Hi all, On 01/12/2022 14:05, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Marina, all,Marina Latini wrote: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 [...]Sorry for not having explained this in a proper way. The work is not trashed, as you say it's living on in the new proposal.
As we can see from the few lines of the new proposal one of the issues was still present until Jean-Baptiste pointed out the same issue I managed to get Jan to understand.
The other crucial bit of the proposal that gives away the real logic around it is this:
"- for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility *for LibreOffice** ** core*; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. *After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables,** ** Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus** ** areas;* " That's another very crafty way to get the same result as this sentence:"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."
There was nothing else that caused controversy in the proposal with Jan as with the legal review we ironed out everything else.
Why was it shelved? Because Kendy resigned over it,
A chairman repeating a false statement and ignoring the proof of the contrary doesn't look good.
Kendy even kindly told Cor to stay out of it when he wanted to propose a similar version of his "KISS approach" as we were progressing very well.
Kendy resigned when he has seen he could not find ways to justify the above sentence to impose a limitation that apparently was essential to him.
Cor practically confirmed that commenting: " * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare * from legal aspects and organizational wise" and by trying to impose the same limitation in a different way.As both our chairman and Cor relay on opacity to keep going on with unfounded accusations and false statements I've asked the board to release the relevant emails.
At least we could settle the matter and get back to the original proposal, vote it and let the team do the rest.
and he and Paolo worked over many details. The board would need to restart that, from a relatively early stage.
In his various comments our chairman has shown that he prefers to go with a new proposal put together in, probably half an hour, which has created and will created more controversies down the line than evaluate the one that has already covered many of those issues.
What has been proposed anyway still point to the original proposal: "Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal"So the rationale I wrote and the focus areas I collected are OK to be recycled in this other proposal? Why excluding the "Mentoring and TDF’s educational mission" which all must know is very important?
Why also excluding 10 to 12 which are the parts on which we put most of the efforts to find all the compromises that would make everyone happy?
Why not keeping everything apart from page 13 which seems the most controversial one?
The fact that for a majority of the board, the proposal was not acceptable in its current state, was I think made clear.
Actually the board never explained what is not acceptable.Then stating "* seems number of people disagree" and seeing that the number is 2 doesn't make it a majority of the board.
Seeing the the complaint from Cor is related to the same limitation for which Jan allegedly resigned then some doubts start coming up.
Didn't I read something somewhere in relation to directors that have a declared interest should not influence the decision process on a specific item?
How is called if that interest is declared after having influenced a decision?
Maybe we should find the answer to those questions before carrying on with this "new proposal"?
Cheers, -- Thorsten
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
