[board-discuss] Re: Migration of TDF board-discuss list to Community Forum
Will close the list and proceed with the migration after posting this. The new discussion platform should eventually show up at https://community.documentfoundation.org/c/board-discuss . At this point, posters that weren't found in SSO will be assigned a generic username, and subscribers that never signed up (or who didn't specify their subscription address in the user panel) won't be mass-“subscribed”. Notifications can be tuned by clicking the bell button at the above URL. -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Start audio-recording TDF board calls again, for better minuting
On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 at 21:08:54 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Motion: ask Infra to setup a Jitsi recording facility for the TDF > board room as soon as possible. Recordings should be made available > only to the board, in particular when private or sensitive topics are > discussed. Uh that seems to be beyond our area of expertise, especially for private calls we don't attend… Note that jitsi has a “start recording” button (AFAICT only working on Chrome ATM, but available to anyone that's logged in). Files can then be downloaded locally, and later uploaded to BoD-shared storage. (Direct upload is also doable in theory, but AFAICT only dropbox is supported at the moment.) Not so long ago it was possible to record audio only, but upstream seems to have dropped that so unfortunately one has to manually extract the channel if video is of no interest. -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 19:48:57 +0200, Andreas Mantke wrote: > I wonder what is the usual time slot it needs to merge a reviewed and > ready patch into the LibreOffice repository. https://dashboard.documentfoundation.org/app/kibana#/dashboard/Gerrit-Timing and https://dashboard.documentfoundation.org/app/kibana#/dashboard/Gerrit-Backlog have average and median timing metrics per repo and developer, and one can tweak the filter to add the desired conditions. For more complex queries you can use the elasticsearch API, but if there is interest in adding more visuals to the dashboard we can also do that of course. > It would be great, if the board could share it's opinion. An opinion on how to compute an average from existing data? I'm confused. -- Guilhem. -- 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] certification list issue ?
Hi there, On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 11:42:08 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: >Good point; Muhammet moved on to do new things from August 31st 2021 >[…] >We should prolly tweak domain-map AFAICT gitdm accurately reflect Muhammet's affiliation no? https://git.libreoffice.org/gitdm-config/+/master/domain-map/#174 On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 15:38:35 +0200, Andreas Mantke wrote: > If I don't overlooked it, his Collabora email address is not listed on > the LibreOffice git page, you linked in a former post: > https://git.libreoffice.org/gitdm-config/+/refs/heads/master/domain-map It doesn't need to since it's covered by the domain fallback (@collabora.com → Collabora). Lookup keys are pairs (commit author email, commit author date) not mere email addresses, so as long as Muhammet doesn't make more commits with his @collabora.com address there is no need to update the affiliation database. -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Tender to implement the new TDF Membership Committee’s web-based tooling
On Sun, 30 May 2021 at 12:11:31 +0200, Uwe Altmann wrote: > Am 29.05.21 um 18:31 schrieb Andreas Mantke: >> Interesting to read in the specifications document about a self hosted >> Captcha but without pointing to an example for such solution. > > You embezzled the "i.e." just before that. It was meant to illustrate the > idea, not to describe or define a specific intended solution. You want “e.g.” then not “i.e.”. The latter isn't a replacement for “for instance”, it stands for “id est” (“that *is*”). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(E)#e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(I)#id_est -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] TDF Advisory Board Members
Hi, On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 23:34:50 +0100, Emiliano Vavassori wrote: > Il 23/03/21 23:27, William Gathoye (LibreOffice) ha scritto: >> 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. No idea how much it evaluation it received from the then BoD, but FWIW that project was mentioned in passing on this very list 4 years ago during the discussion that got /foundation/code-of-conduct published and adopted: https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/hNmCoWCFFk63f2HlUicKssps . cheers -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related decisions
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 15:22:06 +0100, Emiliano Vavassori wrote: >> 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. Ack, thanks for clarifying! Part of the confusion was that some of you voted in favor of 1b then in favor of reverting it, but well I guess everyone is allowed to change their opinion :-) > As stated (elsewhere), I intend these modifications as a temporary way > until a definitive and shared way will be decided by the Board. Thank you for spelling this out. -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related decisions
