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:

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?


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.

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

Reply via email to