Hi all, On 18/11/2022 10:27, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
It seems like Thorsten hasn't been following the progress, might have forgotten what has been agreed at LibOCon and might have forgot what has been said during the board meeting on Monday.But if there is not yet (after nine month of work) a final proposal that could be voted on, what is missing to get to this state.What is still missing, is a proposal that gets a majority behind it. With Kendy's resignation, that work just got dealt a massive set-back.
As agreed with all the board the proposal has been sent to our legal counsel for a final verification before the vote.
With that done there was only once sentence left to discuss:"TDF in-house developers will not compete with commercial contributors and will not develop alternative implementations of Open Source projects actively maintained by LibreOffice volunteer or corporate contributors – like Collabora Online, mdds, or cppunit."
I proposed to remove that from the "Concerns expressed by the commercial contributors" section as we agreed months ago that eventual scope limitations linked to commercial contributors is covered by the text in page 1:
"Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on which the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are already engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate agreements and relevant communications between TDF and the third parties."
Then Jan resigned.Thorsten's statements may lead some to think that reality is perceived in different ways by different people:
" * Kendy resigned because no compromise was reached * stop here and restart, from a clean slate * if quick action is required instead, tender out as contracted work?"(I won't comment much on the perceived attempt of delaying this proposal further as my comments on a similar thread led to my "conviction" for a CoC offence by the board. As I complained about the fact that the case has been handled by someone that didn't demonstrate much objectivity and impartiality in my regards, the board decided to spend time and money to find an external "communication expert" to deal with the case. Apparently I'll be actively censored if I discuss the case further, internally or externally, so I'm not sure if I can comment more about it. For those that forgot, this was the public accusation:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00554.html)The board agreed on the process and has access to all the versions being created, the document has been vetted by our legal counsel and the last sentence is covered by previously agreed text so I believe this version is ready to be voted on:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB 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
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
