[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, April 3rd, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, April 03 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20230403T18

Please note, that per board decision from 2023-03-08, board calls will
be audio-recorded privately, for easier minuting:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2023/msg00060.html


## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
   questions to the board and about TDF

2. Status Report, Discuss: Update on formalising board fiduciary
   duties (Paolo Vecchi, Cor Nouws, 5 mins)

3. Status Report: Move board-discuss & tdf-members to Discourse
   (tdf-board, 5 mins)

   * announcement happend:
 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2023/msg00070.html
   * final migration immediately ahead


### Private Part

4. Status Report, Discuss: TDF 2023 Budget Planning (tdf-board, 10 mins)

5. Status Report: Leftover Brussels items (Florian Effenberger,
   Thorsten Behrens, 10 mins)

6. Status Report, Discuss: Discussion and budget for developer roles
   (Florian Effenberger, 10 mins)

7. Status Report, Discuss: Next steps legal ToDo items (tdf-board, 10
   mins)

8. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
   sending the agenda

Total scheduled meeting time: 60 mins

Best regards,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2023-03-20

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, dear list,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Am 29.03.23 um 15:58 schrieb Cor Nouws:
> > A personal interest is not a conflict of interest which in general is
> > not a reason to abstain from discussing topics.
> > 
> sorry to be very clear here: I've never read or heard such nonsense
> inside other communities, I'm active in.
> 
Whether you like it or not, what Cor states is within the rules the
board operates under:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules (in particular, the
current CoI policy).

> I think the documents, linked by Paolo in his email on this list,
> should show, that all members with a personal interest had to keep
> out of any discussion (and decision) of the corresponding topics.
>
That might be your personal opinion, but since TDF is not an EU
institution, we operate under slightly different rules. Paolo knows
this, and has personally participated in discussion around LibreOffice
Online (where he has/had an interest).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, March 20th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, dear list.

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I sense it very disturbing that the board put this topic on the agenda
> and the chairman was not able to answer an easy and clear question from
> the community during the call.
>
Full minutes are due soon, excerpt below to clarify:

 * What has been your most important personal achievements in the
   interest of the foundation since you took over as chairman around
   one year ago? (Stephan)
   * running board in a difficult time, getting decisions made (Thorsten)
 * what's the relevance of raising this right now? (Cor)
 * if there's concerns - perhaps ask directly or 1:1? (Thorsten)

While that's not exactly a print-ready answer from me, I fail to see
where responding to questions was ducked.

Andreas, you're now a member of TDF again, after a longer period of
absence. As a fellow board of trustees member, I honestly wonder, how
can we encourage you to contribute positively to this project? We've
had a friendly conversation during FrOSCon, but you otherwise seem
mostly busy hounding people and finding (perceived) fault. That's not
how it should be.

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, March 20th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, March 20 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20230320T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
   questions to the board and about TDF

2. Status Report, Discuss: Update on formalising board fiduciary
   duties (Paolo Vecchi, 5 mins)

3. Status Report: Move board-discuss & tdf-members to Discourse
   (Florian Effenberger, Thorsten Behrens, 5 mins)

   Materials:
   * test instance 
https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/c/board-discuss/194
   * import options and shortcomings, see
 https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3567#note-15 to #note-19.


### Private Part

4. Vote, Discuss: Discussion and budget for developer roles (Florian
   Effenberger, 5 mins)

5. Status Report, Discuss: Improve tendering process (tdf-board, 5 mins)

6. Status Report, Discuss: Next steps legal ToDo items (Paolo Vecchi, 20 mins)

7. Status Report, Discuss: TDF 2023 Budget Planning (tdf-board, 5 mins)

8. Status Report: Leftover Brussels items (Florian Effenberger,
   Thorsten Behrens, 5 mins)

9. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
   sending the agenda

Total scheduled meeting time: 60 mins

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [DECISION] Start audio-recording TDF board calls again, for better minuting

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi,

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 4 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 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.
> 
Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstains, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Start audio-recording TDF board calls again, for better minuting

[Thorsten Behrens]

+1

I wrote:
> Dear board,
> 
> as discussed during the last board call, it would help with producing
> better-quality minutes, if audio recordings would be available.
> 
> 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.
> 
> This vote runs for 72h, please give your [+1/-1/0] by answering to
> this email.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Re: [DISCUSS] Start audio-recording TDF board calls again, for better minuting

