Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Hi Michael, members, community! Sharing my answers, thanks for the questions! On 04.09.2020 08:17, Michael Meeks wrote: ... * many MC members say they want to expand the membership. Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its number of those involved in development: coding, UX, translation, documentation etc. + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ? Let me clarify what I think about "gain new contributors" and "expand the membership". About "gain new contributors", my perspective is regional. Years ago, some Latin American members agreed we should do a step ahead to growing our local community. In that moment, we saw we had many difficulties in Brazil (including losing contributors), but many potential in the other Latin American countries. Jumping to now, after a great first Latin American Conference and also a great Conference in Spain (which was too important for us too), we can say that our regional community (nowadays we have said Ibero-American) is much better than before. About "expand the membership", I think it's a natural result of the "gain new contributors". Get *more* members is important (new people, new ideas, new goals...) but, as I told in my candidacy statement, my main personal focus as a candidate will be continue to work with the mcm-script to provide better support to our members. + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting more marginal contributions for membership cf. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ? I don't have difference (core or marginal) in my personal approach, as we have a non-exhaustive list of types of contributions in §10 b.) of the statutes. Of course the explicit types of contributions listed there are our main references to approve or deny a new member in the MC, but, in many cases, we should check applications in a wide perspective (for example, organizing an official conference, advocating for the project in a public/academic institution, managing a Facebook group with thousands of participants, etc). * If you've stood before, approximately how many people have you encouraged to apply for membership ? I'm going to answer in a wide perspective (as I'm currently a MC member). I already encouraged a lot of people to apply, from many different areas (counting successes and fails). No idea how many, but I'm glad to remember two nice cases: a translator who simply didn't know he could be a member and a documentation volunteer who had his application denied in the past because the language barrier. * How many applications have you voted against ? As in the previous question, also an uncountable amount since 2016. * Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge between membership and non-membership that encourages a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to achieve full membership ? I think some actions like our Open Badges awards are interesting to recognize contributions from non-members. But I believe they are more related with Marketing/Communication than with the process of membership. In other words, it's a recognition for the contributor and can be a tool for the MC, but I don't believe that it should be in the formal path to reach the membership. * When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings, code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how should other MC members validate that ? Search for more information, asking for references to another members or asking directly to the person. Discuss until reach a consensus. Suggest he/she to reapply in future if contributions aren't clear. * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion be transparent (ie. publicly available) ? I guess we could split it in small topics. I'm going to comment two here. About applications, I think we are fine publishing our minutes with the current format (I mean renewed and new applications). I think we shouldn't publish additional information (MC member votes or comments in applications, for example) as they could be interpreted as personal information. There are also some issues related with the European GDPR. Unfortunately, K-J , who started to check it's implications in our process, isn't longer with us. About other process, I think it's mandatory sharing contents and activities. I'm trying to do it with all aspects related with the mcm-script (as I presented in Almería) and other current MC members are doing the same with another topics. * How do you believe we can improve the existing election system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ? + I'm interested in where we have the situation that being
Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Op 5-9-2020 om 18:07 schreef Dennis Roczek: I talked to many different contributors and mostly they simply do not know that there is something like a membership and also do not have any interest in another mail address and ask what are their gains in getting into the club. Still not really a clue what they advantages are. * Libreoffice.org e-mail * Able to vote and get voted for. - However currently not interested being active in MC - Voting on people I don't really know. So can't really asses their quality They formal task of MC not that spectacular and the informal tasks don't go about strategic decision either So voting for MC which doesn't have big role (not saying irrelevant). Except MC members maybe move up to BoD I wouldn't really mind if they sitting MC would recruit the new MC members themselves (co-option) Maybe they know even better who are capable or not. I don't get the feeling to having more influence by being a member or not. They membership is more a TDF organizational/governmental requirement (so needed for TDF perspective) instead for they members being member. TDF needs they members to have a group who can vote and be voted for. To prevent outsiders to get control over TDF (MC/BoD) They only advantage for the members themselves is maybe a role at TDF. Or to show affiliation / association with TDF. Might have hoped for some more strategical information (in a role of a members) . Some 'inside' information. Some exclusivity. There is not even a roadmap for what to expect for next release. Say what project planning is; I mostly assume devs working towards something. So some kind of planning. If it's simplification of code or new feature. Not that I want to pin people on deadlines or whatever. But to get some impression what's playing. It's still a kind of black box.. Release plan filled after being finished. Their is for example the jumbo sheet project; it's still at experimental (for good reason). However no clue what the targeted time frame is; Especially after it got announced in Release notes for 7.0. To silence they angry mob for now. Not that it's actually stable or usable. But no clue about what the idea currently is. They "Marketing in Vendor Neutral FLOSS Projects" could have been discussed internally with members (before being posted online). Or they whole discussion on marketing strategy (Personal Edition). If there is a place where they discussion should be, it's at member level. I still prefer some secrecy. Not everything should be argued en public.. transparency is nice but not everything. Exclusivity is also a thing. Still love a non-public forum like of thing for members only. [Please not as mailing list]. And would make it possible to communicate/ share thoughts a bit more freely/openly. They board could post some (provocative) question/ insight. And members given the ability to react. Even a member could start a discussion. It's the BoD who has the ultimate say. Consulting they MC. Both must make up their minds based upon the members input (and maybe weighting some other concerns like profit of eco-system partners) They MC needs to be their to be consulted and to give advice to they BoD. With ultimately they impeachment card. So Marketing plan shouldn't be posted on public mailing list, before they members are consulted. Only the 'accorded' version should go public (fiat from BoD/MC) after members got consulted. They public response could still make it necessary to adjust. But there was an internal discussion in advance. Instead of they Personal Edition mess. They members could also get some more details/regular updates on they research for say commercial route. This would give membership some actual advantage, I think. Telesto -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Hi again :)
Am 05.09.20 um 18:32 schrieb Muhammet Kara:
> By the way, let me try to explain the problem/unfairness described above a
> bit by example, for the ones who are not familiar with the issue:
>
> A and B are working in the company X
> C and D are working in the company Y
>
> They all run in the MC elections
>
> A got the 1st position (becomes member)
> B got the 2nd position (becomes member)
> C got the 3rd position (becomes member)
> D got the 6th position (becomes deputy member)
>
> Because of the affiliation restriction, both A and B having the same
> affiliation, one of them (let's say B) steps down from MC position, and is
> kicked out of the MC completely. But C and D, although they have the same
> affiliation, stay at their positions. So B is, in a way, punished for getting
> too many votes. See the unfairness?
So now I understand the problem. Seems to me rather a handling glitch ;-)
Is it right that a deputy member is - in all practical matters - seen as a
member of the body but without a vote (attends meetings in an active role,
shares all information etc.)? Then the CoI-Rule surely should apply for deputy
members as well. This is imho the necessary solution because this affiliated
deputy member ("D") could only step in if a member with the same affiliation
("C") steps back; otherwise the CoI-Rule would prevent him/her to observe
his/her duty.
Legal advice needed: Is a "deputy member" also a case of "member"? If "yes"
then the case is ruled by the statute's CoI-Rule anyway. If in doubt or if not,
then:
There is § 12 (5) which reads "The details of the induction and expulsion from
the Membership Committee shall be regulated by a community by-law from the
Board of Directors."
So these by-laws maybe could have ruled (or specified the handling of) such a
case; so the BoD is free to change or add such rules.
