Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

Il 02/12/22 09:24, Cor Nouws ha scritto:

-%<--

## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022

"Whereas,

- with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of
   various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice
   community;

- given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where
   extra developers can add value with additional activities, that
   complement the existing contributions;

- with this being an ongoing need;

Therefore the board resolves that:

- TDF will seek to hire a developer(s);

- who will report to the ED as a regular team member, and consult weekly
   with the ESC, which will oversee the technical direction of the work;

- who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers
   regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work;

- for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies
   improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice;
   as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas.
   After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base,
   general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas;

- thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the
   initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be
   hired initially;

- after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their
   work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results.

Requirements for the candidates:

* Very good C++ development skills;
* Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK
   experience is a strong plus;
* Love for open source;
* Team players;
* Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus.

Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring
developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the
abandoned dev proposal:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB "

-%<--

I abstain.

Cheers,
--
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto:
Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal 
of course with great support from others.


Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such 
proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it.


I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that 
process and that I didn't want to be involved with it.


Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected 
director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is 
IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit 
my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions 
than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I 
find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging 
furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior.


I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that 
proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever.


The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging 
platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, 
basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I 
didn't want to be involved.


I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly 
ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and 
articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to 
fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone.


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

[board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

Il 24/11/22 17:35, Paolo Vecchi ha scritto:

-%<--

- Approve the In-House Developer Proposal v3.1 
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB
- Instruct the members of our staff led by our ED to draft the job 
description for 2 developers

- Publish the job description
- Task the members of our staff led by our ED to proceed with the 
interviews and selection of the best candidates
- Task our ED to propose to the board the best candidates for 
confirmation of contracts

- Task our ED to prepare and sign the relevant contracts

-%<--

The vote runs 72h from now. If all full board members voted before, the 
vote can be concluded earlier.


+1

I think the topic has been explored quite thoroughly by the Board, the 
community and even legal consultants (as the last step) and to me this 
is actionable now.


Each of the stakeholders' points of view has been checked and taken into 
consideration; there is so much to do for underloved areas in the 
project that, before really getting to contentious items, I'm sure the 
benefit of the motion will be clear and the Team would surely be trusted 
to do the right thing for the project and its community (explicitly 
including ecosystem companies).


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 31/08/22 23:46, Emiliano Vavassori ha scritto:
On 2022-03-07 areas of oversight were assigned to members of the Board 
of Directors. It named Thorsten Behrens, Paolo Vecchi and Jan (Kendy) 
Holešovský for the legal oversight group regarding the topics 
“contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks” 
(https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules).


Thorsten Behrens is the Chairperson of the TDF as well as Managing 
Director of allotropia, one of TDF's contractors. Kendy is in the 
“Management Team” of Collabora Productivity, the other major tender 
contractor to TDF.


The tasks of the legal oversight group have further on instead been 
handled by the “special working group” consisting of Caolán McNamara, 
Paolo Vecchi and Emiliano Vavassori. This declaratory vote makes the 
change public, following the TDF transparency rules.


Therefore the working group decided unanimously to start a vote to that 
regard, sent out by TDF's Deputy Chairperson Caolán McNamara on July 21, 
2022 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00837.html). 
The actual composition of the legal oversight group is identical to the 
members of the special working group, Caolán McNamara, Paolo Vecchi and 
Emiliano Vavassori.


The following day Caolán McNamara stepped down from the Board of 
Directors 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00849.html). 
The vote could not take place as TDF first had to complete the Board of 
Directors with Gábor Kelemen (affiliation: allotropia) and decide on the 
next Deputy Chairperson to be Emiliano Vavassori.


The working group decided to now restart that vote, as the conditions 
that brought to it are persisting. According to standard procedure (§ 3 
Rules of Procedure), changes are made public (§ 8 subsection 3 Statutes).


The Rules of Procedure can be modified "at any time", but the "draft of 
amended rules ... need to be made available at least one week in 
advance" (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules). Formal 
procedure does require to make the draft available to the Directors, but 
not to the public, as the public has to be informed at a later stage. To 
avoid formal difficulties, this vote is all the same started after 
making the draft public first. This is not considered or legally advised 
to be necessary, but in a previous vote (regarding the conflict of 
interest policy), Thorsten Behrens claimed this to be necessary.


VOTE:

We hereby call for the following VOTE, which will start on Thursday, 
2022-09-08 00:00 UTC+2/CEST; it will then run for 72h and thus will end 
on Sunday, 2022-09-11 00:00 UTC+2/CEST.


We hereby make available the draft of an amendment to the Rules of 
Procedure of the Board of Directors 
(https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules).


The amendment is to change the internal delegation of responsibilities 
(“areas of oversight”) in § 3 Rules of Procedure only regarding 
“contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks”.


The members of the legal oversight group regarding “contracts, legal 
compliance, GDPR, trademarks” are Emiliano Vavassori (Deputy Chairperson 
of the Board of Directors) and Paolo Vecchi. All other oversight groups 
remain unchanged.


Members of the Board of Directors who are in conflict shall explicitly 
declare their abstention.


Regards,


+1

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] [VOTE] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group

[Emiliano Vavassori]

On 2022-03-07 areas of oversight were assigned to members of the Board 
of Directors. It named Thorsten Behrens, Paolo Vecchi and Jan (Kendy) 
Holešovský for the legal oversight group regarding the topics 
“contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks” 
(https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules).


Thorsten Behrens is the Chairperson of the TDF as well as Managing 
Director of allotropia, one of TDF's contractors. Kendy is in the 
“Management Team” of Collabora Productivity, the other major tender 
contractor to TDF.


The tasks of the legal oversight group have further on instead been 
handled by the “special working group” consisting of Caolán McNamara, 
Paolo Vecchi and Emiliano Vavassori. This declaratory vote makes the 
change public, following the TDF transparency rules.


Therefore the working group decided unanimously to start a vote to that 
regard, sent out by TDF's Deputy Chairperson Caolán McNamara on July 21, 
2022 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00837.html). 
The actual composition of the legal oversight group is identical to the 
members of the special working group, Caolán McNamara, Paolo Vecchi and 
Emiliano Vavassori.


The following day Caolán McNamara stepped down from the Board of 
Directors 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00849.html). 
The vote could not take place as TDF first had to complete the Board of 
Directors with Gábor Kelemen (affiliation: allotropia) and decide on the 
next Deputy Chairperson to be Emiliano Vavassori.


The working group decided to now restart that vote, as the conditions 
that brought to it are persisting. According to standard procedure (§ 3 
Rules of Procedure), changes are made public (§ 8 subsection 3 Statutes).