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Guilhem, all,

Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah nice, that would be good enough for me (so in fact we're done, and
the vote just documents the fact (if it passes), that we will record
the calls, going forward).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, March 6th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, March 06 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20230306T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
   questions to the board and about TDF

2. Status Report: Organize next in-person BoD meeting (Gabor Kelemen,
   Florian Effenberger, 5 mins)

3. Discuss: Discuss formalizing board fiduciary duties (Paolo Vecchi, 5 mins)


### Private Part

4. Vote, Discuss: Discussion and budget for developer roles (Florian 
Effenberger, 5 mins)

5. Status Report, Discuss: Improve tendering process (tdf-board, 10 mins)

6. Status Report, Discuss: TDF 2023 Budget Planning (tdf-board, 15 mins)

7. Status Report: Leftover Brussels items (Florian Effenberger, Thorsten 
Behrens, 5 mins)

8. Vote: Next steps ToDo items (Paolo Vecchi, 5 mins)

9. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
   sending the agenda

Total scheduled meeting time: 60 mins

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [VOTE] Start audio-recording TDF board calls again, for better minuting

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear board,

as discussed during the last board call, it would help with producing
better-quality minutes, if audio recordings would be available.

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.

This vote runs for 72h, please give your [+1/-1/0] by answering to
this email.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, February 20th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, February 20 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20230220T18


## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
   questions to the board and about TDF

2. Vote, Discuss: Review & final decision FSF AB seat (tdf-board, 10 mins)

3. Discuss: Next in-person BoD meeting (Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)

   Proposal: Gabor would like to organize the next in-person BoD
   meeting to make progress on various legal/budget/etc. issues

4. Discuss: Improving boards minuting (Florian Effenberger, Thorsten
   Behrens, 10 mins)

5. Status Report: Move board-discuss & tdf-members to Discourse
   (Florian Effenberger, Thorsten Behrens, 5 mins)


### Private Part

6. Status Report, Discuss: Improve tendering process (tdf-board, 20 mins)

7. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
   sending the agenda

Total scheduled meeting time: 60 mins

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Agenda for an in-person TDF board meeting on Monday, February 6th, 0900 Brussels time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our in-person meeting in Brussels, on
Monday, February 6th from 0900 to 1800 local time.

## AGENDA:

1. budget, taxes, annual report
2. HR and hiring topics
3. process improvements (board & TDF)
4. tendering for 2023
5. other business

As per § 9 III of our statutes, at least 1/2 of the board must take
part in the meeting or be represented in order to have a quorum.

While the meeting is a private one, decisions and results will be made
public as soon as possible, given our approach of transparency, taking
into account § 8 III c 2nd sentence.

Looking forward to meet many of you at FOSDEM,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Some Questions On Decision Making (was: Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Re: [Vote] hiring external communication expert)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> If you are not able to share the basics and answer the questions, you
> are not able to fulfill your function.
> 
I think Cor just offered to publish more details. Can we please wait
for that?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, January 9th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, January 09 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20230109T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)

   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
   questions to the board and about TDF

2. Discuss, Vote: Join ALTER EU (Thorsten Behrens, 5 mins)

   The ALTER EU coalition, with over 200 members, many of which are
   FOSS projects. Membership is free, and is related to approving the
   10 objectives of the coalition.


### Private Part

3. Discuss: Legal working group setup (tdf-board, 45 mins)

   Continue discussion from last board call

4. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)

   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
   sending the agenda

Total scheduled meeting time: 60 mins

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Marina, all,

Marina Latini wrote:
> No no, it makes sense to keep WollMux under the LibreOffice org, I agree. If
> you are fine with the current status, can we start to work on WollMux?
> 
I'd love to! :)

(Gabor is getting the last few handbook pages' existing German
 translation put up on the wiki; and I'll see to get at least a basic
 CI job setup going by early next week - but none of that should block
 others from starting the work)

> But, apart from WollMux... I think we could take this opportunity also for a
> clean-up of repos in https://github.com/tdf. ;)
> You mentioned the DLP libraries, but libcmis is hosted under the TDF
> organisation, and, if I'm not mistaken, the libraries from the DLP aren't
> LibreOffice only but can be reused also elsewhere.
>
Yep, that's true - Calligra, Inkscape and Scribus use at least some of
them.

> Under the TDF organisation there are also other repos that should probably
> be archived (but we are going semi off-topic now). ;)
>
Also true, e.g. when looking at website stuff. BTW, 'archiving' on
github is something conceptually very close to our atticization - we
should evaluate setting the archive flag within that framework IMO.

