Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?
Hi Thorsten, Daniel, hi all, Thorsten could you please explain in detail the invitation to the meeting on July, 8th? Who has been in the meeting, and by which medium and during which time frame? Did you document the meeting? Who signed that document? Was the document sent to All members of the board and to the MC? Was the document published? Has the document been archived at TDF archive? The above is the minimum according to par. 9 of the statutes. If this rules were not followed there is definitively no decision taken before the moderation took place. Regards, Andreas Am 1. Dezember 2022 00:52:34 MEZ schrieb Thorsten Behrens : >Hi Daniel, > >Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: >> And that does not look like a board decision to me. >> >The vote was to document an earlier decision on Friday, July 8th, that >happened via phone, messenger and chat. Mind that it was vacation time, >and several directors had no immediate access to their email. > >Cheers, Thorsten > >-- >Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board >The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany >Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts >Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint > -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?
I wonder if such moderation has anything to do with this??? https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00451.html El 30 de noviembre de 2022 7:54:26 p. m. GMT-03:00, Paolo Vecchi escribió: >Hi all, > >On 30/11/2022 11:39, Thorsten Behrens wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: >>> Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision >>> but yours. >>> >> Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods. > >Not sure if this will surprise anyone but I was not even aware that the >decision was being taken so I've been completely excluded also from that one. >From a procedural point of view I don't think what has been done is valid as >there was no actual emergency for do it. >Unless, as it seems to be standard procedure, I've been excluded also from >evaluating something else that required immediate moderation. > >I realised moderation has been decided and implemented at about 16:30 of the >8th of July as one of my emails bounced back. > >As we all remember it was during a heated discussion about archiving LOOL or >not and rediscovering the Foundation roots. > >"Fun fact": the last message I received before moderation was activated seems >to be the one from Daniel complaining about being harassed by "the supervisor" > >> 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 > --
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?
Hi Daniel, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: > And that does not look like a board decision to me. > The vote was to document an earlier decision on Friday, July 8th, that happened via phone, messenger and chat. Mind that it was vacation time, and several directors had no immediate access to their email. Cheers, Thorsten -- Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[board-discuss] Re: the importance of shepherding this list & TDF
This is not about attack someone but to show that all this narrative you, Cor and Thorsten built during last term and they continue during this one is nothing more than smoke. El 30 de noviembre de 2022 7:55:39 a. m. GMT-03:00, Michael Meeks escribió: > >Hi there, > >On 29/11/2022 23:38, Franklin Weng wrote: >> Believe me or not. > > Let me try to provide a quick counter-balance in this thread. > > It seems to me extraordinary to criticize Thorsten like this for doing > his job - in line with the best practices for communications as adopted by > the board[1] on this list. > > We badly need our E-mail discussion to get more focused and respectful. > Blunt finger pointing: "I don't trust >that person<" seems radically > non-constructive to me. Surely better to work on the real issue - ideally one > to one first (or bring a friend along if you're concerned about that), then > in a larger group if that doesn't work out, before bringing it to everyone > (ideally on tdf-internal). > > I would like to read a lot less E-mail attacking the person not the > ball. I'd also like to see a lot less public board posturing - it has reached > a ridiculous level. > > We have a board director claiming in public that other directors > support his proposal, which then multiple directors point out that they in > fact don't, before them saying again that they actually do etc. It seems like > the Christmas pantomime season complete with comedy audience contradictions > has come early =) > > The huge volume of E-mail on these topics doesn't help anyone. I think > it is safe to assume that wiser counsel is rather restrained when sending > E-mail, and that many read this and think it better not to feed the flames - > apologies if I do that here. > > We elect a board to hammer out compromises - ideally these arrive well > formed and in a way that commands support or acquiescence of the whole board. > In cases where that is impossible then some split vote and ideally a > principled objection E-mail, and closing the topic seems wise. > > We don't elect a board to amplify division & to escalate even > uncontroversial topics (such as hiring two staff members) into some apparent > existential nightmare of posturing to try to 'win' at all costs. It is good > to decide topics and move on. > > I'd like also to try to remove some of the poison here with a personal > take on Thorsten, with whom I've worked on & off for ~twenty years. > > I don't like unqualified "I trust", or "I don't trust" people - partly > because I don't trust myself in some situations[2]; it seems to me a > polarizing loss of nuance. Also - I trust even my political opponents to be > generally decent citizens. However my sphere of trust for Thorsten is > abnormally large. > > Thorsten is someone that TDF is extremely blessed to have in our > community; he has contributed in an overwhelmingly positive way to > LibreOffice and at significant scale. I don't always agree with him - and I > compete with him in the marketplace (as well as partnering) - but his > integrity is something I can rely on. His patience when dealing with > controversy, his balance and desire to find a workable solution is legendary. > > More than that - we are a statutory meritocracy - and Thorsten has > contributed an incredible amount of do-ing to the project not just coding > (and apparently cloning himself[3] =) - but innumerable small acts of > kindness and nurturing behind the scenes. He repeatedly encourages me to > think that: "everyone is really just trying to do what they think is best" > when I loose faith in that. Oh - and did I mention his positive input on the > ESC, serving from our founding on the Board, doing the jobs that no-one > wanted to eg. as an example all the donation book-keeping for many years - > which was done with great probity. > > Did I mention his personal investment in allotropia - which contributes > lots of LibreOffice code - this could go on and on but this E-mail is already > an example of the over-long E-mails we have on the list and I just got > started. > > Let me summarize it this way: Thorsten rocks. > > If anyone plans to attack and/or exclude him from TDF - they better > bring a large-ish team of people to try to replace the immense good he does > here. > > TDF needs good people to shepherd the board, and also this mailing > list. It will perhaps be no surprise that I also have received constructive > feedback on improving my tone on the list privately from Thorsten: that's his > job - it's mine to take that to heart. Let me encourage others to listen - > and act likewise. > > Against that - if people believe they are being harassed - they should > report that privately to the CoC committee who will investigate that > sensitively without fear or favor - there is no tolerance for harassment no >
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?
Hi all, On 30/11/2022 11:39, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi Daniel, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision but yours. Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods. Not sure if this will surprise anyone but I was not even aware that the decision was being taken so I've been completely excluded also from that one. From a procedural point of view I don't think what has been done is valid as there was no actual emergency for do it. Unless, as it seems to be standard procedure, I've been excluded also from evaluating something else that required immediate moderation. I realised moderation has been decided and implemented at about 16:30 of the 8th of July as one of my emails bounced back. As we all remember it was during a heated discussion about archiving LOOL or not and rediscovering the Foundation roots. "Fun fact": the last message I received before moderation was activated seems to be the one from Daniel complaining about being harassed by "the supervisor" 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
[board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?
Please, I appreciate that you don't treat me as a stupid. A little search into the mailing list history shows that decision was put in place 'some time' after moderation was applied. https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00784.html Moderation was in place from 8 Jul 2022 on BUT https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00838.html Decision is from 2022-07-19 And that does not look like a board decision to me. El 30 de noviembre de 2022 7:39:06 a. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens escribió: >Hi Daniel, > >Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: >> Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision >> but yours. >> >Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods. > >Cheers, Thorsten > >-- >Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board >The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany >Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts >Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint > --
Re: [board-discuss] the importance of shepherding this list & TDF
Hi Michael and all, On 30/11/2022 11:55, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi there, On 29/11/2022 23:38, Franklin Weng wrote: > Believe me or not. Let me try to provide a quick counter-balance in this thread. It seems to me extraordinary to criticize Thorsten like this for doing his job - I have no doubt that Thorsten is very good at his job as a developer. I surely don't have an adequate level of experience to criticise his coding skills so I never put in doubt that he has been doing great things for the advancement of LibreOffice as a volunteer and as a contracted party through tendering. In relation to his skills as a director and as a chairman for TDF I've expressed my opinions in public in a very diplomatic way and concerning only a small subset of the criticisms that IMHO he deserves which, for the moment, I'm holding off hoping that he will improve his attitude and help settling a number of issues. We have a board director claiming in public that other directors support his proposal, That seems to me like a false statement. I brought the proposal to a vote as that's the process that has been agreed with Jan and the rest of the board: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00993.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01088.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01113.html We elect a board to hammer out compromises That's what we have done with the proposal for months. All the versions of the proposal have been available for anyone to comment on: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj I pretended to have all of this done in public so that everyone could see who was involved and how the proposal was being shaped. - ideally these arrive well formed and in a way that commands support or acquiescence of the whole board. In cases where that is impossible then some split vote and ideally a principled objection E-mail, and closing the topic seems wise. In a normal board with a shared vision for TDF that would be quite easy to achieve. In TDF's board it seems clear that for years there have been also other dynamics at play. We don't elect a board to amplify division & to escalate even uncontroversial topics (such as hiring two staff members) into some apparent existential nightmare of posturing to try to 'win' at all costs. It is good to decide topics and move on. The decision was taken in regards to a process that has been brought forward as agreed. Jan resigned with peculiar motivations and doubled down on that with the last email: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01100.html Someone apparently told him that "Paolo claims that I have signed off the latest version of the Developers proposal" and he was so upset about it that he had to explicitly distance himself from the proposal he has worked on for months. He continues: "That is not true. That version is not balanced, and