, with primary focus on mentoring" Thorsten seems to want to mislead job applicants saying: "For the outbound message on job boards, we can certainly tweak the wording to be audience-specific." as adding 'senior' would "would attract people who've mentored, on-boarded and levelled-up junior developers" The end result is that you want to employ a mentor. You then replied to Ilmari that rightly made you notice previous issues with employing mentors "you are dismissing the proposal as a whole, or only the name of the role" (mentor) "Would a "Hire a Targeted Developer" work for you?" (removing mentor) Then once again "As I've expressed previously - I'd prefer a proposal that is more mentoring-focused, and less development-focused myself," Can you tell me again with a straight face that you can't read Michael Meeks' proposal as being for finding a mentor and not developers? Also what I like about the proposal is that it addresses my questions I had wrt. the tasking and management; where your proposal was mostly a placeholder in those areas. "was" may be the keyword. Have you read the proposal published 2 weeks ago? You may notice that the difference is that I believe that the 2 new members of the team should be managed by our mentors and our ED. Michael Meeks' prefers to have the ESC controlling the mentor/developers but, while I value their technical input, it's a body that is very well represented by commercial contributors employees. I do not think it's a wise idea to have TDF's employees being directed/controlled by our own suppliers. To me it seems like those two proposals can be merged together to create something good for TDF, if there is a will for that. And there is from my side. It seems to me that the 2 proposal have nothing to do with each others. You are free to work on Michael Meeks proposal for a mentor. All the best, Kendy Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hello, Jan Holesovsky píše v St 25. 05. 2022 v 14:18 +0200: > To me it seems like those two proposals can be merged together to > create something good for TDF, if there is a will for that. And > there is from my side. And to show I mean it, I've converted the document to an editable version. Please check it here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049 Would be great if anybody independent can confirm it is 100% same as the original PDF from here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe The document I've shared is editable for any TDF member and the change tracking is turned on there, please feel free to fix stuff in case you find anything wrong. All the best, Kendy -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v St 25. 05. 2022 v 13:41 +0200: > Michael Meeks made a completely different proposal to employ a > mentor. That is not my reading of the proposal. Also what I like about the proposal is that it addresses my questions I had wrt. the tasking and management; where your proposal was mostly a placeholder in those areas. To me it seems like those two proposals can be merged together to create something good for TDF, if there is a will for that. And there is from my side. All the best, Kendy -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v St 25. 05. 2022 v 12:13 +0200: > I've been waiting for Kendy to propose improvements for the past 3 > months but I'm yet to receive some. I see - I was waiting for the Board Working group being set up, as was proposed by Emiliano, and as seemed to me as the agreed way forward. I've volunteered for that group, but unfortunately you haven't set it up yet :-( > I guess that if Kendy hasn't proposed improvements in 3 months he's > probably satisfied of the progress so why do you keep pushing him? For the moment I'm happy enough with the Michael's proposal. As I've expressed previously - I'd prefer a proposal that is more mentoring-focused, and less development-focused myself, so from that point of view, even the Michael's proposal doesn't make me 100% happy, but I can live with that. That one is public - so what should be the next steps? All the best, Kendy -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi, On 25/05/2022 12:48, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi Paolo, all, Paolo Vecchi wrote: On 25/05/2022 10:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote: To reiterate the question, is that something the two of you would be willing to collaborate on? It seems like you missed my previous answer: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00530.html Indeed I saw your answer, but it very much sounded like a no to me (and we didn't find the time in a call yet to clarify). Why would you need a call to clarify? I think the community may like to know why you are creating "opposing sides" and why your want a "small group" to discuss things behind closed doors. I still haven't received any explanations for it. Since you bring it up here: I've been willing to work together with anyone in a transparent and public way. So would you be ok to sit down with Kendy to work out a proposal for the _process_ of getting to a final document? The process up to now is that I had to get to a final document on my own as neither you or Kendy actually contributed to it. The document is here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe What other parts of the _process_ of having a final document are missing? The other option I see, is to select a small working group (board and perhaps community members) during the next board call, with the mission to synthesize a 3rd, new proposal from all input received so far. Why are you once again proposing a small group to do things behind closed doors? It is one option to make effective progress. As you state, it appears that all people with an opinion have spoken up here; Yes, it appears that we have covered all the important elements required in the final document I've published thanks to the contributions from the community. what's now left to do, is to come up with a document, for which many (if not all) directors can stand behind it. What are the elements that would stop directors from supporting it? I haven't seen any coming from you. Can you list some and the eventual improvements? If community members like Michael Weghorn or Michael Meeks would like to be part of that working group, we should of course consider that, too. Michael Weghorn contributed a lot to the proposal and I'm very grateful for that. Michael Meeks made a completely