The Rules of Procedure can be modified "at any time", but the "draft of 
amended rules ... need to be made available at least one week in 
advance" (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules). Formal 
procedure does require to make the draft available to the Directors, but 
not to the public, as the public has to be informed at a later stage. To 
avoid formal difficulties, this vote is all the same started after 
making the draft public first. This is not considered or legally advised 
to be necessary, but in a previous vote (regarding the conflict of 
interest policy), Thorsten Behrens claimed this to be necessary.


VOTE:

We hereby call for the following VOTE, which will start on Thursday, 
2022-09-08 00:00 UTC+2/CEST; it will then run for 72h and thus will end 
on Sunday, 2022-09-11 00:00 UTC+2/CEST.


We hereby make available the draft of an amendment to the Rules of 
Procedure of the Board of Directors 
(https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules).


The amendment is to change the internal delegation of responsibilities 
(“areas of oversight”) in § 3 Rules of Procedure only regarding 
“contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks”.


The members of the legal oversight group regarding “contracts, legal 
compliance, GDPR, trademarks” are Emiliano Vavassori (Deputy Chairperson 
of the Board of Directors) and Paolo Vecchi. All other oversight groups 
remain unchanged.


Members of the Board of Directors who are in conflict shall explicitly 
declare their abstention.


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] re-discovering the Foundation roots?

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 27/06/22 12:45, Uwe Altmann ha scritto:
Am 25.06.22 um 16:36 schrieb Paolo Vecchi (in thread: [board-discuss] 
Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived):

We might need a meeting dedicated to re-discovering the Foundation roots
as I have the impression that some have different understanding of why 
TDF was created and what its role should be.


If this proposal is appreciated, we may do so at the LO conference? I feel
such a a discussion is far better made face-to-face than online or per a
mailing list.


I support that and I would love to hear a speech at the conference, 
possibly followed by a constructive discussion.


Uwe, are you candidating yourself?

Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

[Meta] Discussing in board-discuss [ was: Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF]

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Simon,

Il 12/06/22 11:17, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
They are to help newcomers like you become aware that the complaints 
being made are not in fact new or related to the current situation but 
date back to a dispute that is many years old and still unresolved due 
to personal enmities.


That is still setting a (partial, angled) framing of the situation (as 
Andreas was doing, to some extent).


What still worries me is that said frictions are still there after a lot 
of years and weren't solved, and honestly I don't buy it is a 
constellation of personal issues, rather than a misunderstanding on how 
effectively implement the shared goals we all should have.


I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being 
aware of the true history of the project (especially at a time when 
there are voices trying to reframe history) is very important and 
refusing to do so may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance 
of untrue framing.


I didn't say I found it useless, I said it wouldn't really still help 
with moving the general balance of the discussion towards a positive 
outcome, which was the main objections to Andreas' mails.


By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with 
other members through selecting positive elements of their 
contributions.


I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some 
discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and 
recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise, 
mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor. That's 
not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the 
Foundation since a lot of time.


How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming 
the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless 
of how they are answered?


Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are 
even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones, 
possibly something to discuss is there.


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Simon,

Il 11/06/22 20:02, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
I will remind you 
that you started this negative approach about how TDF is acting 
illegally when you and I were on the Board together last decade.


I'm honestly struggling to see how your comments can be thought as positive.

And how should users and members should voice their unsettlement, 
without risking to be stopped at every corner and called out for 
violations of CoC.


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to publish LibreOffice in app stores

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

Il 08/06/22 11:44, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:

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'm supporting the motion.

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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

Details about CoI - Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

I think it is just fair to add some small details about the how a CoI 
should be processed as food for thoughts and only for the sake of the 
argument.


Il 02/06/22 12:32, Jan Holesovsky ha scritto:

Thus I'd
expect that this CoI should be solved asap and the appropriate
measures
taken  to prevent TDF from further damage.


Are you, a TDF non-member, actually asking me, an _elected_ Board
Member, to step down?  That is a very ridiculous demand.


Removing a CoI does *not* need to result in a stepping down of a 
director, nor there is the provision to do so. The Rules of Procedures 
for the Board of Directors [1] and specifically the 1.3.2 version of the 
CoI Policy that was amended just this year and that is linked at that 
page are some nice starting points.


Andreas also addressed the whole Board, not directly Jan Holesovsky.

As per §8.4 of the Statutes, "The Board of Directors prevents possible 
conflicts of interest within the foundation." and that statement is 
binding to the public (since it is in our Statutes), not only if 
complaints come from members of the Foundation or the community.


I'm explicitly being silent on the main topic of the thread or the 
alleged CoI (for the latter, it is responsibility of the Board, not 
Jan's nor Emiliano's, to determine if it exists).


Cheers,

[1]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] ratify board communication best practices document

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 12/04/22 18:44, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:

having discussed this and incorporated your feedback, calling for a
vote, to:

* ratify attached best practices as current board communication
   guidelines
   (verbatim copy from
   https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 as of 2022-04-12
   1600 UTC)


I abstain.

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] approval of preliminary budget for 2022

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

The unfortunate reality is that we are now definitely too close to the 
deadline to start a new budget round from scratch.


I agree that the Foundation spending must include a stricter compliance 
check for CoI; I think people sitting on different sides of the table 
and playing with different hats to wear can be an issue to the Foundation.


That said, the implemented workflow (up to now) to get the budget done 
was designed to approve it as quickly as possible; CoI compliance and 
charity compliance are left to each own Director's judgement, which is 
now pretty evident that can be easily misplaced, misguided and/or exploited.


That had additionally the unfortunate drawback that some strategic 
decisions that should have been included in this round of budget were 
not thoroughly discussed, and as such delayed to a later point in time.


To better understand the situation, I'd like you to picture the 
following process if a balanced and fair procedure would be factored in.


We receive a long pre-ranked list of potential proposals from ESC, for 
which we mostly have no evidence if any CoI compliance procedures has 
been carried out (we know for sure that in ESC there are overlapping 
loyalties, like it is in the Board). Imagine 60+ items to be evaluated 
inside the Board of Directors, from a CoI, charitable, strategic and 
adherence to Foundation's goal points of view. Each one of those should 
be inspected and discussed (even briefly) with all the Directors, then 
in case of a potential CoI and presuming no duty to disclose or no 
abstension has been carried out (~all the cases from the ESC list) 
likely at least 7 rounds of voting has to be carried out to see if some 
of the Directors has to be excluded to vote the single element of the 
list because of a Conflict of Interest. The non-conflicted Directors can 
then vote the single element of the list. Finally, all those proposals 
have then to be ranked (which can be done mostly automatically), and 
this final ranking has to be approved by the Board to be filed to the 
authorities. Getting to the end of the list would take most of the time 
of a Board's term. And we didn't mention strategic decisions or 
Directors' own proposals.


