Re: [board-discuss] Re: Libreoffice Vanilla

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Thorsten,

Am 16.03.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

On the MS Store listing it would be good to actually show how long the
buyer will receive updates.
I have in my notes that it is 18 mos, but that came IIRC from the ML
and nowhere on the store listing is that spelled out, at least not
that I can find.


What would you consider fair?


I guess the problem is not the duration, but the mention.

E.g. You know very well how long which MS Windows version is supported 
with which support plan. In the store you can only guess:

is it
* a live time license (buy one, only get this major release updates)
* some X months supported license
* buy-one-get-forever-updates license
* something different

The problem is this case is the communication, not the fact itself.

Best,

Dennis



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] TDF Budget 2021

[Dennis Roczek]

Hello Andreas,

Am 22.03.2021 um 15:24 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

seemed the board increases the expenses for staff etc. for round about
50 % within one year.


and you could compare that with the planed budget for community
projects, which get no increase and stayed at 2 € (for the whole
world wide community).

We are in a pandemic.

The budget is based on the local communities which send out budget wishes.

As most conferences and thus the booths are not taking place very likely 
in 2021 (or already canceled), many communities didn't send any or at 
least a very small budget wish. This is totally ok for the moment. Same 
goes for the travel expenses which is naturally not taking place at the 
moment.


For example, the German community did only send a minimum wish. There 
are no meetings in 2021 at the Linux Hotel in Essen nor meetings in 
Hamburg or Berlin nor any real life conference (Rhein Ruhr, et all are 
all canceled, postponed or virtualized). You know the situation very 
well in German and Europe. How should the German community request money 
and especially for what?



Regards,
Andreas


Best regards,

Dennis



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, March 12th at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Ilmari,

Am 10.03.2021 um 18:27 schrieb Ilmari Lauhakangas:




The difference is that VLC in Apple's, MS's and Google's stores is 
offered for free. In Google Play, it offers in-app purchases, which 
apparently means the possibility to donate. So Videolan org does not 
need to deal with app store revenue.


So why? What does us hinder us to get users in the game like the big 
corps? why do we not use in-app purchases?


Best regards,

Dennis



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, March 12th at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Dennis Roczek]

Hello everybody,

Am 09.03.21 um 15:14 schrieb Florian Effenberger:


3. Discuss: Business entity (Thorsten, Florian, all 10min)
   * Two existing proposals in 
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq - Germany and 
Luxembourg

   * rescheduled after 4 weeks question and clarification, status of this
   * Question about ownership and mission/scope/rationale of business 
entity
   * Need to make some decision, one of the too proposals or can also be 
there's no entity in the next ~6-12 months
   * App stores: TDF's readiness wrt. tools and skills to provide, 
package and update app store binaries, plus documenting
   Rationale: We asked the public to send proposals, so let's discuss in 
public first. We can move to private if needed.


I just checked the Windows store and the Apple Store for Videolan's VLC 
Player.


In Apple's App Store I didn't found anything.
In MS Store there it is listed with two apps:
* VLC for Windows (with remark that not all features are available)
* VLC for Windows Phone [sic]

So I'm sill undecided: on one and I do understand the need for a 
business entity on the other hand I do not understand the need as other 
non profit organizations like VLC are able to publish their apps in app 
stores. What is different in their organization in comparison to our 
organization?


Moreover: does this org then also handle the releases in Linux App 
Stores (flatpack, AppImage, Snap, you name it) or in MacUpdate or 
Chocolatey or other stores? And iff not, why? And if, what happens to 
the actual maintainers?


In all proposals I do not see any clear distinction: only in "App 
Stores". For the case that only MS and Apple (maybe Google)-owed App 
Stores are handled: why do not name it and why is there any distinction 
at all?


Best regards,

Dennis
(not GPG-signed for reasons)

--
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] Acceptance of MC role

[Dennis Roczek]

I, Dennis Roczek, elected substitute member of the Membership Committee
of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this role within the Stiftung
Bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2020.

