Hi all,
a vote was called under the pretense of consent, for a proposal that
did not leave the assigned working group with an approval.
That is in violation of good practice (to say the least), and it was
perfectly ok for directors to leave it on the table (instead of
working through 16 pages of
Dear all,
On 27/11/2022 17:56, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi all,
a vote was called under the pretense of consent, for a proposal that
did not leave the assigned working group with an approval.
The vote has been called on a proposal which followed the agreed at
LibOCon and in various email
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 -
Hi Cor,
On 27/11/2022 17:41, Cor Nouws wrote:
Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another
proposal of course with great support from others.
odd that AFAIK there was no other proposal being worked on within the board.
Who are the "others"?
Why did you decide to work with
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
Hi Andreas
While you don't like answers in private mail I post it on this list.
Am 27.11.22 um 16:44 schrieb Andreas Mantke:
I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here.
Maybe most of us follow the golden rule of mailing lists not to feed
trolls? ;-)
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:
Hello,
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 24.11.22 at 17:35:
- Approve the In-House Developer Proposal v3.1
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB
- Instruct the members of our staff led by our ED to draft the job
description for 2 developers
- Publish the job description
- Task the
Dear board,
Am 24.11.22 um 17:35 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Dear board and all,
during LibOCon it has been agreed that we would iron out the divergences
about the last few sentences, we would have the proposal discussed with
our legal counsel and then proceed with the vote.
As we went through
Hi all,
Il 24/11/22 17:35, Paolo Vecchi ha scritto:
-%<--
- Approve the In-House Developer Proposal v3.1
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB
- Instruct the members of our staff led by our ED to draft the
Hi Stephan, all,
Stephan Ficht wrote:
> Questions just to delay the matter more and more?
> At least that's the impression I get.
>
No. There was always support for getting devs hired. You've received
personal statements from me that this is not a delay tactic.
> After an incredible period of
Hi Thorsten,
Am 27.11.22 um 13:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
Thank you very much for taking the initiative to respond.
I'm still curious to know any opinion and explanation about:
Am 26.11.22 um 16:14 schrieb Stephan Ficht:
Am 18.11.22 um 11:30 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
"Eventual limitations
Hi Thorsten, hi all,
Am 27.11.22 um 13:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
Hi Stephan, all,
Stephan Ficht wrote:
(...)
Furthermore, I think that a good relationship with everyone is
valuable and helpful for all parts of the community and for the
common projects.
I fully support that notion. That
Hi all,
just a reminder that the voting window expires in about half an hour.
Members of the board that have a personal/business interest in budgeting
and tendering, as they know, should vote "abstain" and not abstain from
voting.
Making also this vote fail based information which have been
14 matches
Mail list logo
