So, why no one raised their voices when members of the ecosystem gave their opinions in public interviews defaming TDF's activities, huh?
El 28 de mayo de 2022 12:09:33 p. m. GMT-03:00, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> escribió: >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