The context of the budgeting round is all but positive and perfect, and 
must be improved: it has to undergo a necessary revision, implementing 
as early in the process (e.g. starting with the ESC) as possible some 
safeguards around overlapping loyalties, while keeping the whole process 
as lean, agile and quick as possible.


I think this revision should be in the top priorities of this term of 
the Board of Directors, and kindly ask all the fellow Directors to put 
their efforts into it as soon as possible. We should also think about 
having it as a recurring item during Board's meeting.


Also, I want to point out that abstention by explicit declaration of 
some (likely conflicted) Directors was part of the understanding for 
this additional round of vote. The fact that my vote is still missing 
(and will likely confirm the approval of the budget) but yet no explicit 
abstention has been presented to the public is telling a specific story 
here, and it does not help showing fairness and loyalty to the Foundation.


That said, and balancing out all the considerations:

Il 06/04/22 08:15, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:

On behalf of the Board, I therefore call for the following VOTE:

Approval of the preliminary budget for 2022
as summarized in https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/dlUqWosS6dnXs8bWoXl2vC6a
and discussed in the private board meeting on 2022-03-28


Approved by my side.

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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

[board-discuss] Draft text: an "attic" proposal - version 2.0

[Emiliano Vavassori]

git-scm.com/docs/git-http-backend)


-%<--


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.2 of the CoI policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

Il 04/03/22 13:30, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:
as discussed in https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/nUXiQDLatIR_Od6g63A08xU3 
and in the last board call, the following VOTE is proposed on the 
recently published draft update to the CoI policy [1], to modify our 
Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we reference version 1.3.2 of the CoI 
policy:


+1.

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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

[board-discuss] Representation statement

[Emiliano Vavassori]

I, Emiliano Vavassori, elected member of the Board of Directors of The 
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the 
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in 
the order set forth below:


1. Gábor Kelemen
2. Gabriel Masei
3. Ayhan Yalçınsoy

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Decidim startup proposal

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for your support to the proposal.

Il 17/02/22 12:07, Simon Phipps ha scritto:

  * You mention that Decidim is not the only potential tool, and assert
that analysing the internal processes is more important than
evaluating which tool to use. I definitely agree that a
specification should come first. I wonder if you can tell us briefly
why you already picked Decidim over the other well-known tools
(specifically Consul and LiquidFeedback)?


As said in the proposal, the instance was already running at TDF for 
nearly a year; members of the MC, of the BoD and the Team already 
invested considerable time on it. It would have been a waste of efforts 
to change the platform at this point and mostly unhelpful/unfruitful to 
change it without a clear understanding of its shortcomings, with the 
regards of our use cases; a knowledge we can achieve only having some 
processes mapped in the platform.


We already have expertise in the Team about this specific platform, also.

Other platforms were mentioned and at least brainstormed, see for 
example: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3251



  * With only a few hundred Trustees our use case would be very small
compared with most of the tool's applications (although I am aware
that these tools have parts that are used by consultation groups).
Are there any useful examples of Decidim (or Consul) being used for
the tasks we are considering? I am not asserting a problem, just
wondering if there's an example inspiring you.


The Decidim community itself is using the same platform to discuss and 
shape the framework redesigns: https://meta.decidim.org/


A fellow Director asked a similar question, and I failed to answer him 
with a proper research. I hope this answer will suite him, too.



  * Given the goal here is to widen participation beyond the current
insiders, have you considered including some Trustees in the working
group as well?


I surely have, and I am more than favorable about it in principle; but I 
also see some minor flaws with this approach.


The proposal allows for 8 people to attend activities with the 
consultancy; this should accommodate at least two people out of the MC, 
two out of the BoD and two more people from the Team to participate to 
the working group, but not limiting to 2 people out of each body.


If this holds true at the minimum, it will leave a very small space for 
Trustees to be included in the working group, so we either:
 1) ask the Trustees, and have to manage in the end to choose who is 
included or excluded and on which (more or less) arbitrary basis do this 
choice (not the most fair/inclusive outcome, honestly), or
 2) ask directly to selected people to participate to the working 
group, which is leaner than 1) but indeed arbitrary and not inclusive.


Widening the audience to the consultancy activities to allow for more 
participation from the Trustees can be another solution, but 
pragmatically we know smaller working group has the best chance to reach 
their goals. And I am willingly leaving out considerations about the 
economic impact of such widened participation.


I am more of the opinion that, once the working group has reached a 
quasi-working setup, involving the community back is the right thing to 
do, to run some simulations, possibly in parallel to the real BoD 
decisions, to have some time to collect volunteers' and members' 
feedback/improvements on the implemented processes, before the BoD 
finally approves the use of the platform.


I hope this can be helpful.

Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

[board-discuss] Decidim startup proposal

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Dear members and community,

With the present email I'd like to share a (slightly redacted) version 
of the proposal I made to the Board of Directors for the ongoing effort 
of implementing a platform for participatory democracy, Decidim.


You may find all the details in the document at:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4BQ6S82PJqMb2YQ

I am available, of course, to clarify any doubts the provided proposal 
will raise.


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Simon,

Sorry to be very direct in my answer.

Il 14/01/22 19:14, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
Yes, I have to agree with you. Freedom, equality and solidarity used to 
be the norm at TDF. Over the last couple of years that has largely ended 
at the Foundation level (fortunately our community still has many parts 
where this is not true). This has led to progress grinding to a halt 
through mistrust. For example, both TDC and LOOL were ended just at the 
point where the external conditions suggested they were going to 
flourish. Little has been achieved in their place as you observe, and as 
the tired bickering in this thread illustrates.


I feel exploiting a honest and community-felt thought as the one 
proposed by Sophie to attack other people is unneeded and unfair. As 
such, I will treat the rest of the mail.


We (the current board) spent nearly 1.5 years, and donor's money, to 
fully brainstorm around the creation of a third-party entity, finding 
out in the meantime that your (and other's) proposal had some issues:

* Due legal checking wasn't thoroughly done;
* Other kind of third-party entities (e.g. fully controlled ones), 
achieving the same goals, were possible (and their feasibility was not 
even assessed - it would have taken more time, that the current Board 
decided instead to invest);
* The proposed setup was (more or less debatable) potentially causing 
Conflicts of Interest;
* Being based in UK, Brexit could have impacted it (but this is simple 
to see now, in hindsight);
* Last but not least, we received strong opposing from the community to 
the proposal itself.


I think we should end here the quarrel, or risk more damage to TDF and 
other parties in the meantime.


There are positive aspects of your proposal, though, which I can surely 
recognize: it was immediately applicable and it would have impacted even 
in the pandemic already; and it sparkled a lot of constructive 
discussions inside of the Board, for which we are now more aware of 
issues that can appear, and more ready to prevent them, and/or even 
developed new and feasible ideas on how to better serve the community 
and the Foundation itself.