Paolo’s unwillingness to find balance there was one of the main reasons to my resignation." I consider also that comment quite problematic as the various versions of the proposal, the public and private comments clearly demonstrate that Jan is wilfully posting false statements. (As he's one of your contractors I would have thought that you would have asked him to be careful with what he's posting on a public list as it could have a negative impact also for your company reputation as a contractor, very well known to all, posting false statements even with a non corporate address still doesn't look good at all.) I've actually tried to convince him not to include statements in the proposal that would show Collabora Productivity as imposing limitations. That would not look good for both organisations and on top of it anyone with a minimum of experience on legal matters would have known that it shouldn't have been added. This was the sentence in question: " 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" He tried to get the same "gist" with other formulations that made the situation even worse and then when told we already agreed on the solution months ago he resigned. This is the sentence that easily fixes the issue: "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." Someone surely wants to come up with "it's not just that is also something else" but no, that's all we had left to discuss. Then another director provided his point of view: "*
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Cor, hi all, Am 30.11.22 um 14:20 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 28/11/2022 17:19: if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). I quote your statements from the board-meeting at 14.11.2022: Begin quote -- * really looks as if Paolo's behavior shows a lack of understanding * fundamental principle of TDF being a community * also the balance of cooperating companies * shared interests, statutes restricting influence * Paolo's comments show no understanding * one of the board's major responsibilities to maintain a modus operandi that best serves TDF's goals * respecting, understanding and supporting synergy vital * Paolo’s personal and business situation ignored so far * failed to establish a business relation with Collabora and CIB * interested in other ways to get online solutions? * a one sided, negative, attitude towards ecosystem companies? * now telling TDF/Directors what they should do? * all this has lead to a bad proposal? * the board should look into this issue first End quote -- That's really a reflect on the content only? You blunt attack another board member during a board meeting and the chair of the meeting is not stopping you and give you advise about the netiquette. But everyone who subscribe not to your view get an advise from the chair / moderator. What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? See above. Your words speaks volumes. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Cor, Last mail on my side Le 30/11/2022 à 15:24, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi Sophie, sophi wrote on 30/11/2022 14:37: My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail. So yes, you misunderstood my mail, I repeat: what I read in those minutes is pointing at people and not to the substance of the document, mail for which.. from the minutes: " * I'm still missing information (Cor) * asked comments from Mike * what he wrote on relations between TDF and companies * looks very limited in the light of TDF * and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1 * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare * from legal aspects and organizational wise * very different from contract on properly tendered project " In my understanding that is on the content of the proposal. And sorry that I misunderstood your question. I would have appreciated if you would have let me know. mail for which I still miss part of the answers: - who are the _others_ you talked about? As mentioned in most recent board meeting: all apart from Kendy and Paolo. Kendy had already resigned, so only Paolo - will this new proposal be reviewed by the community? Is ongoing I think. no, it's only part of TDF members, not the community - will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers? That is not needed for a simple proposal to hire people for the team. - what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis. You can't seriously mean you want me to respond to this, do you? I've seen also others already explaining that the length and nature of the old proposal is a problem on it's own. Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included. I was serious, but it seems none of the board wants to give reasons, so I give up. It seems now I've some answers: - all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me See my reply to Emiliano explaining the need and that the idea that Paolo is excluded from the process is false: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01148.html No need, he was excluded, period (me calls a cat a cat :-) - only by part of the members -> which is unacceptable for me when the whole discussion was public and you even inform here on a public list that it won't be public I don't consider the list tdf-internal as a second class place to cooperate. It's only to be expected that members engage there. Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included. I don't say that it's a second class place, just it's only a small subset of the community while the roles will interact with the whole community and there is nothing that requests to be on a private list. - no answer see above. - no answer See above. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? I didn't replied you because I found you mail offensive to me and I didn't want to escalate. Sad that you did not try to let me know somehow etc. That left the stage for someone who is pouring a lot of negativity on top of my head :( I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said. I'm not aware that I tried to turn what you said. Sorry if I gave that impression. And happy to look into this, other details, more closely. Either here, in private mail (with others you prefer in CC) or in a call (with others you prefer present as well). No need for private exchanges, I'm old enough to care only about important things, which here are TDF and its community. Cheers Sophie -- Sophie Gautier so...@libreoffice.org GSM: +33683901545 IRC: soph Foundation coordinator The Document Foundation -- 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:
