Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 controversial problems on the table (like for example how many positions will be opened for hiring the in-house developers - one, two, many). I read 'there will be two job postings'.. For the rest I've really done my best to explain my reasons to conclude that the old proposal was not fit for purpose. Sorry if I failed to bring my rationale across in a understandable manner. In parallel with this, I'm still not buying the explanation given to the exclusion of one elected board member from the work on this new "proposal". During the call you replied to me in a contradictory way, first saying that Paolo and Kendy have been excluded, than stating that the new "proposal" have been worked on when Kendy was already out of the board...that brings back again to "just Paolo being excluded". All fine with that. Let's say that we struggle in the board to create a safe working environment. So far it has been harmful and not productive otherwise. By the enormous volume and negativity, actually excluding directors that have busy day job and need to be concentrated, have then the evenings left to dig through loads of... By taking part of the work in a separate environment, it is just more inclusive. Cheers, 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 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 statements from the board-meeting at 14.11.2022: No problem for me that you give that some extra attention ;) 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 -- Noticing now that's not the end of the story though.. But this is clearly showing the facts about Paolo, whom is telling others for a long time in a strong no-compromise-style manner what to do, but who himself appears to be in a very interesting position. That's really a reflect on the content only? Only? Don't think so. But your frame is not correct: This is not what I brought in for information on the content to answer Sophie. Oh, Let me not ask your thoughts on the fact that he denied for a year + to declare his personal/business interest ;) 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. Apparently I gave a word to a mutually felt frustration in a way that was not too bad? But everyone who subscribe not to your view get an advise from the chair / moderator. Again your frame is not correct. It is character assassination. What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years. 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. Again your frame is not correct. You accused me of willingly misleading/not replying to Sophie. My response showed that your characterization is false. AFAIC: Enough said. But feel free to call to talk over it more/again. 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
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 just the "abstract" of the previous document with some changes that are even bringing more controversial problems on the table (like for example how many positions will be opened for hiring the in-house developers - one, two, many). In parallel with this, I'm still not buying the explanation given to the exclusion of one elected board member from the work on this new "proposal". During the call you replied to me in a contradictory way, first saying that Paolo and Kendy have been excluded, than stating that the new "proposal" have been worked on when Kendy was already out of the board...that brings back again to "just Paolo being excluded". I attended the board call, I read the thread here and, also to me, Sophie's questions are valid and still unanswered. This "proposal" is just ignoring all the work done in the last 9 months and it reduces the previous publicly available document to just an analysis of the areas where this potential in-house developers could work on, when and if the ESC will give the permission to work. And, BTW, I agree with the concerns already expressed by others in having this in-house developers reporting to the ESC instead of the ED and from him to the board like all the others. On this particular point I'm also having a sense of déjà vu. I remember the board discussed the very same idea of "special" reporting chain when in the past there was the discussion about the developer mentor. ...and as far as I remember, also at that time the discussion was quite heated and at the end the "special" reporting chain proposal was dropped. So, I'm wondering, why we have again the same non working approach on the discussion table?! For what concerns the legal review of the hiring proposal, I would disagree that there's no need to have a legal review for it. I would like to remind that TDF is based in Germany and that the hiring proposal will need to clearly define the job role, the tasks that the new hire will work on, the expectations for what concerns deliverables, the working hours etc. So, if in the voted proposal parts of those topics are touched, a legal review is needed (and to me, it looks like this). If as you seems to hint, the proposal is just something generic for approving to hire someone and the details of the job offer will be clarified in a separate document, your "proposal" should just mention that the board resolves to hire the in-house developers and that the details of the job offer and the contract will be provided in a separate document reviewed by TDF's legal counsel. The board resolution can't mix up the two things. If the resolution is really intended to cover the "full package", your proposal is actually incomplete and can't be voted on. My two cents, Marina -- Marina Latini IRC: deneb_alpha on LiberaChat -- 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, 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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 the "Hiring TDF developers" while derailing the current proposal and imposing a new one. There are strong indicators that what is going on could be seen as a conflict of interest and the board should start an official investigation. What concerns me is that I haven't seen any reactions from Laszlo, Gabor, Ayhan or Gabriel in any of the other cases during this term where you reported to the board that what they were doing was deeply wrong. I hope they start realising that they should start questioning more what they are being told by Cor and Thorsten. Ciao Paolo On 28/11/2022 22:55, Emiliano Vavassori wrote: 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. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is 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 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. I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved. 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. Regards, -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 ideal image of the environment within TDF, unfortunately the reality is quite different. I don't quite understand how this modus operandi was maintained over time, but it definitely has to end. It cannot be that certain people attack valuable members of our community in such a blatant manner. Here I also include Paolo who is still suffering from the unfounded CoI accusations against him. I collaborate voluntarily with TDF since its beginnings as such and I think many will agree with me, this behavior by the same characters must stop. El 29.11.2022 07:09, sophi escribió: 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 such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is 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 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. I fully agree with you. Excluding those you disagree with is really not what is expected in our community. I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved. 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. I am so so sorry to read that, that is just incredible for a person of your kindness. I would like to apologize that you have to live that in our community, I'm speechless... just sorry again. 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: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is 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 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. I fully agree with you. Excluding those you disagree with is really not what is expected in our community. I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved. 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. I am so so sorry to read that, that is just incredible for a person of your kindness. I would like to apologize that you have to live that in our community, I'm speechless... just sorry again. 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: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Yes, you replied that you chose not to take part. True. For the rest: topic has been mentioned and briefly touched in today's board meeting. We agreed to have discuss that in a (separate) meeting. Cheers, 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 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. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is 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 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. I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved. 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. Regards, -- Emiliano Vavassori syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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 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 impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. 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. recent emails and declarations during BoD meetings seem to have created some uncertainties in regards to what is going on with the developers proposal so I've asked the board to release an email thread, which also contains some recommendations from our trusted legal counsel, that should clarify the situation once and for all. I'm sure the board will be very pleased to release those emails so that we can remove any doubt and move forward with the original proposal. Regards, Andreas Ciao Paolo Am 27.11.22 um 23:40 schrieb Cor Nouws: 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: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable. Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers. So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work? Cheers, Cor sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50: 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 - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? 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. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 minutes. 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. Regards, Andreas Am 27.11.22 um 23:40 schrieb Cor Nouws: 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: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable. Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers. So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work? Cheers, Cor sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50: 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 - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? 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. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- ## 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 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 in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal. Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See: https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal That's a peculiar proposal that should not be hidden to others that have followed the progress of the proposal that failed to reach the quorum for some "odd" reasons. The proposal seems to have been written by someone blissfully unaware of the legal advice that invalidates this "new" proposal on various points and that the mistakes been repeated here were already fixed during the negotiations with Jan. You can find the various versions of the proposals with comments here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj See if you can spot the various changes that need to be implemented to make the proposal below acceptable of any organisation and legally sound. -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - 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; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. 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: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<-- 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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
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 perhaps the 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' is nothing else than 'Old wine in new wineskins'? Just another attempt to keep the famous "one sentence" alive by rephrasing it nicely? In other words and as alreay discussed on the board-discuss list: Third parties directing TDF how and what their employee(s) are allowed or not allowed to work on? I am curious to know about any employer accepting this. Would you accept the same for your company? Would one of our valuable ecosystem partners accept? Best Stephan -- Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees Affiliation: 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
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. Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See: https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal Greetings, 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 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: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable. Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers. So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work? Cheers, Cor sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50: 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 - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? 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. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- 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 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 - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? 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. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- 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, 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 "others" while you had your colleague working with me? 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
