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 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

Reply via email to