Hi Kendy, hi Paolo,
a gentle reminder to please keep this discussion on-topic. There's a
new proposal to address Andreas' initial concern. Please interact with
that, instead of discussing a rather tangential & hypothetical topic.
Thanks,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Kendy,
On 15/03/2022 10:45, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
You really don't have to assure me. I started programming 35 years
ago, I was there in the 80's and 90's, so I can compare with the
present.
If you were a professional developer 35 years ago?
Then you have to tell me how you can look so yo
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 14. 03. 2022 v 20:59 +0100:
> It's true that through the 80s and 90s software development was
> different but I can assure you that there were levels of complexity
> that
> aren't that different from today's systems and the tolerance for
> errors
> were probabl
Hi,
Thorsten Behrens wrote on 14/03/2022 21:20:
Caolán McNamara wrote:
I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something
by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base
which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security
issues mount up,
Hi *,
Caolán McNamara wrote:
> I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something
> by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base
> which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security
> issues mount up, creating a sort of zombie would be a
Hi Jan,
On 14/03/2022 19:43, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 14. 03. 2022 v 17:07 +0100:
I have to agree with you that the process seems to be too cumbersome
and
it would very likely lead to the end of the project, so may as well
delete it, or to forks that will never c
hi Andreas,
On 14.03.22 18:36, Andreas Mantke wrote:
and with the proposal the Android Viewer had to be put the attic and
wouldn't currently get the chance to get out of this state (because only
one developer looking for it).
that's a bad example: the Android Viewer is in the core.git reposito
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi píše v Po 14. 03. 2022 v 17:07 +0100:
> I have to agree with you that the process seems to be too cumbersome
> and
> it would very likely lead to the end of the project, so may as well
> delete it, or to forks that will never come back.
Interestingly when I've read the d
Hi,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 14/03/2022 18:36:
and with the proposal the Android Viewer had to be put the attic and
wouldn't currently get the chance to get out of this state (because only
one developer looking for it).
Fair point. One could think of a way that the activity/nr of devs asked,
Hi Cor, all,
Am 14.03.22 um 17:34 schrieb Cor Nouws:
Hi Andras,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12:
the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or
more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The
barriers to de-attic a project and make it
On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 17:34 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
> For me the clear demands in the proposal are to prevent a situation
> where projects restart without a good change on success, which is IMO
> quite relevant for TDF's good name.
I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic somet
Cor Nouws wrote on 14/03/2022 17:34:
Hi Andras,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12:
the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or
more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The
barriers to de-attic a project and make it an active project
Hi Andras,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 13/03/2022 16:12:
the quintessence of he proposal would be that a project will at 99,9% or
more wouldn't get out of the attic state inside the TDF resources. The
barriers to de-attic a project and make it an active project inside TDF
are much higher than setti
Hi Andreas,
thanks for your feedback.
I have to agree with you that the process seems to be too cumbersome and
it would very likely lead to the end of the project, so may as well
delete it, or to forks that will never come back.
The point here is also to try to understand what the scope of t
Am 08.03.22 um 22:54 schrieb Emiliano Vavassori:
Dear community members,
Following the discussion on the first revision of the "Attic"
proposal, posted here by Thorsten Behrens on December 17th, 2021,
gathering the input we received from the community (thanks for the
invaluable help provided by
Hi Emiliano,
On 08/03/2022 22:54, Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
Of course, we are available to further clarify the proposal, if needed,
and we eagerly await for your input on this following version.
Proposal seems reasonable.
This “attic” space will have, at minimum, the following charac
Dear community members,
Following the discussion on the first revision of the "Attic" proposal,
posted here by Thorsten Behrens on December 17th, 2021, gathering the
input we received from the community (thanks for the invaluable help
provided by everyone who participated!) and as anticipated
Hi Paolo,
Am 08.01.22 um 13:33 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Hi Andreas,
On 08/01/2022 12:44, Andreas Mantke wrote:
(...)
I'm for some reasons currently not a member of TDF's bodies anymore. I'm
not involved in any tasks here anymore. I use my available spare time
for volunteer work in other environm
Hi Cor,
On 07/01/2022 20:39, Cor Nouws wrote:
It's easy to spend a lot of words that do not give a single insight on
the question if your proposed changes are respecting the boards duty to
foster a sustainable meritocratic community.
while the comment doesn't add much to the debate of the "attic
Hi *,
quick comment on the below -
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Very brief summary of the events:
>
> Back in March 2020, other new board members and I, started making enquiries
> in regards to why we weren't making available an up to date LOOL to the
> community. We were clearly "advertising" LOOL on
Hi Andreas,
On 08/01/2022 12:44, Andreas Mantke wrote:
I, as member of this community and member of the board, have already
expressed my opinion but when it comes to voting I will (from the
18/02/2020) represent only 1 vote.
