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.


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:

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

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


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.

## 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

Reply via email to