Hi Emiliano, On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 at 14:26:53 +0100, Emiliano Vavassori wrote: > * revert decision 1b and (if feasible) point TDF repo on GitHub on > git/gerrit on TDF infra. Other BoD members are already voting on this but I have trouble understanding what that means. From https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/gVuesWC6ZI0MUequqiqJ3nrc | 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 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.) 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”. Cheers -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics
Hi Michael, On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 20:23:26 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > To soothe my Sayre's Law rash, I'd be well up for simply turning that > bit off if that's easier for syadmin. FWIW aside from its first paragraph, I was only wearing my TDF member hat in my former message. The overhead caused by that repository alone (whether it's sourced from git.tdf or github) is negligible if I need to maintain the instance in the first place. Just like the overhead of keeping the repository active (rw) on gerrit, weblate, dashboard, or the project alive on bugzilla, etc. My message was not driven by technical or workload concerns, I just find the double standard between the different services strange, and I think it'd be more consistent to drop it or update the refs back to where they were when development was still under TDF umbrella. cheers -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 16:28:06 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> 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
It might be helpful to have usage metrics for {OpenGrok online. During
the past 2 weeks I count 535 hits from 30 distinct IPs, half of which
with ≤15 requests. In comparison, for core I count 27k hits from 419
distinct IPs, 284 of which with ≤15 requests.
Anyway, why should TDF assist with tooling for a project that's no
longer developed under its umbrella? IMHO {OpenGrok falls into the same
category as build bots, and {OpenGrok's online repository should be
removed just like we shutdown the online build bot. And if there is
interest in keeping these around, they should point to the state prior
to the fork, not to a new upstream.
Bugzilla, the dashboard, and weblate are different and I think it's
important for posterity to preserve (keep that public) issues, metrics,
and l10n contributions of the project from its inception up to the fork.
FWIW I also think it's wrong to mirror references of
https://git.libreoffice.org/online
from an external repository.
https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/gVuesWC6ZI0MUequqiqJ3nrc
reads “1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git,
for the time being” and “1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online
mirror to instead mirror the Collabora repo”. I assume “freeze” in 1. was
not meant to turn https://git.libreoffice.org/online it into a read-only
mirror? That's anyway not how I read the decision.
--
Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 at 22:13:34 +0100, Guilhem Moulin wrote: > On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 at 08:26:38 -0800, Brett Cornwall wrote: >> On 2020-12-03 11:01, Florian Effenberger wrote: >>> [...] >>> Keep in mind the decision on the repository is TEMPORARY, it is not a >>> permanent one. >> >> For how long is the freeze? The most exact information I could get was >> "until we figure things out", which appears to be a bit vague. :) > > I'm also interested to know the answer to this question. Ping? -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations
Hi, On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 at 08:26:38 -0800, Brett Cornwall wrote: > On 2020-12-03 11:01, Florian Effenberger wrote: >> [...] >> Keep in mind the decision on the repository is TEMPORARY, it is not a >> permanent one. > > For how long is the freeze? The most exact information I could get was > "until we figure things out", which appears to be a bit vague. :) I'm also interested to know the answer to this question. Cheers, -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations
Hi Florian, On Wed, 02 Dec 2020 at 12:23:22 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Result of vote: 3 approvals, 3 disapprovals, 1 abstain. > One deputy approves, one deputy disapproves. > > As the vote is a tied vote, § 9 IV of the statutes come to effect. The > Chairperson has the deciding vote, and voted +1 to the proposal. > Therefore: > > Decision: The request has been accepted. > This message is to be archived by the BoD members and their deputies. AFAICT this outcome stems from the fact there it was a yes/no type of vote, so yays “for a short-term period” (quoting Lothar, but there were other BoD members with that understanding) were counted alongside enthusiastic yays. Given the short-term period isn't binding, in practice the vote might be interpreted as a definitive +1. Could the BoD clarify the short-term period and maybe even commit to revisit the vote say, before the end of their term? Cheers, -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Resigning from MC - Rücktritt vom MC
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 at 12:31:31 +0200, Italo Vignoli wrote: > Adding hostmaster for mailing lists and other services. Done (LDAP, gerrit, ML) -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