> We could also mention that we have the other LibreOffice organisation and
> cross link from tdf to LibreOffice too.
>
Given that the main readme was misleading you, that's certainly useful.

> But...for this clean-up, where we can continue this discussion? this list
> doesn't look like the right place to me. :)
> 
Doesn't feel terribly off-topic here (dev list would also not be a
100% on-topic match, neither website or marketing? - but for very
generic discussions, there's always the global discuss list of
course).

Something else - does anybody see the need for a dedicated wollmux
mailing list? I didn't ask for one (and actually try to avoid silo-ed
low-traffic email lists, and nudge people onto the main dev list), but
not strictly against one either. The old wollmux project had one at
joinup IIRC, but it's dormant since a long time.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Marina, all,

marina latini wrote:
> The WollMux repos are now under the LibreOffice GitHub organisation
> that, to my understanding, should be just a read only mirror from
> our git instance hosting the LibreOffice source code.
>
That place was picked on purpose, since (in contrast to e.g. the ODF
toolkit), WollMux is exclusively meant for LibreOffice. You'll also
find other repos there, with equally strong ties to the main code base
(impress_remote, loeclipse, noa-libre, the barcode extension, and the
DLP libraries).

> I'm wondering if the TDF organisation could be a better place for
> WollMux instead of the LibreOffice one.
>
It's of course not a problem to move the repos further, but - at least
to me it appears currently more consistent with the existing layout.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear all,

I wrote:
> Since there seems to be no general concerns, I'd then use the quiet
> period next week, to switch the github repos over to the libreoffice
> org. After that, we can look into the Jenkins setup.
> 
This has happened meanwhile:

- WollMux - https://github.com/LibreOffice/WollMux
- UnoHelper - https://github.com/LibreOffice/UNOHelper
- wollmux-config - https://github.com/LibreOffice/wollmux-config

I've renamed 'master' branch to 'main' for all three repos. FWICT
github will issue a useful warning if you accidentally try to push
into master. All pending pull requests got auto-transmogrified, with
the new branch name as destination.

Leaving behind all archived repos under https://github.com/WollMux,
plus the following, defacto dormant ones:

- WollMuxHandbuch (now moved into the wiki - we should probably set
  the 'archived' flag on the repo, to avoid content diverging?)

- wollmux-core (not needed for main anymore, nor in 18.2 - I'd also
  prefer this to somehow stated that more clearly, or perhaps also
  archive it?)

- wollmux-config-service (not used in WollMux yet, might be
  effectively abandoned - Björn, what do you think?)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear all,

Marina Latini wrote:
> On 05.12.2022 08:10, Samuel Mehrbrodt wrote:
> > Yes, these should be converted to master (after checking they are still
> > valid).
> 
> yes, some help in closing invalid issues will be extremely valuable.
> 
We can certainly look into that next year (CI needs going first, so
we've got something to distribute & test).

> > I think it does make sense to either use the Cloud version of
> > SonarQube (as we do with Coverity), or host it ourselves (up to Infra
> > team to decide). Might add value to other TDF java projects as well
> > (Java parts of LibreOffice, LOEclipse, etc).
> > 
> 
> yep, from my experience, sonarcloud seems to be good too.
> 
Ok, I'll try to get this setup then (alongside the Jenkins job).

> P.S: @Thorsten, I saw that some of the feedback we shared in this discussion
> are now listed as new GitHub issues. Thanks for that. :)
> 
..and we made some progress on the translation front already - after
talking to Sophie and Ilmari, the originally-German WollMux handbook
is now (almost) converted to translatable mediawiki content, with the
source language being English.

See the work-in-progress from Gabor linked from here:

 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/WollMux/en

Since there seems to be no general concerns, I'd then use the quiet
period next week, to switch the github repos over to the libreoffice
org. After that, we can look into the Jenkins setup.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Marina, all,

to keep this conversation going -

I wrote:
> Marina Latini wrote:
> > As per today, there are  8 open pull requests[5] and some of them are in
> > German. Is there any  plan to translate the content or close the PRs in
> > German and reopen new PRs in English?
> >
> I'd leave that to the maintainers. But sure, having PRs in English would
> presumably increase the chances of getting them merged.
> 
To clarify - my expectation is, once the project would be at TDF's,
that future PRs would be done in English (as the most inclusive way).