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Sophie, sophi wrote on 30/11/2022 14:37: My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail. So yes, you misunderstood my mail, I repeat: what I read in those minutes is pointing at people and not to the substance of the document, mail for which.. from the minutes: " * I'm still missing information (Cor) * asked comments from Mike * what he wrote on relations between TDF and companies * looks very limited in the light of TDF * and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1 * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare * from legal aspects and organizational wise * very different from contract on properly tendered project " In my understanding that is on the content of the proposal. And sorry that I misunderstood your question. I would have appreciated if you would have let me know. mail for which I still miss part of the answers: - who are the _others_ you talked about? As mentioned in most recent board meeting: all apart from Kendy and Paolo. - will this new proposal be reviewed by the community? Is ongoing I think. - will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers? That is not needed for a simple proposal to hire people for the team. - what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis. You can't seriously mean you want me to respond to this, do you? I've seen also others already explaining that the length and nature of the old proposal is a problem on it's own. Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included. It seems now I've some answers: - all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me See my reply to Emiliano explaining the need and that the idea that Paolo is excluded from the process is false: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01148.html - only by part of the members -> which is unacceptable for me when the whole discussion was public and you even inform here on a public list that it won't be public I don't consider the list tdf-internal as a second class place to cooperate. It's only to be expected that members engage there. Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included. - no answer see above. - no answer See above. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? I didn't replied you because I found you mail offensive to me and I didn't want to escalate. Sad that you did not try to let me know somehow etc. That left the stage for someone who is pouring a lot of negativity on top of my head :( I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said. I'm not aware that I tried to turn what you said. Sorry if I gave that impression. And happy to look into this, other details, more closely. Either here, in private mail (with others you prefer in CC) or in a call (with others you prefer present as well). thanks, Cor -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi, Le 30/11/2022 à 14:20, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 28/11/2022 17:19: if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail. So yes, you misunderstood my mail, I repeat: what I read in those minutes is pointing at people and not to the substance of the document, mail for which I still miss part of the answers: - who are the _others_ you talked about? - will this new proposal be reviewed by the community? - will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers? - what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis. It seems now I've some answers: - all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me - only by part of the members -> which is unacceptable for me when the whole discussion was public and you even inform here on a public list that it won't be public - no answer - no answer It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? I didn't replied you because I found you mail offensive to me and I didn't want to escalate. I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said. Sophie -- Sophie Gautier so...@libreoffice.org GSM: +33683901545 IRC: soph Foundation coordinator The Document Foundation -- 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] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 28/11/2022 17:19: if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It My reading of Sophie's mail: >>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at >>> people and not to the background of the document. is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes). Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas? Thanks, Cor -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Emiliano, * Although we agreed to discuss the below separately, I think it is good to give some counter-balance right now as well. Emiliano Vavassori wrote on 28/11/2022 22:55: Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is Various people are writing on this list and tdf-internal that they do not appreciate amount/style of discussion. Now, you and me do know the directors mailing list. What shall we say: a factor 10, 15.. times what happens here? And then, as director having a day job that asks your attention and concentration.. You open the mail in the evening, and.. An hour or so later: most mail read and energy lost. So we're trying various concepts that allow all people to join (more) in various stages. IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I No director is excluded from rights nor possibilities to give input or to vote. find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior. Why this dislike? You do not understand or see the need of trying to create a positive, workable and safe working environment? I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. Before you replied to the mail with the draft, the idea of the approach, with an invite to respond with your thoughts, was already sent twice. The when you did reply, I tried to explain the need for that approach in different words. And since consider your input generally very useful and important, I asked you to think about it again. Why is this something to be angry about? I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone. Really, if you feel treated badly in board discussions etc., do speak up, or in private, or try to have a call.. it should not be that way :( Best, Cor -- 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
[board-discuss] the importance of shepherding this list & TDF
