Thanks Thorsten
Alex
Le mer. 13 juil. 2022 à 23:41, Thorsten Behrens
a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> > Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
> > Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still
> present in
> > the
Hi Alex,
Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
> Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in
> the amended version ?
>
That clause got added - it wasn't there before.
> My question is one purely of
Hi,
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/07/2022 16:12:
Hi all,
just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite
a few reasons.
As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see
similar issues:
Indeed. Recently you already tried to reopen the vote on LOOL. You
Hi Florian,
Interesting decision by the BGH.
Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still
present in the amended version ?
If so, how is that now different to the previous situation (other than
Hello,
the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-06-14, is now
made public in accordance with our statutes.
Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):
Ayhan, Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Kendy, Laszlo, Paolo, Thorsten
Caolán McNamara wrote on 09.06.22 at 11:00:
The
-1
I think BoD should handle LOOL repository according to attic / deattic
policy, measuring how many people devote their time to improve the code and
make release happen, instead of based on how many people want it, by
replying +1.
Just check our own marketing material [1] that compares
Hi everyone!
Penny here, on the Spanish Documentation Team we mostly like the idea of
reopening that project, taking into account two things:
First, we´d like to maintain the TDF spirit about keeping things public and
open.
And second, we agree to try it for a trial period and check if this
Hi all,
just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite
a few reasons.
As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see
similar issues:
- discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day
where people are busy with their day job
+1
Paolo
On 10/07/2022 22:42, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding
the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice
Online. Considering the mission of facilitating access to information
and communication
On 10.07.2022 15:42, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding
the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice
Online. Considering the mission of facilitating access to information
and communication technologies as a
+123:42, 10 Temmuz 2022, "Daniel A. Rodriguez" :
We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern
regarding the definitive closure of the repository of what was
LibreOffice Online. Considering the mission of facilitating access
to information and communication
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:53 AM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> I just wanted to ask the community how they think LibreOffice should be
> published in the various app stores.
>
> Should it be:
>
> a. available at a cost
> b. free
> c. both
>
paint.net does this: the
Hello,
the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-07-11, is now
made public in accordance with our statutes.
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
one more option:
d. if you like it, send [TDF?] some money (must think about an effctive way
to do it)
diego
On Wednesday, 13 July 2022, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:53 AM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I just wanted to ask the
14 matches
Mail list logo