While mistrust is a pretty heavy word, I wonder if our "mistrust" has 
done more damage to TDF than "trusting" everyone and every action in the 
first place.


Let me close with a different mood: TDF appreciates your input, Simon, 
it is indeed great, insightful and wise, and (I have no doubts about it) 
provided in the best interests of the Foundation; we will always listen 
to you and thank you for your involvement in the project. We are just 
humans, and sometimes we simply fail (also, it's simpler to spot 
failures in hindsight); that's why we need to relate to a community that 
can point out what's going wrong.


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] Acceptance of role in the Board of Directors

[Emiliano Vavassori]

I, Emiliano Vavassori, elected director of the board of The Document
Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start February 18, 2022.

Signed: Emiliano Vavassori


Ich, Emiliano Vavassori, gewähltes Mitglied des Vorstands der The
Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 18. Februar 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Emiliano Vavassori

--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] Draft text: an "attic" proposal

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Il 05/01/22 21:02, Michael Weghorn ha scritto:
Can you possibly give a few more details on why you're considering it as 
another candidate for the attic?


Oh, that's quite simple and probably at the same time very naive: mainly 
because I was unaware of the facts you mentioned.


The absence of a release published in the Play Store (which is the main 
venue, to my perspective, to reach for users), its known limitations, 
the need of a reworking of the interface to get some interest back to 
the app and the appearance of a successful substitute app (the Collabora 
Office app you cited yourself) got me to the wrong conclusion, that it 
wouldn't be worked on and further supported, and no other interests were 
on my radar.


Happy to know I was wrong, and that has been worked on in the last year 
:) Thanks to you (and by extension, to anyone else worked on it) for 
your efforts on the project :)


But at least in the status quo, my personal opinion so far would 
be that it's not the time to put LO Android Viewer to the attic as of now.


Well, I have to agree with you; after your explanation, it seems it does 
not qualify for the attic.
PS: As a side note, given that Android Viewer is contained in the "core" 
git repo, just like the desktop version, it would have to be clarified 
what "putting to the attic" would mean in detail for that specific case.


Indeed, that's something we didn't envision in the proposal; thanks for 
pointing it out.


My first though about a general process to atticize core code is at 
least cumbersome and require much more work than leaving it there (and I 
can only understand high level development, as I am not a developer). 
What's your take?


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

Re: [board-discuss] Draft text: an "attic" proposal

[Emiliano Vavassori]

le developing changes in the first place). Whether these efforts are 
shared with the community or not, however, it is a decision that 
pertains only to said companies' managements, based on their business 
model (e.g. leveraging added value to attract customers that, in the 
end, can enrich the whole project and assure its sustainability), and 
provided that LO license permits them to decide.


The reality, here, is that the Online project was mostly an effort from 
one company (not completely, but mostly), and that is clearly shown by 
the fact that the project is surviving outside of TDF venues under the 
cares of said company. Whether this project was marketed as a community 
effort but most of the efforts then arguably came only from one company 
and costs of its development were not shared with TDF, well, that's some 
of the missed decisions and false expectations I was referring to before.


I wasn't involved in the discussion from the inception of the Online 
project, so my understanding of what happened back then is somehow 
intrinsically biased and mostly the result of a collection of others' 
opinions; but I have to admit my overall summary of the situation has 
changed since I became a Director (not drastically, but has changed 
anyways).


That said, we (unfortunately) cannot fix what already happened. What we 
can do is learn from past mistakes and assure that what was done wrong 
with the Online project will not happen again in the future.


Some Board Directors (also, potentially re-elected) have already 
proposed some actions to fix (or better, put in place) rules of 
engagement for community projects; this need to fix rules of engagement 
is not even consensual in the actual Board of Directors, and some of the 
(equally, potentially re-elected) Directors refuse the need, altogether 
with the proposed fixes, pointing out other factors as the root cause of 
the actual situation.


Fixing eventual rules of engagement can just be one aspect of the issue, 
however, and we have to implement different approaches to nurture 
ecosystem-provided efforts to strengthen the set of features for 
LibreOffice by participating to these efforts as TDF and as community, 
as such making sure that the added value provided by these efforts will 
become an indissoluble part of the project.


How to do that, well, that's a pretty daunting, hard task to do, 
additionally with a pretty holistic approach; while the Board has the 
responsibility to implement actions to foster that, the whole community 
is called to care about it. I'd like to hear feedback from members to 
pointers, ideas, actions to better focus on our common shared goal, 
while reducing to the bare minimum the frictions between different parts 
of our diverse community.


This is 
something the next board should focus on.


Well, I'd be pleased and at the same time scared to death if this would 
be the only hot topic the next Board has to deal with ;)



Getting to this specific situation


Please excuse me if I will not go into details, for two main reasons:
* I don't think this is particularly helpful to further the discussion, 
and instead it potentially can affect negatively one side or the other. 
Let's just assume we *all together* did some *faux pas* and look out for 
the future;
* I don't have the knowledge, the skills and the time to go over these 
details, check their genesis, the possible deciding facts, and give my 
own informed thoughts about all of them. For what purpose, then? Would 
it change something in the actual situation?


In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the fact that I’m completely 
unhappy with the “attic” proposal as a solution for the Online situation


Again, it was not a proposal for the Online situation only; and while I 
have to admit that my position changed a lot about what follows, with a 
lot of unhappiness and unrest in my heart I also must say that for me 
there is no Online discussion at TDF anymore, since the move from Collabora.


and hope we can all work together to allow TDF to still consider Online 
a part of the LibreOffice suite.


I still consider a cloud/mobile solution to be key for the future of the 
project, but I'm not considering anymore the Online solution as 
incarnated by LOOL as part of that future. I see a different approach to 
the technological issue that I would like to see loved and cared for 
from the community and the Board of Directors; as part of my renewed 
commitment to TDF, I would try to push that effort in the priorities of TDF.


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

[board-discuss] Re: Board elections: questions to the candidate Emiliano Vavassori

[Emiliano Vavassori]

is often contributed to the depletion of resources 
inside the project - or rather, a missed opportunity to get some sort of 
return from it, mining its sustainability. We have to work more on our 
users' awareness on how the project sustains itself and its ecosystem;


* On the topic of sustainability, LibreOffice lost a lot of companies 
from the ecosystem through the years, although for different reasons. 
The ideal approach is to understand how we as a community can work to 
solve these issues together, and then implement further ideas and 
suggestions that can help grow interest in LibreOffice and into the 
community behind;


* Technology has changed, and as of now we have new challenges around
mobile and web/cloud. We were late already during the last board term, 
we are even more late now. Efforts in this respect has been provided, I

think TDF should just provide its support to these efforts.

