Hi Marco,I have to agree with you here that maybe censoring threads isn't the best way forward and that surely isn't a message agreed within the board.
While there haven't been yet clear answers that can bring a solution, at least we all have a clearer view on how LOOL came to be, evolved into a viable product and then has been forked.
As a deputy member of the board and a member of our community I expressed my opinion about your 4 points:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00057.htmlIt's true that I may have been a bit harsh with my answers, and I apologise if you got upset by it, but while I understand your proposal we have also to deal with the reality that without a reconsideration from the company that made the fork we don't have yet the internal/external contributors that could allow us to revive the LOOL project.
Even if I get full support from the board to employ internal developers I don't think is a good idea to unilaterally decide to backport the forked repository to LOOL without a clear agreement with the company involved so that probably won't fix the issue either.
Surely the fastest and easier way to solve the issue would be to have the company that forked LOOL to concede that they may have overlooked the initial agreement with TDF and the community but up to now we received no new proposals from them.
Having said that and with my answers underlying the issues I've noticed do you see ways to reformulate your proposal?
Any other practical proposals from other members of the board and the community?
Ciao Paolo On 26/01/2022 12:47, Marco Marinello wrote:
Hi Thorsten, all, it's of course legit to ask people contributing here to comply with the ML netiquette but I don't think closing the thread here is the solution. In my opening message sent on January 9th I made a proposal consisting of four points as an alternative approach to the current online situation and although the ML is named "board-discuss", nobody from the board commented on the merit of the proposal. I'm geniunally interested in the opinion of who's currently driving the foundation and I don't understand why you, Thorsten, as current and future board member, are certainly following the thread but only asking to close it, instead of giving your contribution. So please, as for other board members, go back to my first mail here and reply to that. ATB Marco Il 25/01/22 21:34, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote:In regard to your questions:[references to earlier emails]I'll follow up on the board list also with the proposal to look more in detail at what we host and status and future of the Android Viewer.Thanks. So let's end-thread here. Cheers, -- Thorsten
-- Paolo Vecchi - Deputy 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