I know this situation, one of the reasons I didn't run for the board
Hi Paolo
Am 08.01.22 um 12:00 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Hi Andreas,
On 07/01/2022 20:28, Andreas Mantke wrote:
I'd recommend to read through paragraph 2 of the statutes. The goals of
TDF are written down there.
I'd recommend all members of the board to follow this goals very closely
and take care
Hi Andreas,
On 07/01/2022 20:28, Andreas Mantke wrote:
I'd recommend to read through paragraph 2 of the statutes. The goals of
TDF are written down there.
I'd recommend all members of the board to follow this goals very closely
and take care of TDF's assets and pay attention that they are not
d
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 07/01/2022 20:28:
> Am 07.01.22 um 18:11 schrieb Cor Nouws:
>> (...)
>> I'd like to mention that one of TDF's main goal is to foster a
>> sustainable developers community. (...)
>
> I'd recommend to read through paragraph 2 of the statutes. The goals of
> TDF
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 07/01/2022 19:47:
> Thank you for your valuable contribution Cor.
>
> On 07/01/2022 18:11, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> To add to that: in the meeting where you proposed to change the
>> situation, you expressed a clear conviction that other open source
>> projects show that it is per
Hi,
Am 07.01.22 um 18:11 schrieb Cor Nouws:
> (...)
> I'd like to mention that one of TDF's main goal is to foster a
> sustainable developers community. (...)
I'd recommend to read through paragraph 2 of the statutes. The goals of
TDF are written down there.
I'd recommend all members of the boar
Thank you for your valuable contribution Cor.
On 07/01/2022 18:11, Cor Nouws wrote:
To add to that: in the meeting where you proposed to change the
situation, you expressed a clear conviction that other open source
projects show that it is perfectly possible to have a similar paid
product and a
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 07/01/2022 17:08:
> Very brief summary of the events:
>
> Back in March 2020, other new board members and I, started making
> enquiries in regards to why we weren't making available an up to date
> LOOL to the community. We were clearly "advertising" LOOL on the website
> ..
Hi all,
as I was a person directly involved in the process that should have
given to the LibreOffice community a usable LibreOffice On-Line I think
I should add my comments to this thread.
Very brief summary of the events:
Back in March 2020, other new board members and I, started making
en
Hi Mike,
On 06/01/2022 10.13, Mike Saunders wrote:
Is there something we (from the side of TDF) can do about this, eg push
a new release to the Play Store? If so, I can talk to Cloph (our release
engineer) about getting an updated version out there...
Thanks for asking.
Whether it makes sense
Hi *,
Michael Weghorn wrote:
> I think that would be in line with how we have been handling single features
> in the desktop version that were in a comparable state in the past - usually
> after discussing the removal in the ESC first.
>
I would support that proposal.
The attic process is for re
Hi Michael,
On 06.01.22 10:08, Michael Weghorn wrote:
Ah, I see and I would have agreed in case nothing had happened in the
last years, since the app had actually been in a pretty much non-working
state for a while.
Is there something we (from the side of TDF) can do about this, eg push
a
Hi Emiliano,
thanks for the quick follow-up. :)
On 05/01/2022 23.45, Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
The absence of a release published in the Play Store (which is the main
venue, to my perspective, to reach for users), its known limitations,
the need of a reworking of the interface to get some inte
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Il 05/01/22 21:02, Michael Weghorn ha scritto:
Can you possibly give a few more details on why you're considering it as
another candidate for the attic?
Oh, that's quite simple and probably at the same time very naive: mainly
because I was unaware of
Hi Emiliano, all,
On 05/01/2022 17.18, Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
Il 20/12/21 20:34, Marco Marinello ha scritto:
first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the
current status quo that this proposal will mainly affect the "Online"
project at TDF's infra.
Not only. I can also n
Hi Marco,
You called me on the topic thrice (as proposer, in the current Board and
most probably in the next) so I think your email requires my answer now.
Il 20/12/21 20:34, Marco Marinello ha scritto:
first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the current
status quo that th
Hi Marco,
since you specifically asked me to comment -
Marco Marinello wrote:
> first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the current
> status quo that this proposal will mainly affect the "Online" project at
> TDF's infra.
>
Conversely, I believe it would be wise to structure
Hi Marco,
Thank you for your questions!
There has been a lot of positive changes regarding the Online in the
last year; like that the CODE docker images have no limits of users or
documents any more; that the documentation is freely available to
anyone at
https://sdk.collaboraonline.com/ ;
th
Dear Thorsten, Emiliano, board, dear TDF members, all,
first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the current
status quo that this proposal will mainly affect the "Online" project at
TDF's infra.
I have to say, as a contributor of LibreOffice Online and a member of
TDF, this pr
Dear board, dear TDF members, all,
as mentioned a few times during board calls, Emiliano and me have been
drafting a proposal what to do with no-longer-active projects at TDF.
Here's the draft we're both happy with:
-%<--
## Introd
40 matches
Mail list logo