The Document Liberation Project faces mostly the same challenges as
LibreOffice, as it is definitely bound tightly with it.

For ODF, the challenges lie in a much stronger opponent; I think only
active advocating and possibly lobbying in political environments can be
a good solution. Making decision-makers understand why FLOSS is
important for data privacy and how ODF will assist to that perspective
is key.

All these threats can be turned into opportunities, if we all together 
keep the focus on our mission and care for sustainability, working together.


11. If they will occur, how do you think to handle conflicts within the 
board


The current Board was definitely different from what has happened in the 
past, like many of you have also expressed to us, so it was natural that 
some friction could rise up. I always tried my best not to jump to 
conclusions but rather understand where arguments stem from, striving to 
always keep a balanced point of view, hearing all the voices and opinions.


This is not always possible as we are all naturally bound to bias, to a 
different scale of values and to different goals (or perceived goals, at 
least).


I have to say my fellow Directors strove to avoid conflict altogether 
where possible, mostly by recusing themselves on the obvious cases, but 
devil is in the detail and it wasn't always so simple to discern if 
there was a conflict or not for the rest of the time.


Fortunately, a new Conflict of Interest policy, which shows more 
explicitly where to check for overlapping loyalties, has been approved 
in a second iteration, with more work on it ongoing. I plan to use the 
indications contained in the document to check if a conflict exists, to 
provide fair and respectful interactions, discussions and decisions in 
the Board.


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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

[board-discuss] Candidacy to the BoD elections: Emiliano Vavassori

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

I’m Emiliano and I would like to run as candidate for the next Board of 
Directors.


I’m a FOSS advocate since 2001. To me, what makes open source shine, is 
its community and the interactions between the people behind.


In my daily job, I work as a senior system administrator for a small 
company, called BgWorld, that is based in Bergamo, in the North of 
Italy. We provide IT services and support to small and medium sized 
companies. While my roots in the community are in infrastructure, event 
organization and documentation, I know they are just three out of the 
many pillars our project stands on. My goal for the next term is 
therefore to strengthen the relationship between all our native language 
communities and the Foundation through shared goals, and work with all 
of you on a brighter perspective on where we want to bring TDF in the 
next years.


Let me express my respect and appreciation to our broad and inspiring 
community. I have also to be thankful to fellow Directors in this and 
previous terms and to our team, as every single one of them was kind 
enough to explain and drive me through the learning curve of being a new 
Director. Thanks truly for this. In the same community spirit, I will be 
happy to help to mentor community members who wish to apply, for the 
first time, for a seat inside the governing bodies of TDF.


I commit myself to put what I learned at the service of the Foundation 
for another term.


I am surely available for any questions that will arise from community 
members about my candidacy. Please feel free to contact me for anything 
you want to ask.


-

Full Name: Emiliano Vavassori
Email: syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org
Affiliation: BgWorld Srl

75 words statement:

I’d like to put my knowledge, energies and heart at the service of our 
Foundation, for a second term in the board. My focus will be on 
safeguarding the sustainability of the project, by working on a healthy 
environment for all current and future volunteers, all corporate 
citizens and in general all stakeholders, with the goal to further grow 
the project in all areas. I want to ensure that their contributions have 
equal positive impacts.


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org




OpenPGP_0x462DE52B15FAB0E3.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 24/11/21 00:41, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:

calling for a VOTE on the just-published draft update to the CoI
policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we
reference version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy:

---

Preamble

In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any
regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes,
decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.

Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of Interest 
Policy: 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/2/21/Mike_BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_1.pdf

Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the
Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest
Policy always shall prevail.

---

According to § 1, 2. of said Rules of Procedure, this vote runs for
one week, until December 1st, 2021. After approval, the amended Rules
of Procedure will be published and enter into immediate effect.

[1] 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/2/21/Mike_BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_1.pdf
[2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules


+1

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] A work-in-progress version of the CoI Policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Dear Community,

over the past months, the Membership Committee (MC) and the Board of 
Directors (BoD) have been working on a Conflict of Interest Policy. It 
gives guidance and helps current and future BoD and MC members to take 
decisions.


When in 2010 our foundation was created, it was tailored to the specific 
needs of our diverse community - an independent FOSS project where the 
community and the ecosystem closely work together. With this policy, all 
volunteers, all corporate citizens and in general all stakeholders can 
be sure that their contributions have equal positive impacts.


Version 1.1 of the Conflict of Interest Policy has been approved and it 
was about time to publish it. We are all strongly committed to work on 
improved iterations, and so we already have a subsequent 
work-in-progress version 1.3.0, which is linked to this e-mail [1]. It 
will be further enhanced with the contributions of all interested 
parties, to seek for an even broader consensus.


Some notable points:
1. The policy guides to act in the best interest and to the full 
advantage of our Foundation.
2. It makes it easier for TDF to invest even further in a stable and 
sustainable ecosystem and to stimulate many more third parties to do so.

3. It is intended for future decisions, so it is not retroactive.

I'd like to thank everyone for the commitment to the topic so far, and 
looking forward for more feedback about it.


Cheers,

[1]: 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6f/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_0.pdf

--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] [DECISION] Approval of amended Rules of Procedure which include CoI Policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2021-10-15, is now 
made public in accordance with our statutes.


The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders 
(not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 
1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.


A total of 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes.

I hereby call for the following combined VOTE (i.e. a single agreement counts towards the approval of both points; the two points cannot be voted individually, nor it is possible to agree on one point and disagree on the other one): 

* approve the proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure [1], that includes the Conflict of Interest Policy [2], both as published in my email from 4th October 2021 on board-discuss@documentfoundation.org, to become effective immediately after publication; 

and 

* publish the amended Rules of Procedure to the members and the general public on 1st November, 2021 

As usual, the vote will run for the next 72 hours, starting from the moment this mail vote is sent. 

[1]: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00219.html  
[2]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf 


Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstains, 1 disapproval.
One deputy supports the motion.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Simon,

Sorry for the belated answer :/

Il 06/10/21 14:46, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
I think you are right, yes, which is why I sought clarification whether 
this was the Board providing formal notice of an intent to make such a 
modification.


I cannot read, in the Statutes or in the Rules of Procedure, such a 
mandatory step, nor an indication that a proposal of amendment to the 
Rules cannot be made by a Director, asking for a vote. Can you point out 
where your understanding comes from, please?


The proposed amendments were known to the full Board before publishing 
and the proposed policy has been in discussion for over a month. Since 
there was no unanimous consensus about it, but a fully shared 
understanding that a written CoI policy is needed, I proposed the vote.


For the record, I fully support having a Conflict of Interest policy at 
TDF.

Thank you for your support.