Signed: Dennis Roczek

Ich, Dennis Roczek, gewähltes Ersatz-Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees
der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
Bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2020.

Unterzeichnet: Dennis Roczek



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Telesto,

Am 05.09.2020 um 20:32 schrieb Telesto:
> 
> This would give membership some actual advantage, I think.
You provided really good ideas how to improve the rights of the members.
And to be honest: the system is getting improved, although very slowly.
For example last year we were voting for the location of the next
LibreOffice Conference 2020. In 2017 there was a discussion about the
mascot (sorry, yes again), if only members should be allowed to vote.
What I want to show: there are ongoing thoughts and actions how to
enhance the membership. It is not a club to have yet another plastic
card in your pocket (to get 10% discount).

And yes, the system is far from perfect but it is improving.

And yes, more transparency would be better, but really: see the SIS /
TDC stuff: the board is trying to change. But also understand: we
(neither the board of directors, nor the membership committee) is voted
in to a board as a new full time job. Board members (BoD+MC) do this
next to their normal job (doesn't matter if the job is connected to
LibreOffice at any kind) and private life.

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Brett,

Am 06.09.2020 um 04:48 schrieb Brett Cornwall:
> On 2020-09-05 18:53, Dennis Roczek wrote:
>> Am 05.09.2020 um 18:07 schrieb Dennis Roczek:
>>>> * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
>>>>   be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
>>> Most internal discussions are about improving the tools or about
>>> concrete applications. The discussion about applications should NOT be
>>> public. Discussions about how the tools should or could be improved
>>> (e.g. dashboard) can be opened without any problems.
>>
>> I missed to add a reason why the discussion about the application should
>> not be published: see our disaster with the mascot: if we make
>> everything in public the members of the MC might get spammed, pushed,
>> and bullied.
> 
> 
> The mascot incident is a great example of why public involvement
> matters! The lessons learned should not be "make everything more
> closed-door" but "What can we learn from disappointing our
> users/community?" Users were angry and hurt for a reason and brought
> very valid concerns to a very flawed event.
I guess we talking side by side.
Of course, the whole incident would have need more transparency. I was
talking about the bullying and spamming afterwards. To compare this now
to the MC: if the members of the MC vote in public, they can be
influenced by the crowd. Plus we are talking about sensible data: from
names, mail addresses and reasons why we renew (well or not) a
membership. And we have cases were we do need private data which should
not public.

There is contrast also Wikipedia which is public voting about potential
admins. It is called in the English Wikipedia as "Hell Week", because
some guys go back to the earliest edits of somebody searching for
something bad in your 10 years editing carree. It is really not a nice
system. The community raised the bar for new admins to something crazy
in the meantime!

> I have anecdata: A high-profile "rockstar" developer applied to be an
> Arch Linux TU last year [1] and we received colorful remarks from the
> peanut gallery. Contention and disappointment was voiced with our
> questions and handling, and the applicant ultimately withdrew but the
> discourse was not toxic. In fact, I'd say that the comments from the
> general public provoke reflection - even if I do not agree with them.
Luckily for Arch! I do know Wikipedia which is the other way round.

> I lean toward making applications public (GDPR concerns put aside).
Me, too! But GDPR is the atomic argument to stop the discussion here.

> From
> a pragmatic perspective, private list mails can easily be leaked the
> moment contention bubbles up. My Debian outsider perspective sees
> private lists as good for promoting their issue with political drama and
> causes sites like [2] to sprout up. I'm not qualified for much more than
> speculation; I'd love to hear the opinions of the more experienced. I'd
> be curious to know how other communities like Debian or Fedora manage
> applications and whether public/private have been helpful.

I'm happy if we (as a community) can improve the situation as much as
possible. OTOH I do not believe that we have any problem in the
membership process except that we should try to get more members into
the game.

I cannot remember that we had any problems in the past that somebody got
the membership although didn't meet the criteria (or the other way
round), nor that somebody were against any decision. Most users act with
their plain name, or well known account names. You will not find
anything which was not correct.