> > As per today, there are 14 open issues[6] and some of them are in German.
> > Like for the case of the pull requests, is there any plan to translate the
> > content or close the issues in German and reopen new issues in English?
> > 
> Same answer as for PRs, that should be decided by those doing the work.
> 
But yeah, my preference would be switching also the existing ones to
English (Samuel or Björn, what's your take here?).

> > The jenkinsfile is mentioning the integration with SonarQube[9] for
> > the the security scans, is there any plan to also move the SonarQube
> > setup under the TDF infra?
> >
> I'd also leave that to the maintainers, and our infra team. SonarQube
> needs an extra server (I think), and has an opencore business model -
> so whether that's a good fit for TDF infra needs discussion.
>
Samuel or Björn: is there any value in migrating that Jenkinsfile
wholesale?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Kev,

Kev M wrote:
> Casual observer here. Lot's of thoughts about the discussion over
> the last few months.
>
Thx for sharing your thoughts - it's quite valuable to get the somehow
outside view reflected back at us. ;)

> 1) Just pass the resolution and get donor funds working towards
>  development. It isn't and will never be a competitive threat to
>  Collabora/Altropia.
>
We're actually on a good way, that this vote may pass now.

> 2) Please find a board governance arbitrator ASAP.
>
That's also in-progress (we started looking for consultants,
independently of this a few weeks ago)

> And strongly recommend you stop using back channels in a FOSS
> project.
>
That might actually be a misunderstanding. The list people were
referring to, is the one open to all TDF members. So it's more a
strive to having project-internal arguments (like how to read the
statutes) in a venue where people can speak more freely.

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear all,

Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 02.12.22 19:21, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote:
> > If the ESC is an official TDF committee, where are its statutes, its
> > functioning rules and the rules of its members designation ?
> 
> hmm i've wondered this too a while ago, i couldn't find a word in the TDF
> statutes about it :)
> 
This is because the ESC is not one of the formal bodies (which are
indeed listed in the statutes), but a committee.

> > If it is an official TDF committee, why its mailing list is not hosted
> > by TDF ?
> 
> due to the fact that it pre-dates the founding of TDF - it exists as long as
> the LibreOffice project - its mailing list is hosted on freedesktop.org.
> 
The dev list (libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org) has nothing per se to
do with the ESC. Whether it makes sense to move it to TDF is, I believe
not material to this discussion (we had William once volunteering to
do it, but somehow the project hit the old snag of whether posting
requires subscription).

The ESC decision-making happens during weekly meetings, the minutes
thereof are being hosted on TDF's etherpad instance.

And indeed, the ESC was grandfathered in (the old steering committee,
which bootstrapped itself from the group of forkers, and was something
like an inofficial board before TDF came into existence, decided to
set it up).

Further info:
* list of current board-appointed members is here:
  https://www.documentfoundation.org/engineering-sc/
* main wiki page: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/ESC
* ESC in the org chart:
  https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Organization#Organization_TDF
* decisions regarding official ESC member designations - search for
  esc/ESC at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_Decisions

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

+1

(thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this
 moving!)

Cor Nouws wrote:
> Dear people,
> 
> Thanks for the constructive feedback on the proposal.
> Various changes applied, I now call a vote for the resolution below.
> 
> Your response within 72 hours from now is much appreciated.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cor
> 
> 
> -%<--
> 
> ## 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 "
> 
> -%<--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cor Nouws wrote on 28/11/2022 10:58:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > As promised. After the previous draft text ended up in a dead-end, with
> > apparently no compromise possible, it is time for a fresh start to get
> > developers hired.
> > 
> > The initial discussion was valuable and also informing this proposal.
> > 
> > With the following, we suggest a new proposal, brief and positive, that
> > makes clear where we stand, building on trust in the community, and
> > leaves it to the board to pragmatically act, based on their task and
> > responsibility to try to do the best thing for the foundation.
> > 
> > Your feedback is much appreciated.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Cor
> > 
> > 
> > -%<--
> > 
> > ## 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) reporting to the ESC;
> > 
> > - 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
> >    core; 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 

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear all,

sophi wrote:
> Le 02/12/2022 à 12:10, Michael Stahl a écrit :
> > how is this different from TDF employees Cloph, Heiko, Hossein, Ilmari,
> > Olivier, Stéphane, Sophie, and Xisco, who already consult weekly with
> > the ESC?
> 
> Maybe this is subtle but the term "oversee" for me means to supervise or
> control.
>
Indeed, the ESC should be supervising the technical direction of the
work. That is intended, and makes a ton of sense (since it's an
official TDF committee, with board-appointed members, this is not in
any way something 'external' to TDF).