Given this is such an important topic, I request that the Board hold a 
public process (or at minimum open to Members) to review the text they 
intend to vote on and provide Members with enough time to consider the 
text and a means to seek clarifications, rather than performing a /fait 
accomplis/ with a minimal public review period -- something I know 
you and some colleagues care about a great deal.


While I share the need of publicity, common understanding and 
request/provision of feedback by a larger base, please understand this 
document regulates the internal processes of the Board of Directors.


Someone, inside the Board, asked to extend the proposed policy by 
default to any member, but I must say I am very reluctant in doing so 
without any direct involvement of other TDF bodies (incl. the Membership 
Committee and the Board of Trustees, for example). Unfortunately, this 
will be a pretty long journey, one which the actual Board can eventually 
just start, but that cannot commit to finish.


Also, with e.g. a significant number of tenders this year, it's 
important to have a policy for the current board in place, and not only 
for the next one.


So we have to start somewhere. A similar policy has been prepared by 
fellow members drawing from years of experience in various bodies, 
reviewed directly by our legal consultant (mandated by the Board itself) 
and then voted by the MC with a large majority. We then asked our legal 
consultant to provide a version based on the MC one that would fit the 
Statutes' provisions for the Board. This was followed by an internal 
review and a call. To make a long story short, the heavy side of the 
work needed for a first version has been provided to the Board and 
approved by another TDF official body with a large majority, so it only 
seems sensible and respectful towards the work put into it by our fellow 
members to adopt this policy as a first step.


I will note none of the text has been supplied to or discussed by the 
legal committee (where I am a volunteer).


I really appreciate your activity in the project and the Foundation. I 
will welcome very thankfully your involvement (and by extension, of any 
other volunteer) for the future versions of a CoI Policy. We already 
discussed how to make changes in a future version, but as said, we need 
to make a start with an initial version.


Naturally - hopefully a text that can be unanimously approved will arise 
so that there is no taint of partisanship.


Yes, a unanimously approved version would have been indeed the best 
outcome. So, independently of the results of the vote of this proposal, 
I look forward to work on further improvements assured by the fact that 
all the stakeholders are fully committing to it.


Do you or your fellow 
directors have insight when that is planned? I don't recall seeing it 
mentioned in previous minutes but I may have overlooked it.


As you can see yourself from the background information I provided here, 
that is not foreseeable now, based on different understanding on how in 
depth an eventual public/members' contribution to the topic would be.


For myself, I am eager to start discussing it right after the vote.

Again, thanks for your inquiries; I hope this will be clarifying the 
ratio behind the proposal and the vote.


Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for your inquiry and very sorry to reply with such a delay.

Il 05/10/21 13:11, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
Just to be clear, Emiliano, is this an official Board communication or a 
personal message from you?


As I read §1.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors, it 
is mandatory to make available a proposal of the amendments to said 
Rules to the public at lease one week in advance a final vote from the 
Board, and that's what my message was sent for. The draft proposed aims 
to modify the Rules of Procedure to include a Conflict of Interest policy.


This proposal of amendments is my own, but, as already clarified by 
others, is supported by other directors.


The official Board approval (or an eventual rejection) is determined 
then when this proposal will be voted by the Board itself.


I hope this clarifies your doubts.

Regards,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Dear fellow community,

I'd like to make available, with the present message, the draft of an 
amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors, aimed at 
including a Conflict of Interest Policy. This process is stated in § 1.2 
of said Rules of Procedure [1].


The Membership Committee has recently adopted a Conflict of Interest 
Policy [2]. Other directors and myself want a Conflict of Interest 
Policy also for the Board of Directors, as a guide to correct behavior; 
we also think that having a policy would simplify internal processes and 
the onboarding of the new members, both in the Board of Directors and in 
the Membership Committee.


As per said §1.2 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose the following 
amendment. The Preamble will be changed to read:


---

Preamble

In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby 
agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any 
regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes, 
decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.


Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of 
Interest Policy: 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf


Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the 
Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest 
Policy always shall prevail.


---

Background information:

The Board of Directors discussed, in the previous month, to implement a 
Conflict of Interest Policy (from now on, CoI Policy) in reply to the 
kind suggestion of the Membership Committee.


The MC itself adopted a CoI Policy (see [2]), that was then forwarded to 
the Board of Directors as a proposal. It has been reviewed by our legal 
consultant, so was the Membership Committee’s version, and optimized to 
adhere to the specific provisions of the Statutes for the Board of 
Directors. The Board of Directors will vote on the definitive adoption 
of the proposed CoI Policy in a week.


The proposed CoI Policy condenses predicaments contained in various 
sections of the TDF Statutes and common behaviors when dealing with 
possibly overlapping loyalties (e.g. recusing themselves from voting on 
a specific topic); this document is, in the end, a simpler guide to 
quickly identify and react upon possible conflict of interest by the 
members of the Board of Directors.


The intent is to better manage overlapping loyalties and not to actively 
exclude a potentially conflicted person from any decisions at all taken 
in the Board, but, if a conflict exists, only on specific topics related 
to said conflict.


Please find the proposed text for the Board of Directors’ Conflict of 
Interest Policy in the link above (or in [3]).


We are, as always, available to clarify any issues and questions that 
may arise in the meantime.


Cheers, regards,

[1]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules

[2]: 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Membership_Committee_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_final.pdf


[3]: 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf


--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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] Vote about Certification Updates

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 06/07/21 16:36, Italo Vignoli ha scritto:
> As agreed during the last BoD call (July 2nd), I would like the BoD to
> approve the following:

+1

Thank you very much Italo for your proposal.
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] TDF Advisory Board Members

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 23/03/21 23:27, William Gathoye (LibreOffice) ha scritto:
Also, this RMS situation is the perfect timing to have/enforce a proper 
contributor agreement/code of conduct/manifesto/call-it-what-you-want-to 
agreement without the need to reinvent the wheel.


Which is already in place since some time:
https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/

And to which any member (Advisory Board members included) has to support 
and adhere to.


Far from perfect? Yes, sure, probably miles away. Hope to be working on 
it as soon as possible.


I know you have been working on this (cf. occurrences in "Board of 
Directors Meeting 2021-03-12" and even back from the days Marina was at 
the board), I'm just mentioning that instead of reinventing the wheel 
for that part, we just could use this joint/collective effort:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/


Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure this is sound material to evaluate.

Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related decisions

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 10/02/21 13:08, Guilhem Moulin ha scritto:
> Before that https://github.com/libreoffice/online was a read-only mirror
> for https://git.libreoffice.org/online , so by “revert decision 1b” I
> guess you mean to make it so again?  Should both this and
> https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/IbatXLjaK38BCbLBNiiw7Ned be approved, this
> would mean that the tip of the master branch on both
> https://git.libreoffice.org/online and https://github.com/libreoffice/online
> would point to 4ca4fd34169dd386c2fa57bd28650c00b23d6864^.  (As was the
> case between the Oct 1 and the implementation of the aforementioned BoD
> decision.)

