Hello Cor, hi all,
during the last board call on Monday, I unsuccessfully tried to get
clarifications about this new "proposal" for hiring in-house developers.
I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9
months of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the
"abstract" of the previous document with some changes that are even
bringing more controversial problems on the table (like for example how
many positions will be opened for hiring the in-house developers - one,
two, many).
In parallel with this, I'm still not buying the explanation given to the
exclusion of one elected board member from the work on this new
"proposal". During the call you replied to me in a contradictory way,
first saying that Paolo and Kendy have been excluded, than stating that
the new "proposal" have been worked on when Kendy was already out of the
board...that brings back again to "just Paolo being excluded".
I attended the board call, I read the thread here and, also to me,
Sophie's questions are valid and still unanswered.
This "proposal" is just ignoring all the work done in the last 9 months
and it reduces the previous publicly available document to just an
analysis of the areas where this potential in-house developers could
work on, when and if the ESC will give the permission to work.
And, BTW, I agree with the concerns already expressed by others in
having this in-house developers reporting to the ESC instead of the ED
and from him to the board like all the others.
On this particular point I'm also having a sense of déjà vu. I remember
the board discussed the very same idea of "special" reporting chain when
in the past there was the discussion about the developer mentor. ...and
as far as I remember, also at that time the discussion was quite heated
and at the end the "special" reporting chain proposal was dropped. So,
I'm wondering, why we have again the same non working approach on the
discussion table?!
For what concerns the legal review of the hiring proposal, I would
disagree that there's no need to have a legal review for it.
I would like to remind that TDF is based in Germany and that the hiring
proposal will need to clearly define the job role, the tasks that the
new hire will work on, the expectations for what concerns deliverables,
the working hours etc.
So, if in the voted proposal parts of those topics are touched, a legal
review is needed (and to me, it looks like this).
If as you seems to hint, the proposal is just something generic for
approving to hire someone and the details of the job offer will be
clarified in a separate document, your "proposal" should just mention
that the board resolves to hire the in-house developers and that the
details of the job offer and the contract will be provided in a separate
document reviewed by TDF's legal counsel.
The board resolution can't mix up the two things. If the resolution is
really intended to cover the "full package", your proposal is actually
incomplete and can't be voted on.
My two cents,
Marina
--
Marina Latini
IRC: deneb_alpha on LiberaChat
--
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