different proposal to employ a mentor. The 2 proposals should follow different paths as they are not aimed at fixing the same issues. As said in previous email I think that another mentor is not going to improve on the issues listed in my proposal but I guess that the community and then the board could publicly discuss if would make sense investing on a new one while also investing on two developers to actually tackle the issues. But see above, for an alternative suggestion how we can move this forward. Another suggestion could be to confirm to the team to start working on the job description for the 2 developers and then once they are settled see if a new mentor is needed. Cheers, -- Thorsten Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, all, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > On 25/05/2022 10:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > To reiterate the question, is that something the two of you would be > > willing to collaborate on? > It seems like you missed my previous answer: > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00530.html > Indeed I saw your answer, but it very much sounded like a no to me (and we didn't find the time in a call yet to clarify). Since you bring it up here: > I've been willing to work together with anyone in a transparent and > public way. > So would you be ok to sit down with Kendy to work out a proposal for the _process_ of getting to a final document? > > The other option I see, is to select a small working group (board and > > perhaps community members) during the next board call, with the > > mission to synthesize a 3rd, new proposal from all input received so > > far. > > Why are you once again proposing a small group to do things behind closed > doors? > It is one option to make effective progress. As you state, it appears that all people with an opinion have spoken up here; what's now left to do, is to come up with a document, for which many (if not all) directors can stand behind it. If community members like Michael Weghorn or Michael Meeks would like to be part of that working group, we should of course consider that, too. But see above, for an alternative suggestion how we can move this forward. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi, On 25/05/2022 10:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi Paolo, hi Kendy, I wrote: Could I ask the two of you to work out a joint proposal, how to finalize the document? It could be a working group or a shared, editable document, or something else entirely - but would be great to see this finished soonish, and with wide board support. To reiterate the question, is that something the two of you would be willing to collaborate on? It seems like you missed my previous answer: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00530.html I've been willing to work together with anyone in a transparent and public way. I've been waiting for Kendy to propose improvements for the past 3 months but I'm yet to receive some. I guess that if Kendy hasn't proposed improvements in 3 months he's probably satisfied of the progress so why do you keep pushing him? The other option I see, is to select a small working group (board and perhaps community members) during the next board call, with the mission to synthesize a 3rd, new proposal from all input received so far. Why are you once again proposing a small group to do things behind closed doors? Could you explain the rationale? Why are you saying that now we have to create a 3rd proposal? Then as far as I can see there is 1 proposal to employ two developers and suddenly a new proposal appeared to employ 1 mentor, what is the 3rd one for? Cheers, -- Thorsten Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, hi Kendy, I wrote: > Could I ask the two of you to work out a joint proposal, how to > finalize the document? > > It could be a working group or a shared, editable document, or > something else entirely - but would be great to see this finished > soonish, and with wide board support. > To reiterate the question, is that something the two of you would be willing to collaborate on? The other option I see, is to select a small working group (board and perhaps community members) during the next board call, with the mission to synthesize a 3rd, new proposal from all input received so far. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
HI, On 23/05/2022 14:01, Cor Nouws wrote: Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 13:07: On 23/05/2022 12:57, Cor Nouws wrote: It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. To evaluate the quality of your proposal. It would have been the responsibility of other fellow members of the board to contribute to a proposal but you may have noticed that the community did such a good job that only a few actual proposal from the board were deemed necessary. It looks as if you are thinking in circles ;) I guess each one of us prefers to think in different shapes but de gustibus non disputandum est. You do not response to the idea to have a trial period etc. I believe you missed some of the interactions on board-discuss as the answer has been already provided: https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05567.html https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05579.html Thanks. Mark is making a valuable point there. The trial as mentioned there is however based on the persons performing and not on TDF's responsibility. OK, so that's a criticism. Could you now provide your proposal so that we can transform that in a constructive feedback and see if it actually provides an improvement for the hiring process? Cheers, Cor Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi, On 23/05/2022 14:30, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Can I repeat my request to get a small group (e.g. Paolo, Kendy as representatives of the two opposing sides here) to first agree on a workable process, to quickly iterate the proposal to something we can all support? First of all, why are you saying that there are opposing sides? Opposing to what? I don't think is a good idea to trying to artificially create a division where there isn't any. Secondly, why do we need a "small group"? We all did an excellent job together with the community and the team so I don't think anyone would see the necessity of doing things behind closed doors. The current approach via emails does not appear to get us closer to a final result. It seems like you are stating that the community and the team hasn't done an excellent job and that's regrettable. If directors choose not to share their proposals, like everyone else, here in the mailing list then some might think they don't want to have their proposals scrutinised as the rest of the document. If you have seen any major issue with the proposal please to share them with us now or let's proceed with the vote. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, hi Kendy, all, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > > Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a > > similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or > > fourth time. > > You stated that I should have answered questions, that in my opinion are > answered in page 10 and 11 of the proposal, but I haven't seen from you any > actual proposal for improvements. Could you point me to your proposals in > board-discuss just in case I missed them? > Can I repeat my request to get a small group (e.g. Paolo, Kendy as representatives of the two opposing sides here) to first agree on a workable process, to quickly iterate the proposal to something we can all support? The current approach via emails does not appear to get us closer to a final result. Thanks, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 13:07: On 23/05/2022 12:57, Cor Nouws wrote: It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. To evaluate the quality of your proposal. It would have been the responsibility of other fellow members of the board to contribute to a proposal but you may have noticed that the community did such a good job that only a few actual proposal from the board were deemed necessary. It looks as if you are thinking in circles ;) You do not response to the idea to have a trial period etc. I believe you missed some of the interactions on board-discuss as the answer has been already provided: https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05567.html https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05579.html Thanks. Mark is making a valuable point there. The trial as mentioned there is however based on the persons performing and not on TDF's responsibility. Cheers, Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
On 23/05/2022 12:57, Cor Nouws wrote: It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. To evaluate the quality of your proposal. It would have been the responsibility of other fellow members of the board to contribute to a proposal but you may have noticed that the community did such a good job that only a few actual proposal from the board were deemed necessary. You do not response to the idea to have a trial period etc. I believe you missed some of the interactions on board-discuss as the answer has been already provided: https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05567.html https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05579.html Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details:https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 12:49: Hi Cor, On 23/05/2022 12:37, Cor Nouws wrote: It is the boards responsibility to evaluate that. It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. To evaluate the quality of your proposal. The board has an employees oversight group which already conducts appraisals which, when conducted in a fair and objective way, help the team in achieving the best outcomes for themselves, TDF and the community. During those appraisals we can provide feedback if we think that things can be improved. Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or fourth time. You stated that I should have answered questions, that in my opinion are answered in page 10 and 11 of the proposal, but I haven't seen from you any actual proposal for improvements. Could you point me to your proposals in board-discuss just in case I missed them? You do not response to the idea to have a trial period etc. Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Cor, On 23/05/2022 12:37, Cor Nouws wrote: It is the boards responsibility to evaluate that. It is not the responsibility of the board to micromanage the team. The board has an employees oversight group which already conducts appraisals which, when conducted in a fair and objective way, help the team in achieving the best outcomes for themselves, TDF and the community. During those appraisals we can provide feedback if we think that things can be improved. Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or fourth time. You stated that I should have answered questions, that in my opinion are answered in page 10 and 11 of the proposal, but I haven't seen from you any actual proposal for improvements. Could you point me to your proposals in board-discuss just in case I missed them? Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 23/05/2022 11:39: part of the process of providing constructive feedback is to evaluate objectively the information available and then propose improvements. Then who says what is objective evaluation and what is not? ... As described in the document I'm sure that our team, our mentors and our ED will do an excellent job in managing the in-house developers and will implement corrective actions if they feel that the way they are managing their new colleagues needs to be improved. It is the boards responsibility to evaluate that. Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or fourth time. Cheers, Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Cor, On 23/05/2022 02:03, Cor Nouws wrote: I think clarifying this is useful. From what I have read, I could easily conclude that mails that give ideas on where developers could work on, are considered to be 'constructive feedback', and that mails with questions about how we the work of and processes around developers hired by TDF should be managed, are considered _not_ to be 'constructive feedback'. part of the process of providing constructive feedback is to evaluate objectively the information available and then propose improvements. During the past 3 months many members of the community proposed many improvements, as some fellow members of the board of director had no further improvements to propose and discuss in public we can safely assume that our community did an excellent job in filling all the information gaps they felt were important. As described in the document I'm sure that our team, our mentors and our ED will do an excellent job in managing the in-house developers and will implement corrective actions if they feel that the way they are managing their new colleagues needs to be improved. In the next few days a vote request will be sent out for the board to confirm they listen to our community by approving the the proposal. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Cor Nouws wrote on 14/05/2022 00:11: Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/05/2022 11:15: ... I haven't received any constructive feedback for a while so I presumed This puzzles me, Paolo. What do you consider as "constructive feedback"? I think clarifying this is useful. From what I have read, I could easily conclude that mails that give ideas on where developers could work on, are considered to be 'constructive feedback', and that mails with questions about how we the work of and processes around developers hired by TDF should be managed, are considered _not_ to be 'constructive feedback'. (Again - short - I'm a proponent of a clear trial period to learn about the questions we've seen and find out if/how that can be handled in a way that hiring developers indeed is a reasonable approach to improve on the shortcomings in the development, as discussed in the early phase of your proposal.) Cheers, Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/05/2022 11:15: ... I haven't received any constructive feedback for a while so I presumed This puzzles me, Paolo. What do you consider as "constructive feedback"? Cheers Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Tuomas, On 13/05/2022 18:45, Tuomas Hietala wrote: Hello Paolo, Thank you for working on this proposal. As a member of TDF, I fully agree that more investment is needed in RTL, CTL and CJK in order to make LibreOffice useful for the next two billion or so people and potentially grow the community of contributors. I'd imagine this could also open up new business opportunities for the commercial ecosystem once the investment from TDF has brought LO to a more usable state in the currently neglected languages. Thanks for the kind words and for summarising some of the reasons why we should invest in in-house developers. With regard to accessibility, I'd like to bring up the question of regulation. In the future, it might very well become mandatory for most public sector organisations globally to only procure software meeting accessibility requirements (and in the case of office suites, producing accessible documents). Even without such regulations, many organisations will probably choose accessible software, if possible. You are absolutely right on this. I agree with others who have said that MSO interoperability is not a neglected area. The commercial ecosystem is very active there. I also don't think TDF should be spending its resources on chasing compatiblity with proprietary formats as long as LO still has catching up to do with the latest version of ODF. While MSO compatiblity is important for many people (including myself), in many cases, such as in education, it might not be needed at all, whereas accessibility would be very welcome. Not to mention supporting the local language properly. I see your point but we are still in a situation where one of the objections that holds back some upgrades to LibreOffice is that people have to deal with files created with an everchanging proprietary format of a de-facto monopolist. It's good that the commercial ecosystem works on it and keeps doing a great job by serving the enterprise customers that are having to deal the most with OOXML files. TDF invests a lot on the ODF format and slowly some governments are choosing it as their standard file format. There have been calls for European Institutions to start using ODF as their standard file format and I'm pleased to see that the European Commission, among others, accepts and publishes also ODF files. When the OOXML variant used in the other office suite will finally be recognised as not being a valid Open Standard then we'll see a big positive change in all the public sector and by consequence in the private sector. Hopefully in the not too distant future we will look at OOXML as a thing of the past and keep an import filter in LibreOffice just in case some discover some old files that need to be upgraded to a proper Open Standard format like ODF ;-) So, in my opinion, keeping up with OOXML changes shouldn't be a primary focus for the in-house developers, unless they find some quick fixes for some issues or old bugs that aren't getting the right amount of attention by others, and I totally agree that languages and accessibility should be given priority over this. Best regards, Tuomas Hietala Thanks again for your contributions. Ciao Paolo Paolo Vecchi kirjoitti 12.5.2022 15:29: Hi all, after receiving quite a few comments and suggestions it seems like is time to publish what, hopefully, is the final version of the proposal to add 2 in-house developers to TDF's team: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe The most significant changes have been made in the Focus Areas where the recommendations from Michael Weghorn and lmari Lauhakangas (thanks to both!) have been merged in the text, relevant links have been put in the footer to make the proposal more readable and additional explanations have been provided. Other minor changes have been applied to the text throughout the document. I have received no additional constructive feedback from the board since the last published version so I assume that the proposal will be promptly approved as a new strategic project and the team will be kindly asked to prepare the job descriptions shortly after. Thank you all for your contributions! Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hello Paolo, Thank you for working on this proposal. As a member of TDF, I fully agree that more investment is needed in RTL, CTL and CJK in order to make LibreOffice useful for the next two billion or so people and potentially grow the community of contributors. I'd imagine this could also open up new business opportunities for the commercial ecosystem once the investment from TDF has brought LO to a more usable state in the currently neglected languages. With regard to accessibility, I'd like to bring up the question of regulation. In the future, it might very well become mandatory for most public sector organisations globally to only procure software meeting accessibility requirements (and in the case of office suites, producing accessible documents). Even without such regulations, many organisations will probably choose accessible software, if possible. I agree with others who have said that MSO interoperability is not a neglected area. The commercial ecosystem is very active there. I also don't think TDF should be spending its resources on chasing compatiblity with proprietary formats as long as LO still has catching up to do with the latest version of ODF. While MSO compatiblity is important for many people (including myself), in many cases, such as in education, it might not be needed at all, whereas accessibility would be very welcome. Not to mention supporting the local language properly. Best regards, Tuomas Hietala Paolo Vecchi kirjoitti 12.5.2022 15:29: Hi all, after receiving quite a few comments and suggestions it seems like is time to publish what, hopefully, is the final version of the proposal to add 2 in-house developers to TDF's team: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe The most significant changes have been made in the Focus Areas where the recommendations from Michael Weghorn and lmari Lauhakangas (thanks to both!) have been merged in the text, relevant links have been put in the footer to make the proposal more readable and additional explanations have been provided. Other minor changes have been applied to the text throughout the document. I have received no additional constructive feedback from the board since the last published version so I assume that the proposal will be promptly approved as a new strategic project and the team will be kindly asked to prepare the job descriptions shortly after. Thank you all for your contributions! Ciao Paolo -- 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] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Caolan, On 13/05/2022 13:51, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Thu, 2022-05-12 at 14:29 +0200, Paolo Vecchi wrote: Hi all, after receiving quite a few comments and suggestions it seems like is time to publish what, hopefully, is the final version of the proposal to add 2 in-house developers to TDF's team: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe The project management section might imply something of a mentoring or micro management role for the ESC which isn't really something that I think it's suited for, if that is envisioned. That is not envisioned. The proposal sees an interaction with the ESC to avoid overlaps but the mentors and our ED will keep in check the developers. The commentary around targeting specific stalled/neglected areas of development is appealing, I fear there may exist a general feeling TDF developers will solve everyone's pet peeves whereas hiring to primarily do a specific XY sets achievable expectations. That's why there will be an interaction between mentors, ED and ESC to avoid that. If the ED sees that there are unresolvable conflicts then he will have the choice of involving the board. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
On Thu, 2022-05-12 at 14:29 +0200, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > Hi all, > > after receiving quite a few comments and suggestions it seems like is > time to publish what, hopefully, is the final version of the proposal > to add 2 in-house developers to TDF's team: > > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe The project management section might imply something of a mentoring or micro management role for the ESC which isn't really something that I think it's suited for, if that is envisioned. The commentary around targeting specific stalled/neglected areas of development is appealing, I fear there may exist a general feeling TDF developers will solve everyone's pet peeves whereas hiring to primarily do a specific XY sets achievable expectations. -- Caolán McNamara, Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi all, On 12/05/2022 21:15, Thorsten Behrens wrote: It could be a working group or a shared, editable document, or something else entirely - but would be great to see this finished soonish, and with wide board support. As we started the project in an open and transparent way I'm sure everyone will want to carry on like this. I haven't received any constructive feedback for a while so I presumed that the proposal was to be considered sufficiently exhaustive. I'd like to move on to the next stage very soon but if you have additional concrete proposals please share them here. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, hi Kendy, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Paolo Vecchi píše v Čt 12. 05. 2022 v 14:29 +0200: > > I have received no additional constructive feedback from the board > > since > > the last published version so I assume that the proposal will be > > promptly approved as a new strategic project and the team will be > > kindly > > asked to prepare the job descriptions shortly after. > > I remember there was a Board working group to be set up to finalize the > proposal, for which I volunteered, to be able to further my feedback > there. > Could I ask the two of you to work out a joint proposal, how to finalize the document? It could be a working group or a shared, editable document, or something else entirely - but would be great to see this finished soonish, and with wide board support. Thanks a lot, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Kendy, On 12/05/2022 18:29, Jan Holesovsky wrote: If the Board working group is not going to be set up, I still have some feedback I'd like to share. Should I send it here instead? It has been communicated to send comments by email but nothing has arrived since a while from the board. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi píše v Čt 12. 05. 2022 v 14:29 +0200: > I have received no additional constructive feedback from the board > since > the last published version so I assume that the proposal will be > promptly approved as a new strategic project and the team will be > kindly > asked to prepare the job descriptions shortly after. I remember there was a Board working group to be set up to finalize the proposal, for which I volunteered, to be able to further my feedback there. Unfortunately I am not aware of the working group being setup yet, did I miss that, please? If the Board working group is not going to be set up, I still have some feedback I'd like to share. Should I send it here instead? All the best, Kendy -- 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