That's exactly what I propose, in a much richer and precise description.

> But what do you mean by the second part of your proposal: “(if feasible)
> point TDF repo on GitHub on git/gerrit on TDF infra”?  I can't think of
> an interpretation that's not already covered by “revert decision 1b”.

Indeed. The second part of the phrase was only meant to explicitly state
what is going to happen in the end (including the technical clearance to
do it). "Revert decision 1b" should be quite clear by itself.

As stated (elsewhere), I intend these modifications as a temporary way
until a definitive and shared way will be decided by the Board.

Cheers,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online information in the release notes

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 02/02/21 14:46, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
> Hi Florian,
> 
> On 02/02/2021 12:15, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>> based on the previous discussion, putting the following to VOTE now:
>>
>> Ask the marketing team to summarize the new LibreOffice Online
>> information website (see vote item #1 in
>> https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/4bCUE2Lh2ffa-M8da8zEfPF7) in the release
>> notes, adding a link to the full page
>>
>> [Note: The content of that website is currently edited and discussed and
>> should be finished soon.]
> 
>   I'm really not a huge fan of the board voting in such detail on these
> specific sorts of actions. I'm rather confident in our marketing team
> doing what's sensible and incorporating feedback to move us in a
> reasonable direction perhaps based on high-level guidance from the board.

Agreed.

> 
>   Nevertheless the above seems un-controversial =)

Glad it is - +1 also for me.

Cheers,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online freeze-related decisions

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 02/02/21 18:10, Daniel Armando Rodriguez ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that several BoD members, me included, have
> misunderstood the implication of such vote. Especially 1b. So, my take
> is to vote on Guilhems proposal, detailed bellow. Which I support.
> 
> "rewind branches on https://git.libreoffice.org/online and for the time
> being deny all write
> operations to the repository, be it on the git or gerrit side.  It'll
> freeze the state of the dashboard, notification, and other clones for
> free, and if/when we decide to accept contributions again everything
> will be just one switch away."

+1, but I think the proposal misses some bits. I'll try to cope with them:

* branches will be rewinded to commit (or the commits before)
4ca4fd34169dd386c2fa57bd28650c00b23d6864 (last commit before changes by
Collabora)
* OpenGrok needs to point to the TDF git/gerrit
* revert decision 1b and (if feasible) point TDF repo on GitHub on
git/gerrit on TDF infra.

After this bits, I think this whole votes needs another round of
confirmation - to be sure that also these bits are consensual.

Cheers,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online information in the release notes

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 02/02/21 13:15, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:

based on the previous discussion, putting the following to VOTE now:

 Ask the marketing team to summarize the new LibreOffice Online 
information website (see vote item #1 in 
https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/4bCUE2Lh2ffa-M8da8zEfPF7) in the release 
notes, adding a link to the full page


+1

The key point here is, as underlined by Michael, "high-level guidance 
from the board", though; I see some optimization that can be done on the 
guidance part.


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

I thank our Chairman to take the time to explain his vision of the 
freeze, which I share (at least, the vast majority of it, TBH). As such:


Il 13/01/21 16:28, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:
1. Ask the marketing project to make a proposal to revamp the 
LibreOffice Online website 
(https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) to reflect 
the status quo


+1

2. Ask the team to keep an eye on BugZilla, and freeze/make read-only 
the BugZilla component for LibreOffice Online, should that be necessary 
(to avoid new bugs being filed, but do not delete existing content)


+1; this would be the first one to revert back IMHO, when conditions 
will allow for it.


3. Point the OpenGrok repository to the mirrored Collabora Online 
repository, for the time being, as long as the development is not 
happening at TDF


-1

4. Adapt the Dashboard for the Online repository and freeze 
contributions in the state immediately preceding the fork


+1; second item to be reverted when conditions will allow.

5. Ask the team to remove the Online section from the release notes in 
the wiki


-1, more with Lothar with clarifying the status quo on the wiki.

Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice 7.1 tag ("label")

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 07/12/20 16:28, Lothar K. Becker ha scritto:
> The proposals, in ALPHABETICAL order, are as follows:
> 
> a. Advance
> b. Community
> c. Rolling

3. Advance
2. Community
1. Rolling

I understand, even between the community members, this is a pretty
controversial decision and for sure the result will leave a bad taste in
the mouth of many, whatever the decision will be.

Still, I would like to take the time to thank everyone that contributed
to the discussion, showing how much passion, love and care for the
project everyone has to contribute; I'm proud of our community.

Cheers,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice 7.1 marketing plan

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 07/12/20 16:23, Lothar K. Becker ha scritto:
> _*Vote text:*_
> 
> - APPROVAL of the 7.1 MARKETING PLAN, especially the ACTION ITEMS from
> the aforementioned shared slides slide 27 onwards.
> 
> - The board ASKS THE TEAM, especially the marketing group with Italo and
> Mike, to WORK on the aforementioned ACTION ITEMS, as they are set forth
> in the PDF.
> 
> - The board ASKS THE TEAM, especially the marketing group with Italo and
> Mike, to MONITOR results and RECEPTION of this marketing plan and its
> action items, and COLLECT AND BRING FORWARD PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES,
> REMOVALS AND ADDITIONS when necessary, especially in time for the NEXT
> MAJOR RELEASES and/or snapshots, or the LATEST IN SIX MONTHS' TIME

+1.

I would like to thank everyone that contributed to the discussion and
provided their inputs to make these (long awaited) changes to take form.

I think this is a first important step, but it should be only the
beginning of a journey, as underlined by the proposal by Lothar, to get
to a stable, balanced, sustainable and win-win status-quo between
volunteers and ecosystem partners. Everyone's contribution (on the
Marketing Plan, but more in general towards the project) is key for a
bright future for the project and our community.

Cheers,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

Il 26/11/20 11:02, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:

The vote that has been proposed is the following:

1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for the 
time being


1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to 
instead mirror the Collabora repo, for the time being, and make sure we 
catch pull requests there, e.g. via the mentoring alias on TDF side


2. to freeze (not delete) the translations for online in Weblate, for 
the time being


I do *not* agree.

I still maintain the LOOL subproject is key for the future of TDF and 
its community. IMHO, Desktop will be a niche market in some years; as 
such, I think we have to "update" our views and probably start to think 
ahead if we want to survive/shine as a community.


If that is/will be true, freezing (even temporarily) the venues where 
historically TDF have taken care of contributions (TDF Gerrit in case of 
code, but more generically, TDF Infrastructure) will send an antithetic 
message to all contributors with the regards of the perceived importance 
of the subproject.