Please let us focus on the real problems and let us improve the projects
and community.

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Michael,

I missed something. ;-)

Am 05.09.2020 um 18:07 schrieb Dennis Roczek:
>> * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
>>   be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
> Most internal discussions are about improving the tools or about
> concrete applications. The discussion about applications should NOT be
> public. Discussions about how the tools should or could be improved
> (e.g. dashboard) can be opened without any problems.

I missed to add a reason why the discussion about the application should
not be published: see our disaster with the mascot: if we make
everything in public the members of the MC might get spammed, pushed,
and bullied. Even more fatal: some groups might get pushy to get their
folks into the group. Moreover the GDPR sometimes prohibits every
discussion public: as already said we do have corner cases with heath
issues, corona-problems, being too young and other cases which do not
should be public!


Best,

Dennis

-- 
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] MCC questions ..

[Dennis Roczek]

Hello Michael,

Am 04.09.2020 um 13:17 schrieb Michael Meeks:

> * many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
>   Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
>   number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
>   translation, documentation etc.
> 
>   + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
> 
>   + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
> more marginal contributions for membership cf.
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing
> 
>   + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
contributors who are willing to help users in Ask, on mailing lists,
usenet and other forums and this over all languages.

We do also have other projects (e.g. ODFToolkit) who are mostly loosely
connected to the TDF.

I talked to many different contributors and mostly they simply do not
know that there is something like a membership and also do not have any
interest in another mail address and ask what are their gains in getting
into the club.

> * If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
>   you encouraged to apply for membership ?
I'm not sure. I asked many and I'm still trying to convince more
contributors although my success-rate should be improved. :-/

> * How many applications have you voted against ?
I guess this question is only for the existing membership committee.
I have no statistics, but in the end it is something between "one or two
hands". Some contributors for example were corner-cases since a few
years or some which we couldn't verify by all good faith.

> * Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
>   between membership and non-membership that encourages
>   a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
>   achieve full membership ?
We need badges! There needs more "gamification", although I do not like
the "hat hunt" for the next badge (hence one reason why I quite
Wikipedia). If our OpenBadget system is in place: yes, we should also
add a badge for being a member.

But the main "problem" is that many contributors are "only" subscribed
to some mailing lists and helping users won't see badges nor know
anything of membership. We have to - at least - inform these contributors.

> * When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
>   code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
>   decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
>   MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
>   should other MC members validate that ?
That depends. I do not believe that we have any problems in accepting or
declining applications. We do have a problem to get contributors to the
application form! There might be some *seldom* corner-cases where we
have to believe or need some third-party answer as we are having
problems to verify the contributions.

Especially for the last case it is important to have as much as possible
diversity within the mc to know at least who to ask, which was not easy
in the past as Asian contributors were missing.

> * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
>   be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
Most internal discussions are about improving the tools or about
concrete applications. The discussion about applications should NOT be
public. Discussions about how the tools should or could be improved
(e.g. dashboard) can be opened without any problems.

> * How do you believe we can improve the existing election
>   system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
I'm not really sure, if we do need any improvement. At least I do not
have any suggestion as I do not believe that we do have any problem
within the statues.

>   + I'm interested in where we have the situation that
> being too popular can stop you being able to
> engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
> Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
> in the last Board election.
As mentioned in some other response, we do have a problem with COI like
in the mentioned cases.I do have a problem with MC members stepping down
for getting voted to the BoD, but to answer your question: simply
getting more people running for the MC will statistical reduce the
possibility of getting into such problems. Luckily this year many
candidates run for MC and thus our members have a real choice!
@everybody: please use your tokens and vote!

>   Thanks for any answers =)
Thanks for your questions.

>   Michael.
Best regards,

Dennis Roczek



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Collecting proposals on TDF subsidiary

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Paolo,
Hi Florian,

Thanks Florian for the new proposal.

Personally I do like the idea of having a Lux-based company.

