Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores
Good idea, it works for me.Ayhan YALÇINSOY, Deputy Member of the Board of DirectorsThe Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DEGemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen RechtsLegal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint8 Haz 2022 12:44 tarihinde Florian Effenberger yazdı:Hello Simon, Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59: > Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were > recorded so 2 must have been absent. that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this - happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that. All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback. Florian -- Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer) Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi all, Am 8. Juni 2022 22:35:01 MESZ schrieb Thorsten Behrens : >Dear list, > >Andreas Mantke wrote: >> > Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice >> > Online work, can you please point me to the details? >> TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was >> explained to the board also as important for LOOL. >> >That seems to be a very technical argument (on both sides); in any >case I doubt that a discussion of something that happend 8 years ago >helps us in moving the developer hiring proposal forward. > >As such, lets please get back to the topic. > Because the acting people from that years hasn't realy changed I think that gives a clearer view on their mindset and agenda. It's important to help understanding the whole process in this thread. >Paolo Vecchi wrote: >> With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda, >> during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails on >> board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house >> developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot >> promote even a basic version of it. >> >Same here - mixing lots of other topics into this discussion is not >useful in us making progress. > >It is also premature, since the ESC is still discussing the >matter. Debating the merits of the proposal should happen there, not >here (for the while). Unless the board wants to run its own, competing >motion for how to deal with the Online repo (which I would consider >nonconstructive). > It is not constructive for the agenda of the acting members of the ESC. There are a lot active members with a CoI in the LOOL topic. Thus if they further act to force a decision in their direction and the board stops that not immediately it's according to the statutes time for the MC to step in (to prevent the foundation from further damage). Regards, Andreas -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores
Hello, Caolán McNamara píše v St 08. 06. 2022 v 15:45 +0100: > On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:44 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that. > > > > All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback. > > Yeah, I'm content to see that information presented by default. Works for me too. All the best, Kendy -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Dear list, Andreas Mantke wrote: > > Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice > > Online work, can you please point me to the details? > TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was > explained to the board also as important for LOOL. > That seems to be a very technical argument (on both sides); in any case I doubt that a discussion of something that happend 8 years ago helps us in moving the developer hiring proposal forward. As such, lets please get back to the topic. Paolo Vecchi wrote: > With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda, > during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails on > board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house > developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot > promote even a basic version of it. > Same here - mixing lots of other topics into this discussion is not useful in us making progress. It is also premature, since the ESC is still discussing the matter. Debating the merits of the proposal should happen there, not here (for the while). Unless the board wants to run its own, competing motion for how to deal with the Online repo (which I would consider nonconstructive). Thanks, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi Andreas, On 08/06/2022 19:53, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi all, Am 06.06.22 um 13:18 schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke píše v Ne 05. 06. 2022 v 19:12 +0200: If I remember correctly TDF has paid a big part of work on the basics of LOOL. And maybe some former / current board member recognize which company was paid for that work from donation money. Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice Online work, can you please point me to the details? TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was explained to the board also as important for LOOL. Thus this project was payed from the LibreOffice donation money. The biggest part of this work (according to the prize) was done by Collabora productivity. thanks for the reminder. Since then Collabora also benefited a lot from TDF's marketing, infrastructure and community support. That was all part of the discussion which has been ignored during the negotiation to get LOOL made available to the community but then they unilaterally decided to move to GitHub and not backport any fixes or features. With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda, during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails on board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot promote even a basic version of it. [But I may be wrong - as said, I have nothing to do with TDF tending process, so maybe I've missed something?] I made a research in an archive and found out that the document with the offer from Collabora was created by Jan Holesovsky with LibreOffice 4.2 on Oct., 6 2014. I guess anyone can forget to have created the documents that lead to the financing and support by TDF and the community of one of their major projects. Now that Kendy has been reminded from where LOOL came from he will probably vote differently the request to kill it in the ESC. Regards, Andreas Ciao Paolo -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- Paolo Vecchi - 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 -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF
Hi all, Am 06.06.22 um 13:18 schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke píše v Ne 05. 06. 2022 v 19:12 +0200: If I remember correctly TDF has paid a big part of work on the basics of LOOL. And maybe some former / current board member recognize which company was paid for that work from donation money. Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice Online work, can you please point me to the details? TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was explained to the board also as important for LOOL. Thus this project was payed from the LibreOffice donation money. The biggest part of this work (according to the prize) was done by Collabora productivity. [But I may be wrong - as said, I have nothing to do with TDF tending process, so maybe I've missed something?] I made a research in an archive and found out that the document with the offer from Collabora was created by Jan Holesovsky with LibreOffice 4.2 on Oct., 6 2014. Regards, Andreas -- ## 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores
+1 Paolo On 08/06/2022 16:45, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:44 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that. All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback. Yeah, I'm content to see that information presented by default. -- Paolo Vecchi - 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 -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores
On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:44 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that. > > All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback. Yeah, I'm content to see that information presented by default. -- Caolán McNamara, 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 -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi Michael, I prefer to avoid going into details as people should draw their conclusions by looking at timing and people involved by looking at the ESC meeting minutes and your proposal. On 08/06/2022 10:40, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Paolo, On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote: That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05 It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that you critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal itself: please play the ball not the man. Actions have been performed by people, in this case you and Kendy. As I've been told off for stating facts and not naming people so I guess I have to make it clear who did what and when. A sequence of events/coincidences show that some proposals are more equal than others and clear objections that make your proposal more complicated, expensive and much less effective have not been addressed at all. You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged proposal, something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on: developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. The proposal contains this: "The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the Target Areas." Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that they will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =) Our ED has already plenty of things to do and micromanaging in-house developers should not be part of his job. Please re-read the rest of my proposal as it states how things should be run to avoid overwhelming our ED. Our ED will evaluate things only if there are issues between the team and the ESC. Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC call and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected peers alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary. Nowhere in my proposal is being said that the ESC will be excluded. Please re-read my proposal. Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the ESC works seems weak as I've outlined before[1]. I'm slowly learning about it thanks to the good comments from Adreas that pushed me to look into it even if development is not my main focus and it is only one of the various areas LibreOffice is made of. I've seen a very nice way to cooperate between developers in a way that seems to take in consideration the best way to deal with code and find good solutions to issues Your intervention in the ESC meeting the 26/05/2022 and the 02/06/2022 had absolutely nothing to do with code and a lot to do with politics and undue influence in a committee that now cannot be seen as a neutral ground. Regards, Michael. Ciao Paolo [1] - https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00557.html -- Paolo Vecchi - 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 -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores
Hi *, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59: > > Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were > > recorded so 2 must have been absent. > > that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this - > happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that. > I would support the proposal (independent of the vote at hand). Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores
Hello Simon, Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59: Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were recorded so 2 must have been absent. that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this - happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that. All board members are on this list, so we can gather some feedback. Florian -- Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer) Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi Paolo, On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote: That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05 It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that you critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal itself: please play the ball not the man. You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged proposal, something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on: developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. The proposal contains this: "The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the Target Areas." Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that they will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =) Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC call and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected peers alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary. Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the ESC works seems weak as I've outlined before[1]. Regards, Michael. [1] - https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00557.html -- michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1
Hi all, On 08/06/2022 00:57, Cor Nouws wrote: Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 08/06/2022 00:31: On 07/06/2022 21:40, Simon Phipps wrote: Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all... No, once again he took my document and copy/pasted bits of Michael Meeks proposal on it to completely change the logic of the proposal. I assume if the 'logic changed', that is to reflect contributions in the discussion that were not added in your file. That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05, his employee and member of the board copied the 25/06 on a document he called a merge and the same general manager practically imposed to the ESC part of his project. The way the proposal wants to manage "suggestions" for tendering, the focus on mentoring and control of TDF's employee have been already described as very bad ideas. That proposal doesn't really fit with the budget planned, senior I think there is room to look to the budget for next year again, if needed. As this is, as agreed, a strategic project that has been taken out of the budget planning that we have done not long ago then we are still on time to review this budget. developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes. This is unhelpful framing. Influence is (apart from statutory limitations to participation from entities) from participating, which is done in the best traditions of open source development, which in the case of LibreOffice is broadened deliberately - I was at the discussion - to more than 'just' coding. We should check with an employment laws expert if they consider if "unhelpful framing". The "legacy document" has actual contributions from many people of the community and TDf's team, the document on which Kendy pasted some text has only contributions from Michael Meeks and you Kendy made efforts to include comments and ideas from all sides. Very useful to come to a proposal with the broadest possible support respecting as much ideas as possible. Kendy replaced text to reflect the ideas of a commercial contributor not to include comments. greetings, Cor Ciao Paolo -- 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
