Hi Uwe, all, Am 28.05.21 um 23:32 schrieb Uwe Altmann: > (...) > All right for the mentioned "core business" - or in other words: the goals of > the foundation following our statutes. That's how a community works we > believe. Besides: LO in no way is or ever was "volunteer project" (a project has a start and an end). It's a community with a high extent of volunteer engagement. > But this is in no way right if it comes to administrative decisions. To stay in the above example: It sounds rather silly to start a community wide discussion on which software we will use to do our bookkeeping. And in our case, the MC is "the doers". The tooling we use until today emerged exactly the way you described above: Someone set up something which was far way better than nothing. But it has some severe immanent drawbacks. And we understood that we don't have the skills to set up a solution by our own which satisfies our needs. > could you please explain who have and who should have access to the membership data (old tooling and new tooling) please?
Has they / should the have access to all membership data from the start of TDF up to now? I found nothing about this in the detailed specifications for the tender. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] 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
