Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi Michael, I prefer to avoid going into details as people should draw their conclusions by looking at timing and people involved by looking at the ESC meeting minutes and your proposal. On 08/06/2022 10:40, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Paolo, On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote: That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05 It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that you critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal itself: please play the ball not the man. Actions have been performed by people, in this case you and Kendy. As I've been told off for stating facts and not naming people so I guess I have to make it clear who did what and when. A sequence of events/coincidences show that some proposals are more equal than others and clear objections that make your proposal more complicated, expensive and much less effective have not been addressed at all. You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged proposal, something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on: developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. The proposal contains this: "The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the Target Areas." Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that they will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =) Our ED has already plenty of things to do and micromanaging in-house developers should not be part of his job. Please re-read the rest of my proposal as it states how things should be run to avoid overwhelming our ED. Our ED will evaluate things only if there are issues between the team and the ESC. Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC call and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected peers alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary. Nowhere in my proposal is being said that the ESC will be excluded. Please re-read my proposal. Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the ESC works seems weak as I've outlined before[1]. I'm slowly learning about it thanks to the good comments from Adreas that pushed me to look into it even if development is not my main focus and it is only one of the various areas LibreOffice is made of. I've seen a very nice way to cooperate between developers in a way that seems to take in consideration the best way to deal with code and find good solutions to issues Your intervention in the ESC meeting the 26/05/2022 and the 02/06/2022 had absolutely nothing to do with code and a lot to do with politics and undue influence in a committee that now cannot be seen as a neutral ground. Regards, Michael. Ciao Paolo [1] - https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00557.html -- 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 -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi Paolo, On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote: That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05 It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that you critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal itself: please play the ball not the man. You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged proposal, something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on: developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. The proposal contains this: "The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the Target Areas." Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that they will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =) Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC call and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected peers alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary. Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the ESC works seems weak as I've outlined before[1]. Regards, Michael. [1] - https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00557.html -- michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi all, On 08/06/2022 00:57, Cor Nouws wrote: Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 08/06/2022 00:31: On 07/06/2022 21:40, Simon Phipps wrote: Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all... No, once again he took my document and copy/pasted bits of Michael Meeks proposal on it to completely change the logic of the proposal. I assume if the 'logic changed', that is to reflect contributions in the discussion that were not added in your file. That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05, his employee and member of the board copied the 25/06 on a document he called a merge and the same general manager practically imposed to the ESC part of his project. The way the proposal wants to manage "suggestions" for tendering, the focus on mentoring and control of TDF's employee have been already described as very bad ideas. That proposal doesn't really fit with the budget planned, senior I think there is room to look to the budget for next year again, if needed. As this is, as agreed, a strategic project that has been taken out of the budget planning that we have done not long ago then we are still on time to review this budget. developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. This is unhelpful framing. Influence is (apart from statutory limitations to participation from entities) from participating, which is done in the best traditions of open source development, which in the case of LibreOffice is broadened deliberately - I was at the discussion - to more than 'just' coding. We should check with an employment laws expert if they consider if "unhelpful framing". The "legacy document" has actual contributions from many people of the community and TDf's team, the document on which Kendy pasted some text has only contributions from Michael Meeks and you Kendy made efforts to include comments and ideas from all sides. Very useful to come to a proposal with the broadest possible support respecting as much ideas as possible. Kendy replaced text to reflect the ideas of a commercial contributor not to include comments. greetings, Cor 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] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 08/06/2022 00:31: On 07/06/2022 21:40, Simon Phipps wrote: Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all... No, once again he took my document and copy/pasted bits of Michael Meeks proposal on it to completely change the logic of the proposal. I assume if the 'logic changed', that is to reflect contributions in the discussion that were not added in your file. That proposal doesn't really fit with the budget planned, senior I think there is room to look to the budget for next year again, if needed. developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. This is unhelpful framing. Influence is (apart from statutory limitations to participation from entities) from participating, which is done in the best traditions of open source development, which in the case of LibreOffice is broadened deliberately - I was at the discussion - to more than 'just' coding. The "legacy document" has actual contributions from many people of the community and TDf's team, the document on which Kendy pasted some text has only contributions from Michael Meeks and you Kendy made efforts to include comments and ideas from all sides. Very useful to come to a proposal with the broadest possible support respecting as much ideas as possible. greetings, 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] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi Simon, On 07/06/2022 21:40, Simon Phipps wrote: Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all... No, once again he took my document and copy/pasted bits of Michael Meeks proposal on it to completely change the logic of the proposal. That proposal doesn't really fit with the budget planned, senior developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. It's really a waste of time to cherry-pick and update a legacy document instead of the one multiple people have been working on. The "legacy document" has actual contributions from many people of the community and TDf's team, the document on which Kendy pasted some text has only contributions from Michael Meeks and you (BTW please remove your only contribution as it names a potential supplier). 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] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi! Thanks for your calm reflections, Michael. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM Michael Weghorn wrote: > > Looking at the diff between the 2 proposals: While there seem to be > different approaches in some bigger questions (like management, tasks of > developers), some seem to be more of a cosmetic nature. > Without knowing how the process works exactly: > While I don't really expect that there will be a consensus in all > aspects, I'm wondering whether trying to minimize the diff between the > proposals before doing a vote would be reasonable, so there's consensus > in as many aspects as possible. > Just to amplify this, I have been trying to contribute to this activity but having two (complicated) documents makes it hard to make contributions. Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all and it would be really good if contributors could stick with improving that one and getting it to a state where there's maximum consensus between the directors (and hopefully the rest of us who are contributing but obviously Board agreement needs to be the priority. It's really a waste of time to cherry-pick and update a legacy document instead of the one multiple people have been working on. Cheers Simon -- *Simon Phipps* *TDF Trustee*