I still have some questions about the "TDF Services SIS Proposal Draft"

1) "TDF’s fully owned Social Impact company (Société d’Impact Sociétal)"
--> Does that mean that the TDF is also fully responsible? Then I have
to ask what is different to the general idea that the TDF can do it on
its own without having another layer? How does this work with Germans
law of a foundation?

2) "TDF may also decide to buy services from TDF Services, once its
fully operational, and use it as itsown service provider to streamline
and make more efficient the running of shared operations."
Does this mean that the TDF won't open any new code-tenders but simply
hand the tasks over?

3) I'm still missing (hence might not be worked on in this published
proposal) what happens if something goes wrong? How can the TDF take
down SIS and take over and regain the App Store rights and existing App
Store users?

4) and of course, what Stephan Ficht asked. ;-)

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek


Am 26.08.2020 um 11:29 schrieb Florian Effenberger:
> Hello,
> 
> as discussed during the last board calls, the board is currently
> collecting proposals on a TDF subsidiary. For that, we've created a
> folder "TDF Subsidiary" in the Nextcloud "TDF Members" share, where the
> various ideas will be collected.
> 
> The folder is also publicly available at
> 
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq
> 
> Please do consider all content as a draft, work-in-progress state that
> is subject to discussion and changes. Note that the documents do not
> represent any official board opinion, statement or vote, but are drafted
> by individual members or groups.
> 
> The first proposal added so far is the one by Paolo Vecchi on a
> Luxemburg entity.
> 
> The board is eager to get the discussion started, preferably on the
> public board-discuss mailing list.
> 
> Florian
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Questions To MC Candidates

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Andreas,

Am 28.08.2020 um 08:18 schrieb Andreas Mantke:
> Hi,
> 
> I have two first questions to the candidates:
> 
> a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
> already participated in board calls during the last two years as
> external (non-member)?
Yes, I was regularly in the calls (well as long as my work allowed it)
as you can read in the meeting minutes and also asked some critical
questions. ;-)


> b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
> a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
> sentence in the statutes § 12?
We have seen in the past many people stepping down in the MC to get part
of the next BoD. As you're German: that has some "Geschmäckle" (it is
shady).
My personal opinion is that you should not step down to get into another
body. You got voted in and thus you might simply wait and do not rerun
for the same body. A longer "cooling down" period (say 3 years) is
unnecessary in my opinion.

As Uwe already pointed out: regarding some law suit: this seem very
hypothetically although the statutes were well balanced written for good
reasons and the statutes are not easily changeable by German law.

> Regards,
> Andreas

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] Self Nomination for next TDF's Membership Committee: Dennis Roczek

[Dennis Roczek]

Hello everybody,

I'm candidate for the next TDF's Membership Committee.

My name is Dennis Roczek, being 34 years old, and living in Germany
(partly in Munich, partly on the country side next to the French
border). I'm working in my daily job as a programmer and a consultant

I'm part of the community since 2013 and working in the TDF projects
mostly with, on and for the wikis and also doing some archeology or
seldom writing some documentations or removing spam on different
platforms. I'm also part of the admin team, although I do not have much
spare time to support Guilhem.

I'm also part of the membership committee since the last election, so
since 2018.

Why I do want to be again part of the MC:
Gustavo and myself trying to improve the shell scripts which are used
for handling the applications. We still have much room for improvements
to improve our workflow and I do want to help here.

Full name: Dennis Roczek
Email address: dennisroc...@libreoffice.org
Corporate affiliation: None / independent volunteer

candidacy text:
I, Dennis Roczek, am candidate for the next Membership Committee of The
Document Foundation again as an open minded person offering always my
help. I do have contacts to many persons as I'm working in many
different areas (Wiki, MC, Infra, Docs, QA) of the projects and do want
to help to grow the membership base. I'm involved since 2013 and being a
MC member since 2018.

Best Regards,

Dennis Roczek



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Simon,

Am 02.03.2020 um 11:02 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall  > wrote:
>
> I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the
> proposal
> appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a
> trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC,
> Canonical's
> founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could
> survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.
>
>
> That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication
> you make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as
> TDF's agent in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the
> overall LibreOffice trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other
> entities in the ecosystem like CIB, Collabora and the retailers of
> various clothing. The license is exclusive *only* *in the app stores*,
> and that is because TDF will also be acting against knock-off apps
> selling the brand in ways that reflect poorly on LibreOffice. Again,
> the attempt to equate this to Canonical is very unhelpful, although
> your parting shot is illuminating.

But on the other hand you are also saying, that it is getting harder and
harder to install software (on properterian systems) without the app
stores and more over you do not have any choise on Windows S or iOS,
which is correct. From the vendors view it is even logical (earning
money, keeping the system secure, etc. etc.).

So basical TDC is getting a monopoly on many system, hence the Cannoical
example is really perfect.

I hope you understand that many in the community do not fear that these
"decisions" were made in good faith or might be correct at the moment,
but can lead to "bigger problems" in future (saying 10 or 20 years?).

Dennis

[board-discuss] Trademark policy

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Board,

Hi Simon,


you just were telling us in the public part of the board meeting that
the TDF can remove the trade mark of the TDC with a prenotification of
30 days.

Is the trade mark policy basically the one published in the wiki? [0] Or
is it another one (and is this the published somewhere else)?



Best regards,

Dennis


[0] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Trademark_Policy


-- 
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] creation of The Document Collective (TDC)

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Michael,

Am 07.02.2020 23:09 schrieb Michael Meeks :
>
> Hi Dennis, 
>
> On 07/02/2020 17:43, Dennis Roczek wrote: 
> >> There are some attractions however to having multiple jurisdictions 
> >> involved - we've really appreciated the flexibility that SPI has helped 
> >> us with over the years (as an example). 
> > 
> > As I do not find the numbers in the already published ledgers: how much 
> > money did The Document Foundation already paid to lawyers ? 
>
> So far - exactly zero, and exactly zero expenses for setting up TDC so 
> far. TDF has paid no money to anyone around TDC AFAIK. 
After the announcement and for an half year nothing happened regarding legal 
stuff? So basically only talking within the committee with no decisions?

>Then again - 
> we've had some friendly pro-bono legal advice, input from the group of 
> FLOSS foundations, and a sensible group of people have put a lot of time 
> into meeting and discussing options on constitution, jurisdiction and more. 
>
> > And how much are they willing (or planning) to do this? Was the 
> > Videolan Community asked how they did handled all these legal stuff? 
>
> I've talked to Jean-Baptist a fair bit in the past - I would be 
> surprised if he had a lot to offer on this topic, and VLC's profile is 
> rather different from TDF's and TDCs. 
How? They have published VLC in every store!

> All these legal stuff is not quite 
> as obvious as it may look at first glance - nevermind getting something 
> setup, bank accounts opened, articles written and so on. 
>
> Incidentally - one of the reasons that things do not get actually done 
> around TDC (and in other places), is that as soon as consensus appears 
> to be building [ getting a dozen people to agree on anything complex and 
> nuanced is a tough process ] then something disruptive comes along to 
> jam things up. That is really distressing for those wanting to get moving. 
>
> The Board agreed to create TDC, it created a committee to do that, the 
> committee met at some length, then that committee explained where it is 
> at to a new Board. We're continuing to execute, and I think it's a good 
> idea to publish an update - as a board we need to cleanup and publish 
> minutes from our meeting in due course, which I expect to help. 
>
> Please be patient; we are currently a few days away from the transition 
> to a new board which (may) be more decisive and dynamic - I really hope 
> so - let see. 
That might indeed help.

> Then again - I love that you are interested & care! =) it has been a 
> long time since anyone has turned up to a public board meeting, 
Which could be a result of tge meeting which is for many Europeans at their 
working time. ;-(

> and/or 
> asked good questions - which can surely only be a good thing. 
>
> ATB, 
>
> Michael. 
Dennis

Re: [board-discuss] creation of The Document Collective (TDC)

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Michael,

Am 26.09.2019 um 16:35 schrieb Michael Meeks:

Hi Uwe,

On 26/09/2019 15:28, Uwe Altmann wrote:

Just read the paper. It raised some questions.