Hi there, On 29/11/2022 23:38, Franklin Weng wrote: > Believe me or not. Let me try to provide a quick counter-balance in this thread. It seems to me extraordinary to criticize Thorsten like this for doing his job - in line with the best practices for communications as adopted by the board[1] on this list. We badly need our E-mail discussion to get more focused and respectful. Blunt finger pointing: "I don't trust >that person<" seems radically non-constructive to me. Surely better to work on the real issue - ideally one to one first (or bring a friend along if you're concerned about that), then in a larger group if that doesn't work out, before bringing it to everyone (ideally on tdf-internal). I would like to read a lot less E-mail attacking the person not the ball. I'd also like to see a lot less public board posturing - it has reached a ridiculous level. We have a board director claiming in public that other directors support his proposal, which then multiple directors point out that they in fact don't, before them saying again that they actually do etc. It seems like the Christmas pantomime season complete with comedy audience contradictions has come early =) The huge volume of E-mail on these topics doesn't help anyone. I think it is safe to assume that wiser counsel is rather restrained when sending E-mail, and that many read this and think it better not to feed the flames - apologies if I do that here. We elect a board to hammer out compromises - ideally these arrive well formed and in a way that commands support or acquiescence of the whole board. In cases where that is impossible then some split vote and ideally a principled objection E-mail, and closing the topic seems wise. We don't elect a board to amplify division & to escalate even uncontroversial topics (such as hiring two staff members) into some apparent existential nightmare of posturing to try to 'win' at all costs. It is good to decide topics and move on. I'd like also to try to remove some of the poison here with a personal take on Thorsten, with whom I've worked on & off for ~twenty years. I don't like unqualified "I trust", or "I don't trust" people - partly because I don't trust myself in some situations[2]; it seems to me a polarizing loss of nuance. Also - I trust even my political opponents to be generally decent citizens. However my sphere of trust for Thorsten is abnormally large. Thorsten is someone that TDF is extremely blessed to have in our community; he has contributed in an overwhelmingly positive way to LibreOffice and at significant scale. I don't always agree with him - and I compete with him in the marketplace (as well as partnering) - but his integrity is something I can rely on. His patience when dealing with controversy, his balance and desire to find a workable solution is legendary. More than that - we are a statutory meritocracy - and Thorsten has contributed an incredible amount of do-ing to the project not just coding (and apparently cloning himself[3] =) - but innumerable small acts of kindness and nurturing behind the scenes. He repeatedly encourages me to think that: "everyone is really just trying to do what they think is best" when I loose faith in that. Oh - and did I mention his positive input on the ESC, serving from our founding on the Board, doing the jobs that no-one wanted to eg. as an example all the donation book-keeping for many years - which was done with great probity. Did I mention his personal investment in allotropia - which contributes lots of LibreOffice code - this could go on and on but this E-mail is already an example of the over-long E-mails we have on the list and I just got started. Let me summarize it this way: Thorsten rocks. If anyone plans to attack and/or exclude him from TDF - they better bring a large-ish team of people to try to replace the immense good he does here. TDF needs good people to shepherd the board, and also this mailing list. It will perhaps be no surprise that I also have received constructive feedback on improving my tone on the list privately from Thorsten: that's his job - it's mine to take that to heart. Let me encourage others to listen - and act likewise. Against that - if people believe they are being harassed - they should report that privately to the CoC committee who will investigate that sensitively without fear or favor - there is no tolerance for harassment no matter how senior and important the people involved. Regards, Michael. [1] - https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05644.html and I quote: - If we should find ourselves in a strong disagreement with another person, we make our responses to each other via private messages rather than continue to send them to the list or the group. If we are debating a point on which the group might have some
[board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?
Hi Daniel, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: > Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision > but yours. > Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods. Cheers, Thorsten -- Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again? (was: [board-discuss] It's ENOUGH!: Continued Nuisance with private emails)
Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision but yours. So, whenever someone says something you don't like the shut up process appears. And that's something the people who really care about LibreOffice as a project don't deserve. Sad to say this as people like Emiliano and Paolo give their best, but for some time now I feel that this board does not represent me. El 29 de noviembre de 2022 9:57:25 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens escribió: >Hi Andreas, all, > >[public answer as requested] > >Andreas Mantke wrote: >> I do not want to be threatened anymore by a member of the board. And it >> seems also others experience similar things, which is what today's >> emails from Emiliano, who is the vice chairperson, and Daniel, who is a >> member of the previous board, suggest. >> >It is quite something to frame gentle suggestions to not personally >attack people, or to take certain parts of a discussion to the >internal members list - as threats. :( > >But it fits nicely with the apparent character assassinations, that >seem to be going on again currently. > >Alas, it is not something that we, as a community, should condone. I'd >therefore suggest to the board, to put this list, or certain >subscribers, under moderation again. Or maybe we can pull ourselves >together this time, please? > >P.S.: Andreas' claim of non-consent to private messages is dangerous > nonsense - both this list's netiquette, as well as mailing lists > moderator practice, ask for exactly that. If someone does not > consent to it, then please unsubscribe. > >Cheers, > >-- Thorsten --