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Invitation and agenda for a formal board meeting on Monday, December 19, 17:00 UTC (18:00 CET / Berlin time)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear board,

as discussed previously, I hereby invite all members and deputies of
the board of directors to a formal board meeting via Jitsi on

Monday, December 19, 1700 UTC (1800 Berlin time)
(the time of our usual board meetings)
at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

The agenda is as follows:

## Public Part

1. Q: Answering questions from the community (all, 10 minutes)
   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions to the
   board and about TDF

## Private Part

2. Discussion: Status update strategic goals (all, 20 minutes)
   Rationale: Discussion and follow-up from the items discussed in Berlin and
   Milano

3. Discussion: Plans and initial budget ideas for 2023 (all, 20 minutes)
   Rationale: The primary agenda item for this formal meeting is the
   discussion of the first draft of our 2023 budget, that we will finalize and
   approve early next year.

4. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (owner of the item, all 10 minutes)

I ask all board members to reserve this time slot for joining the
call. In case you really cannot attend, please nominate your
representing deputy publically, by name, and in time!

Best regards, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon...

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Marina, all,

Marina Latini wrote:
> I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9 months
> of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the "abstract"
> of the previous document [...]
>
Sorry for not having explained this in a proper way.

The work is not trashed, as you say it's living on in the new proposal.

Why was it shelved? Because Kendy resigned over it, and he and Paolo
worked over many details. The board would need to restart that, from a
relatively early stage.

The fact that for a majority of the board, the proposal was not
acceptable in its current state, was I think made clear.

Therefore, to make progress, a new, much shortened approach.

(sorry for the brief answer, more later - busy days currently)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Daniel,

Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
> And that does not look like a board decision to me.
> 
The vote was to document an earlier decision on Friday, July 8th, that
happened via phone, messenger and chat. Mind that it was vacation time,
and several directors had no immediate access to their email.

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Re: Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again?

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Daniel,

Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
> Previous moderation, as you named, was not based on a board decision
> but yours.
>
Of course it was a board decision. Please stop spreading falsehoods.

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Off-topic character assassinations - do we really need moderation again? (was: [board-discuss] It's ENOUGH!: Continued Nuisance with private emails)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

[public answer as requested]

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I do not want to be threatened anymore by a member of the board. And it
> seems also others experience similar things, which is what today's
> emails from Emiliano, who is the vice chairperson, and Daniel, who is a
> member of the previous board, suggest.
> 
It is quite something to frame gentle suggestions to not personally
attack people, or to take certain parts of a discussion to the
internal members list - as threats. :(

But it fits nicely with the apparent character assassinations, that
seem to be going on again currently.

Alas, it is not something that we, as a community, should condone. I'd
therefore suggest to the board, to put this list, or certain
subscribers, under moderation again. Or maybe we can pull ourselves
together this time, please?

P.S.: Andreas' claim of non-consent to private messages is dangerous
  nonsense - both this list's netiquette, as well as mailing lists
  moderator practice, ask for exactly that. If someone does not
  consent to it, then please unsubscribe.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon...

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi all,

Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
> 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.
>
There's quite some irony here, in being upset about excluding a
disruptive person from drafting work, while at the same time being
upset for being included.

Why this approach was taken, should be relatively obvious. Questions
on that will be answered, but I'd very much prefer that conversation
to be members-internal.

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Marina,

Marina Latini wrote:
> The license is "EUPL-1.1" but looking at some of the subfolders I found for
> example also mentions to GNU LGPLv2 [1].
>
Yep, that's part of the LibreOffice l10n tools, that Samuel was
cloning recently from there (and as such a build-time, not a runtime
component).

> Did the ESC (or anyone else) make an analysis of the source code
> looking for other licenses mentioned? Could it be possible to make
> use of the REUSE[2] project started by FSFE?
>
REUSE is AFAIK working with already-existing metadata. I did run
scancode a while ago without anything surprising sticking out, but
it's a good point to run it again, before any possible final switch.

> In the potential move under the TDF umbrella, is there any plan to
> also re-license it following the usual licenses of LibreOffice?
>
I can ask LHM if that is an option. But would we really need that?
LibreOffice itself only has the core code (mostly) under MPL. The
binary itself has a massive bouquet of other licenses, and other
libraries TDF is hosting, feature licenses ranging from GPL to ASL or
BSD.