It would probably help to come to the next board call and raise your
concerns.


And what I do not understand at all is the reasons there is such a
complicated and a difficult to zero controllable process with a
"Public Software CIC"  50.000 € loan just to get an unincorporated
association (whatever that means in terms of business and liability,
i. e. ability to contract directly with app stores etc.

so basically UK is now out.


The number is large, but it is a contingency; I don't expect TDF to
loan anything like this much, and to provide cash incrementally as needed.

In terms of where the entity finally ends up, the CIC is a short-term
bootstrapping mechanism - I don't believe there is a final decision on
entity location currently.

Half a year later: any news on the base country?


There are some attractions however to having multiple jurisdictions
involved - we've really appreciated the flexibility that SPI has helped
us with over the years (as an example).


As I do not find the numbers in the already published ledgers: how much 
money did The Document Foundation already paid to lawyers? And how much 
are they willing (or planning) to do this? Was the Videolan Community 
asked how they did handled al theses legal stuff?



All the best,

Michael.


Best regards,

Dennis

--
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] Apache ODF Toolkit migration

[Dennis Roczek]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


Hi *,

On 28.11.2018 11:00, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> 2. the web site, in SVN (will also be changed to read-only):
>>
>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/site/
>>
>>the SVN repo contains some MarkDown files that are converted to
> ...
>>presumably there should be a way to preserve the (relatively small
>>and simple) content of the repo to either Wiki markup, or somethin
g
>>that some other MarkDown-to-HTML tool can understand; volunteers a
re
>>certainly welcome to help with this.
>   Sounds sensible - what is the scale of the problem: how many lines/ta
gs
> of markdown ?
> 

there are converters (see
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9824489/any-markdown-to-wikimarkup-c
onverter-available
) so especially pandoc.

I offer the help for the MWiki migration. ;-)

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/
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=l/qW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
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

[board-discuss] Re: Acceptance of MC role

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi everybody,


I, Dennis Roczek, elected Member of the Membership Committee of The Document
Foundation, hereby accept this role within the Stiftung bürgerlichen
Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2018.

Signed: Dennis Roczek

Ich, Dennis Roczek, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der The
Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen
Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2018.

Unterzeichnet: Dennis Roczek

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek

On 18.09.2018 16:32, Marina Latini wrote:
> Dear Dennis,
> 
> Let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you for
> your election as member of the Membership Committee.
> Then I kindly invite you to officially accept your position in the MC by
> answering to this message with a "Reply all".
> 
> With best regards,
> Marina Latini
> on behalf of The Document Foundation board of directors
> 
> ======
> I, Dennis Roczek, elected Member of the Membership Committee of The
> Document
> Foundation, hereby accept this role within the Stiftung bürgerlichen
> Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2018.
> 
> Signed: Dennis Roczek
> 
> Ich, Dennis Roczek, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der The
> Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen
> Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2018.
> 
> Unterzeichnet: Dennis Roczek
> ==
> 

-- 
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

[board-discuss] Self Nomination for next TDF's Membership Committee: Dennis Roczek

[Dennis Roczek]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Good night* everybody,

I want to nominate myself for the next TDF's MC.

My name: Dennis Roczek
My mail: dennisroc...@libreoffice.org
Corporate affiliation: independent volunteer in sense of TDF/LibreOffice

My Statement:
I'm living in Munich, Germany, and volunteer in the LibreOffice project
since 2013 mainly in administrating and doing “background” tasks for the
wiki, working on the content of the wiki itself, and many more “hidden”
tasks for most community members. The open and free community is the key
goal and I want to help to reach that goal.

I will provide information on all future changes as soon as possible.


Best Regards,

Dennis Roczek

* well this of course depends on your time zone ;-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/
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=VHsU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
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