So maybe no need to tweak the statutes - at least for the MC. But imho we need
a solution for this for the BoD also. So a "yes" would be appreciated :-)
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann
--
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
Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Hi Am 04.09.20 um 13:17 schrieb Michael Meeks: > .. > + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting > more marginal contributions for membership cf. > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing As § 10 (3) of our statutes read "The details of the induction and exclusion from the Board of Trustees shall be regulated by a community by-law from the Board of Directors..." So I see just a little influence of the MC on this. It's rather at the BoD to make things clear on this topic. > * Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge > between membership and non-membership that encourages > a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to > achieve full membership ? No. Purpose? You do contribute - then you qualify for application. I've see rather the opposite view: People contributing a lot but don't feel that this qualifies them to apply. And even if they knew that they qualify, they often ask "Why should I do so?" > * When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings, > code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to > decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for > MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how > should other MC members validate that ? Interesting question. For example myself - no translated strings, code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc. at least in the last few years. And there are even more persons fitting into that schedule (beside their work payed for by the TDF). Seems high time to discuss this community by-law. > > * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion > be transparent (ie. publicly available) ? Afaik the decisions are publicly available and send out per mail to all members every three month :-) - and this is btw more than the BoD does ;-) . The metrics used by the MC - as far as metrics apply - should be also available for the public (btw: Aren't they?). For the rest: Perhaps we need better defined criteria (c.f. community by-law). Normally these "soft" engagements are in public and so per definition traceable for the public. Other way round: Threw out Mike Sch. just because his work can't be seen (by it's very nature) publicly? At least in a few cases some trust in the decisions of the mc seems unavoidable. Questions or public discussion should always be possible, but not get the standard procedure. > * How do you believe we can improve the existing election > system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ? To solve what problem? Wasn't this... > + I'm interested in where we have the situation that > being too popular can stop you being able to > engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with > Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy > in the last Board election. ...a clear matter of § 8 (4) of the statutes to avoid a CoI? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Uwe Altmann -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Hi Michael, I missed something. ;-) Am 05.09.2020 um 18:07 schrieb Dennis Roczek: >> * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion >> be transparent (ie. publicly available) ? > Most internal discussions are about improving the tools or about > concrete applications. The discussion about applications should NOT be > public. Discussions about how the tools should or could be improved > (e.g. dashboard) can be opened without any problems. I missed to add a reason why the discussion about the application should not be published: see our disaster with the mascot: if we make everything in public the members of the MC might get spammed, pushed, and bullied. Even more fatal: some groups might get pushy to get their folks into the group. Moreover the GDPR sometimes prohibits every discussion public: as already said we do have corner cases with heath issues, corona-problems, being too young and other cases which do not should be public! Best, Dennis -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Hi Michael, Andreas, dear members of BoT, On 9/4/20 2:17 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Andreas, On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote: b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question to the candidates! That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the members / contributors a voice and a say. Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with. Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to know from each candidate: What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope. * many MC members say they want to expand the membership. Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its number of those involved in development: coding, UX, translation, documentation etc. + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ? + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting more marginal contributions for membership cf. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing First of all. I don't think lowering the threshold for membership is a good idea. Bringing people who doesn't contribute to the project regularly, and who probably doesn't follow what's going on, into TDF membership wouldn't bring any value into the project/community, and might even be considered harmful, I think. So I have two main ways in mind for expanding the membership base: 1- Finding the ones who are already contributing silently, but who are not aware of the importance of the membership, or who doesn't see themselves "worthy" for membership. (Yeah, I've seen such people. They usually don't think what they do is enough for membership. But their contributions are very valuable in fact.) I have already found & invited tens of contributors during my current term in the MC. Some regular code contributors and long-time translators are among them. I keep an eye on various sources to spot those contributors, but I especially focus on the code contributors & translators because it is more efficient use of time for me (because of my experience/expertise in those areas) as a former translator and current developer. 