When I speak about community, I mean to include the ecosystem partners: 
as such, if we agree LOOL will be an important part of the future of 
LibreOffice and its community, ecosystem partners will be involved and 
will be proactively asked to provide their efforts on LOOL.


Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori, 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


OpenPGP_0x7406743FD3539DB7.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, September 25th at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[emiliano . vavassori]

Hi Andreas,As much as I support and share the need of a public discussion/process on this (and the subgroup should have worked on integrating suggestions received, see Italo's recent email), I should also add that Bugzilla is the least correct tool to put this through.This is not a technical issue, but more a direction and strategy one and not only technical (coding) people should be involved.As such, I would remark yet again to please stick with board-discuss as a public way to discuss the MarCom Plan bits and pieces.Thanks for your inputs and for your your contributions to the projectCheers,Il 23 set 2020 11:54, "kainz.a"  ha scritto:Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:50 Uhr schrieb kainz.a :
  a) LibreOffice 7.0/7.1 marketing plan
     URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3206
     Status: Paolo, Franklin, Michael, Thorsten, Mike, Italo continue 
working on this, Follow-on meeting was done, information/what is 
uncontroversial and could be decided to be done nowI didn't see any process in the past weeks/months on this topic. There is a bug report, mailing list and a redmine issue, no process or discussion was done in the last weeks.Please start to focus all feedback from summer and start the  discussion on BZ or any public place againto find a solution with the support of as many people as possible.On each tiny change on LibreOffice we fill bug reports and wait for feedback and approval and for this big topic I miss a global decision. In redmine only a final pdf was linked.That's not how LibO development works. Consolidate the decision in BZ, where all other decisions were discussed.again cheersAndreas_K
N‹§²æìr¸›y隊[hn†«uجrë,úéì¹»®&Þv‡.™éí~‹§u«b¢z+€úènW¦²m¦ÏÿÃ%‰ºÞ¡÷âqê+ƒø¶¥§ùšŠX§‚X¬¶Ïá£hº{.nÇ+‰·¿>‹-Šx º'^–)޳騭èm¶›?ÿ¤‰Úºg§µú.Ö­Š‰è®Ízت¹ëmx¸¬µªÜ†+ކÛi³ÿåŠËZ­Èb½ë¡Ë¦z{_¢éÝjبžŠàÿ0ýº­×b±Ë¬³óëŠöœÈú%‰Ì¡¶Úlÿü0ÁÚºg§µú.Ö­Š‰è®é®+Ús

Re: [board-discuss] Invitation to public TDF board meeting on Friday, March 13th at 1300 Berlin time

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Il 13/03/20 13:21, William Gathoye (LibreOffice) ha scritto:
> All public Jitsi instances (was the case for Framasoft) are being taken
> up by people wanting to use a visio solution, so I assume the TDF server
> (or at least its network connection) was overloaded.

I don't think so, even it is public it was not *published* anywhere,
IIRC, but I think our Infra team can answer this point.

> On this topic, boosting the current server

That seems the most viable option.

> and promoting it to our
> users, would be a good marketing campaign, if hosted at
> jitsi.libreoffice.org (not on tdf.org, in order to boost brand
> awareness). Depending on the cost, that's something I could cover.

I am in doubt of all of these. The jitsi instance is for the *community*
behind LibreOffice, not directly for LibreOffice per se, so I am
positive the actual domain is indeed ok.

I think I will bring it directly to the Infra group, as it is now clear
we have a problem that we must solve. I think the discussion belongs
there, then we can summarize the outcome here.

Regards,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] Representation statement

[Emiliano Vavassori]

I, Emiliano Vavassori, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in
the order set forth below:

 1. Paolo Vecchi
 2. Nicolas Christener

-- 
Emiliano Vavassori, 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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] Re: Acceptance of BoD role

[Emiliano Vavassori]

I, Emiliano Vavassori, elected Director of the Board of "The Document
Foundation", hereby accept this position within the Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts "The Document Foundation". My term will start
February 18, 2020.

Signed: Emiliano Vavassori

Ich, Emiliano Vavassori, gewähltes Mitglied des Vorstands der "The
Document Foundation", nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen
Rechts "The Document Foundation" an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 18.
Februar 2020.

Unterzeichnet: Emiliano Vavassori--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[board-discuss] Candidacy to the Board of Directors: Emiliano Vavassori

[Emiliano Vavassori]

Hi all,

My name is Emiliano Vavassori and as a fellow LibreOffice contributor
and TDF member I would like to run as candidate for the Board of Directors.

I am a senior system administrator, employed in a small company based in
Bergamo, in the North of Italy, with its core business in providing ICT
services for SMB companies. In my job, I’m mostly without any relation
to LibreOffice - we install it on some customer’s PCs, but at least for
the moment we don‘t have any migration process/anything bigger planned.

My operating system of choice is GNU/Linux since 2001 and from the same
days I advocate FOSS and openness whenever possible, both in public
events and in the business. Lately I was convinced that also open
formats should have their own share of advocating so I am trying to do
that as well. I am actually in the Board of both BgLUG (Bergamo Linux
Users Group) and LibreItalia (Italian local “chapter” of TDF), but I
am/was involved in a lot of other organizations, mostly with goals in
FOSS advocacy.

In the last few years, I was involved in FOSS advocacy also inside
schools, founding and leading the LibreSchool Project
(www.libreschool.org) with a group of friends and colleagues from my
LUG. I hope my experience would be of help inside TDF Board of
Directors; I am pretty sure that I will also learn a lot.

As soon as I have been involved with TDF, I have been greeted by a full
lot of passionate and welcoming people who worked hard to make yourself
feel at home inside TDF and, sharing the same spirit, I would like to
drive the efforts on the next two years within the BoD to make
LibreOffice and The Document Liberation Project shine even more. My
goals inside the Board will be mostly facilitating community
interactions and activities, community inclusion and lowering the
initial barriers to becoming a community member and contributor, which I
can feel is still pretty high.

I would like to provide my direct help inside the TDF Board of Directors
dealing with infrastructure (as it may seem legitimate by my job),
marketing, event organization and native language projects.

I am surely available for any questions that will arise from community
members about my candidacy. Please feel free to contact me for anything
you want to ask.

Full Name: Emiliano Vavassori
Email: syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org
Affiliation: non affiliated

75 words statement:
I am sure the community should be leading the activities of The Document
Foundation; I will be available for the next term of the Board of
Directors as community’s spokesperson, to lower the entry barriers on
involvement with TDF projects and activities and to make TDF even more
inclusive and welcoming. I feel that my more than decennial experience
within other FOSS communities may be of some help to the Board.

Cheers,
-- 
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature