Thanks for this, Jeremy. Since this is not the first time this user has behaved in a manner detrimental to the discourse on the list, including displaying the patterns of behaviour you describe towards me as well, I join you in your complaint and ask the Board to intervene.
Cheers Simon On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 7:15 PM Jeremy Allison <j...@google.com> wrote: > Paulo, > > As a result of this email I have made a complaint about you violating > the Document Foundation code of conduct. > > > https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/#:~:text=Please%20be%20helpful%2C%20considerate%2C%20friendly,exemplary%20behaviour%20by%20all%20participants > . > > Specifically, "Please be helpful, considerate, friendly and respectful > towards all other participants." > > Your emails are full of passive aggressive insinuations about other > Board and Document Foundation members. Examples include: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Some, for odd reasons, seem to be less keen in putting their proposals > under the community's scrutiny." > > "On some topics we work constructively together while in others it looks > like some changes are being violently pushed back by some. > > The rationale for opposing some changes is generally not expressed in > full but, reading a recent comment, some community members seem to be > forming a clear opinion about it." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > If you have evidence of mal-intent, please present it directly with > the names of the people you are accusing. > > I respectfully request you stop behaving in such a way. If you > persist, I will request a sanction on your participation on this list. > > A community is defined by what behaviors they allow. I do not accept > your behavior on this list. > > Regards, > > Jeremy Allison. > Document Foundation Advisory Board member. > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 2:54 AM Paolo Vecchi > <paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > On 25/05/2022 08:54, Michael Weghorn wrote: > > > > > > Hi Andreas, all, > > > > > > On 24/05/2022 23.09, Andreas Mantke wrote: > > >> I follow the thread(s) about hiring two in-ho use developers by TDF > for > > >> some month yet. I got the impression that there are some TDF members > > >> which might have no real interest in getting this task done. They are > > >> asking only questions and didn't submit any solutions or proposals for > > >> solutions. And once all valuable input from TDF members had been > > >> incorporated in the document the beforehand mentioned members try to > > >> start the whole process with a new proposal. > > >> > > >> It seemed there is a approach behind this behavior: postpone the whole > > >> topic as far as possible. And try to frustrate the members who try to > > >> drive this topic forward. > > > > > > I agree that it is frustrating to see what is going on and to get the > > > impression that it seems to be impossible to work together on a common > > > proposal. > > > > > > Obviously, I am not able to judge what each one's motivation is. > > > > > > However, from following the discussion so far, I don't think it is > > > fair to blame only "one side" for the state of affairs. > > > > > > While I am generally in favor of Paolo's proposal, I share the > > > impression that various concerns or suggestions have not been dealt > > > with adequately so far. > > > > > > For example: Michael has asked for an ODF version of the proposal so > > > that he could suggest changes and he pointed out some specific issues > > > he saw in the proposal e.g. in [1]. > > > Unless I'm missing something, he didn't receive any reply to that (at > > > least none on the public mailing list) and at a quick glance, (most > > > of) the mentioned passages are still unchanged in the current version > > > of the proposal. > > > > You are right, I did not provide Michael Meeks an ODF version as I > > wanted this process to be transparent for all. > > > > I've asked from the beginning for everyone to make their proposals in > > board-discuss so that everyone would see what changes were being > requested. > > > > You may have noticed that there are still calls by some to create a > > small group within the board to discuss changes behind closed doors. I'm > > still wondering why as no rationale has been provided on board-discuss > > or within the board. > > > > > > > > Obviously, I can't speak for him, but I could at least understand to > > > some extent in case he felt unheard and that doing an own > > > counter-proposal would be the only way of his suggestions not just > > > being ignored completely... > > > > As you can see if Michael Meeks wants to propose something he can do it > > even without having an ODF at hand. > > > > Regarding his suggestions he may have not noticed that in page 10 there > > the proposal has been updated nearly 2 weeks ago: > > > > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/sfJeNq7H9GS8YPe > > > > You may also notice that Michael Meeks didn't propose improvements to > > the current proposal, he is actually proposing get rid of the developers > > from the proposal. > > > > Someone may wonder why does he needed the ODF of the proposal with a > > full rationale for it if the aim was to say don't employ developers but > > just a mentor. > > > > We have already 2 mentors, which are doing an excellent job, but the > > underlying issues described in the proposal will not be fixed by adding > > another mentor IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > My impression is that there seems to be no clear process of how to > > > work together on a proposal, how to suggest changes,... > > > > > > Doesn't the BoD have any defined process for doing so? > > > > There are processes we follow for some areas. Other areas can and should > > be in the open so that the community can participate and see how the > > proposals are being influenced. > > > > Some, for odd reasons, seem to be less keen in putting their proposals > > under the community's scrutiny. > > > > Eg. I've asked the board several times to publish on board-discuss the > > proposal for a QA Analyst before it got put in the budget so that the > > community could express its opinion about it. > > > > My requests have always been ignored by the author of the proposal. > > He may have missed my emails but I suppose that our chairman, which is > > also his direct superior at work, could have made him notice that he > > overlooked some emails from a fellow member of the board. > > > > Also my question on why the job description says that "the most > > important part" is that the QA Analyst should inform the ESC/BoD about > > tenders hasn't received any answers from the author. > > > > So it seems like some internal processes relating to providing > > rationales behind some proposals and full transparency are not really > > working. > > > > > > > > (If somehow working together on the ODF version or talking to each > > > other in person is no option: From a developer's perspective, having > > > the proposal as plain text in a git repo and then allowing people to > > > suggest changes and the "proposal owner" reviewing those sounds like > > > one way that would allow to keep track of suggestions, but that may > > > not be easily usable for non-developers. Having a plain text version > > > being discussed on the mailing list and the proposal owner answering > > > there and integrating changes into the authoritative version sounds > > > like an alternative that might work instead, while having some more > > > overhead. But there are probably other ways...) > > > > As above it seems like some processes are not working as they should and > > we haven't yet implemented the right tool for this specific job which > > should give a voice also to non developers. > > > > > > > >> In my opinion the whole process and the behavior of beforehand > mentioned > > >> members is not in the interest of TDF. If that would be the way how > > >> members will work together during the current board term the future of > > >> TDF will not be bright. > > > > > > Again, I wouldn't limit that to the "beforehand mentioned members", > > > but to the (at least perceived) inability to work together > > > constructively when there are different opinions. > > > > If there are different opinions/interests then, IMHO, the best thing to > > do is to make them public so that our community can express their own > > opinions. > > > > Now we can clearly see that a member of our community and representative > > of a commercial contributor prefers to have mentors instead of > developers. > > > > I have the impression that the wider community prefers to have actual > > developers so, which voice should we follow? > > > > > > > > Quoting from a previous email of mine in one of the threads [2]: > > > > > >> In my previous email, I wrote: "Assuming members in the involved > > >> LibreOffice/TDF bodies found a way to work together constructively, > > >> my current > > >> impression is that this approach could be for the benefit of all." > > >> > > >> I admit that this will probably be very hard if members of the > involved > > >> LibreOffice/TDF bodies don't find a way to work together > > >> constructively, but > > >> rather "fight against each other". But I think that's a problem on a > > >> completely > > >> different level, and I don't see how TDF can properly serve it's > > >> purpose then > > >> anyway, regardless of the specific question around TDF-internal > > >> developers > > >> being discussed here... > > > > > > > On some topics we work constructively together while in others it looks > > like some changes are being violently pushed back by some. > > > > The rationale for opposing some changes is generally not expressed in > > full but, reading a recent comment, some community members seem to be > > forming a clear opinion about it. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Michael > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00357.html > > > [2] > > > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00209.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 > > > > -- > 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 > > -- *Simon Phipps* *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Signal/Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816