2- Reaching out to people, especially the young ones, to bring fresh blood into the project/community, mostly through organizing & running events, and helping mentor/onboard/welcoming the newcomers to the project. I think, of course without neglecting the general public, focusing on the universities & colleges is the most efficient way of gaining new contributors and increasing our project's chances of survival in the future. For example, I have been applying/experimenting-with a cascaded/layered strategy about this lately: Reach out to as many as possible students/people via large-scale events like conference & presentations etc, to ansure exposure to FLOSS concepts and familiarity with LibreOffice & TDF. That is the first contact. Then through the connection you got, try to engage them in active contribution events like workshops & bug-hunting-sessions etc. And hope for the best. :) One example of what is described above is the LibreOffice Developer Bootcamp (large scale, with weekly lessons & assignments), and the LibreOffice Development Workshop (small-scale) we run after that. We gained several active contributors from this series, including translators, and developers (2 of GSoC 2020 students of LibreOffice are from here). Now we -yes, started as I, but now it is we :)- are planning for the next run of this series. + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ? 1- Improved sense of belonging for the active contributors, and an increased chance for a longer contribution period. 2- A more vibrant/lively community with many active contributors, and hopefully some positive effect on the sustainability of the project. (Volunteer contributors may also become full-time/paid open source developers, so a double win for the community.) * If you've stood before, approximately how many people have you encouraged to apply for membership ? Tens of people. Probably less then 50. * How many applications have you voted against ? Can't tell. Maybe less than 10? Based on my experience, the approval & rejection decisions have been mostly made unanimously in the MC. I guess that's because opinions and evidence are shared before the voting, so if there is strong evidence against (or lack of any evidence altogether) an application, it gets rejected, and if evidence is in favor of the application, then it gets approved. Of course, there are also edge cases, which are the most difficult ones. So, I expect the "voted-against" number to be similar (but not exactly the same) for all members of the current MC. * Do you believe we should have a
Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..
Hello Michael, Am 04.09.2020 um 13:17 schrieb Michael Meeks: > * many MC members say they want to expand the membership. > Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its > number of those involved in development: coding, UX, > translation, documentation etc. > > + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ? > > + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting > more marginal contributions for membership cf. > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing > > + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ? contributors who are willing to help users in Ask, on mailing lists, usenet and other forums and this over all languages. We do also have other projects (e.g. ODFToolkit) who are mostly loosely connected to the TDF. I talked to many different contributors and mostly they simply do not know that there is something like a membership and also do not have any interest in another mail address and ask what are their gains in getting into the club. > * If you've stood before, approximately how many people have > you encouraged to apply for membership ? I'm not sure. I asked many and I'm still trying to convince more contributors although my success-rate should be improved. :-/ > * How many applications have you voted against ? I guess this question is only for the existing membership committee. I have no statistics, but in the end it is something between "one or two hands". Some contributors for example were corner-cases since a few years or some which we couldn't verify by all good faith. > * Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge > between membership and non-membership that encourages > a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to > achieve full membership ? We need badges! There needs more "gamification", although I do not like the "hat hunt" for the next badge (hence one reason why I quite Wikipedia). If our OpenBadget system is in place: yes, we should also add a badge for being a member. But the main "problem" is that many contributors are "only" subscribed to some mailing lists and helping users won't see badges nor know anything of membership. We have to - at least - inform these contributors. > * When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings, > code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to > decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for > MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how > should other MC members validate that ? That depends. I do not believe that we have any problems in accepting or declining applications. We do have a problem to get contributors to the application form! There might be some *seldom* corner-cases where we have to believe or need some third-party answer as we are having problems to verify the contributions. Especially for the last case it is important to have as much as possible diversity within the mc to know at least who to ask, which was not easy in the past as Asian contributors were missing. > * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion > be transparent (ie. publicly available) ? Most internal discussions are about improving the tools or about concrete applications. The discussion about applications should NOT be public. Discussions about how the tools should or could be improved (e.g. dashboard) can be opened without any problems. > * How do you believe we can improve the existing election > system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ? I'm not really sure, if we do need any improvement. At least I do not have any suggestion as I do not believe that we do have any problem within the statues. > + I'm interested in where we have the situation that > being too popular can stop you being able to > engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with > Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy > in the last Board election. As mentioned in some other response, we do have a problem with COI like in the mentioned cases.I do have a problem with MC members stepping down for getting voted to the BoD, but to answer your question: simply getting more people running for the MC will statistical reduce the possibility of getting into such problems. Luckily this year many candidates run for MC and thus our members have a real choice! @everybody: please use your tokens and vote! > Thanks for any answers =) Thanks for your questions. > Michael. Best regards, Dennis Roczek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Collecting proposals on TDF subsidiary
Hi Paolo, Hi Florian, Thanks Florian for the new proposal. Personally I do like the idea of having a Lux-based company. I still have some questions about the "TDF Services SIS Proposal Draft" 1) "TDF’s fully owned Social Impact company (Société d’Impact Sociétal)" --> Does that mean that the TDF is also fully responsible? Then I have to ask what is different to the general idea that the TDF can do it on its own without having another layer? How does this work with Germans law of a foundation? 2) "TDF may also decide to buy services from TDF Services, once its fully operational, and use it as itsown service provider to streamline and make more efficient the running of shared operations." Does this mean that the TDF won't open any new code-tenders but simply hand the tasks over? 3) I'm still missing (hence might not be worked on in this published proposal) what happens if something goes wrong? How can the TDF take down SIS and take over and regain the App Store rights and existing App Store users? 4) and of course, what Stephan Ficht asked. ;-) Best regards, Dennis Roczek Am 26.08.2020 um 11:29 schrieb Florian Effenberger: > Hello, > > as discussed during the last board calls, the board is currently > collecting proposals on a TDF subsidiary. For that, we've created a > folder "TDF Subsidiary" in the Nextcloud "TDF Members" share, where the > various ideas will be collected. > > The folder is also publicly available at > > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq > > Please do consider all content as a draft, work-in-progress state that > is subject to discussion and changes. Note that the documents do not > represent any official board opinion, statement or vote, but are drafted > by individual members or groups. > > The first proposal added so far is the one by Paolo Vecchi on a > Luxemburg entity. > > The board is eager to get the discussion started, preferably on the > public board-discuss mailing list. > > Florian > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Questions To MC Candidates
Hi Andreas & all, On 8/31/20 9:06 PM, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi Uwe, all, Am 29.08.20 um 06:39 schrieb Uwe Altmann: Hi Andreas Am 28.08.20 um 08:18 schrieb Andreas Mantke: (...) b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first sentence in the statutes § 12? This seems only of interest in case a member of the BoD wants to get a member of the MC to prevent or influence a pending lawsuit against himself. It is surely desirable to have prevented such a possibility by our statues - but nothing is perfect. And some kind of self-commitment will not prevent such a case. On the other hand the time schedule of the board and mc elections is a bit cumbersome for such an operation. Maybe a look into the second sentence of § 12 is also of interest here. The MC initiate and supervise the board elections. a) Could lead to a conflict of interest? It is hard to say 'never' to such things with many aspects, but I can't think of a general case right now. One needs to resign from the MC before nominating for the BoD elections, and he/she is out of the MC loop immediately. And it is no longer possible to have an effect on the election process any more. b) Is not showing solidarity (if MC membership is canceled or suspended), because more work on less shoulder? It depends. In terms of the number of the MC members, role of the resigning member etc. But I wouldn't expect it to have any significant effect on the process of the BoD elections. It is mostly an automated/technical process. Regards, Muhammet Regards, Andreas -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Questions To MC Candidates
Hi Andreas, On 8/28/20 9:18 AM, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi, I have two first questions to the candidates: a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you already participated in board calls during the last two years as external (non-member)? Yes, a few times. But I usually skim through the minutes, and read the interesting (to me, as a member of BoT & MC) parts in detail. b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first sentence in the statutes § 12? Didn't think about it specifically before, but after checking the statutes again based on your question, and reading through some of the replies, Uwe's take makes sense to me. Regards, Muhammet Regards, Andreas -- 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
