Hi Marina,
Thanks!
Marina Latini wrote on 01/12/2022 10:12:
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
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote on 30/11/2022 19:56:
Am 30.11.22 um 14:20 schrieb Cor Nouws:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi Emiliano,
thank you for clarifying your position and for trying yet again to get
some members of the board to understand that what they are doing is not
only ethically wrong but very likely also against our statutes.
Last night Thorsten, Cor and Gabor declared an "interest" in relation to
I stopped following the endless threads on this list a long time ago as
I felt the annoyance of having to read the same ridiculousness over and
over again.
Today I decided to give it a new chance and I find this, and I recognize
myself in Emiliano's words.
Before coming to the BoD I had an
Hi Emiliano,
Le 28/11/2022 à 22:55, Emiliano Vavassori a écrit :
Hi all,
Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto:
Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another
proposal of course with great support from others.
Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of
Hi Emiliano,
Emiliano Vavassori wrote on 28/11/2022 22:55:
Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto:
Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such
proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it.
I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to
Hi all,
Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto:
Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal
of course with great support from others.
Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such
proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it.
Hi Andreas,
On 28/11/2022 17:19, Andreas Mantke wrote:
Hi Cor, hi all,
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
Hi Cor, hi all,
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
Hi all,
On 28/11/2022 12:06, Cor Nouws wrote:
Dear people,
Cor Nouws wrote on 27/11/2022 17:41:
I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing
us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.
In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring
Hi Cor, all,
Am 28.11.22 um 12:06 schrieb Cor Nouws:
In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house
developers' on the list tdf-internal.
Why do you go to tdf-internal after an open exchange of opinions already
on the board-discuss list?
It seems to me hiding away that
Dear people,
Cor Nouws wrote on 27/11/2022 17:41:
I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us
to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.
In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house
developers' on the list tdf-internal.
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:
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
