Hi Sophie,
Thanks for expressing your concerns on the matter. Given the situation,
I can only understand that. Although I think it is not needed to expect
something weird or bad to happen.
Wrt my comments: see the minutes of the meeting at 2022-11-14:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html
It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this
evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable.
Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house
developers.
So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team
members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work?
Cheers,
Cor
sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50:
Hi Cor, all,
Le 27/11/2022 à 17:41, Cor Nouws a écrit :
Hi all,
I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my
spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for
hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was
IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and
explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting.
I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people
and not to the background of the document.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the
feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the
board plus the legal review should still be problematic.
Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another
proposal of course with great support from others.
I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_
supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board
members, community members?
I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us
to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.
With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote
the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in
place currently with the team involved at all stage?
Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions
(and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything
essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer.
I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions?
I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have
in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but
deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community,
the team, the board and the lawyers.
We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people
who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who
will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis).
Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not
the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite
line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't
pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks.
Sophie
--
Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001
skype : cornouws
blog : cor4office-nl.blogspot.com
jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org
--
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