> For example, looking at the GitHub project the main branch is called
> "master".
>
Ah yep, thx for mentioning. That's an easy fix, and I'll also run the
usual greps regarding other anachronisms in the code. Branch rename
might though only happen immediately before or after the move (if/when
approved).

> Some comments are also affected by a similar non inclusive writing like for
> example here [4] where the comment states "the bookmarks aren't deleted and
> the user is request to confirm, that he wants to create a" and there's the
> assumption that the user can be only a male.
> 
If you share your greps with me, I can have a look.

> As per today, there are  8 open pull requests[5] and some of them are in
> German. Is there any  plan to translate the content or close the PRs in
> German and reopen new PRs in English?
>
I'd leave that to the maintainers. But sure, having PRs in English would
presumably increase the chances of getting them merged.

> Some of the existing pull requests use a tag "trac" but I could't find any
> reference to this naming convention? Is this something private that the
> mentioned maintainers from 2 organizations will take care of document? Could
> it be possible to know more about those tags?
> 
trac# is like the internal StarOffice bugtracker references in
OOo/LibreOffice commit messages and code. I'm near certain that data
cannot be published.

> As per today, there are 14 open issues[6] and some of them are in German.
> Like for the case of the pull requests, is there any plan to translate the
> content or close the issues in German and reopen new issues in English?
> 
Same answer as for PRs, that should be decided by those doing the work.

> The security policy[7] seems to be not defined. Which is the
> agreement here?  Are the two mentioned maintainers supposed to take
> over everything or WollMux will also be covered by the LibreOffice
> security[8] policy? With that amount of lines of code I suppose the
> ESC should have a clear view of the status of the project.
>
At least for the foreseeable future, we (allotropia) can look into any
security reports. If/when the move happens, my suggestion would be
reporting to secur...@documentfoundation.org, just like for DLP and
LibreOffice. The only relevant issues over the time I see there is
third party stuff, e.g. WollMux was affected by the log4j fallout.

> The jenkinsfile is mentioning the integration with SonarQube[9] for
> the the security scans, is there any plan to also move the SonarQube
> setup under the TDF infra?
>
I'd also leave that to the maintainers, and our infra team. SonarQube
needs an extra server (I think), and has an opencore business model -
so whether that's a good fit for TDF infra needs discussion.

> Which is the potential timeline for having the localization on
> Weblate? Is there any ongoing discussion with the L10N team at
> LibreOffice?
>
Hard to say, those things can I guess only happen (and then be
discussed with the community), if/when the move has happened.

> Should the L10N community consider also WollMux as a priority
> project to be translated with high priority like LibreOffice (UI,
> Help, Guides)?
>
I would not expect that. Then again, the effort (after initial
translation) is likely very, very small per release.

> The main WollmMux website[11] has  a link to a catalog on JoinUp[12] that
> describes WollMux as an extension for OpenOffice. Is this just an old
> catalog description or WollMux is really intended for working with both
> LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice (and it will need to support both?)
>
Pretty sure that's stale. Then again, the OXT has this:

 

, so there's even more staleness (given that there was no sidebar
support in that version, which is required now). Ultimately, which
version(s) of LibreOffice and/or OpenOffice the maintainers want to
support, is up to them (I'd certainly not expect 

[board-discuss] Reminder: please be respectful & patient to each other

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear list,

this email is the occasional reminder, that at TDF, we strive to:

- be inclusive, and patient
- recognise each other as humans (with our different quirks &
  cultures), and don't assume we stand for our group, company, or
  nationality
- try to resolve personal conflicts privately (if necessary by asking
  for moderation)
- above all, we try to keep discussions focused on issues, not
  on persons involved. If we offend, we apologize - if we feel offended,
  we try to be generous
- and if all else fails, we stop writing emails, and sort things out in
  a call

Thanks a lot,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi all,

a vote was called under the pretense of consent, for a proposal that
did not leave the assigned working group with an approval.

That is in violation of good practice (to say the least), and it was
perfectly ok for directors to leave it on the table (instead of
working through 16 pages of text, without change history, to make an
informed decision).

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Stephan, all,

Stephan Ficht wrote:
> Questions just to delay the matter more and more?
> At least that's the impression I get.
> 
No. There was always support for getting devs hired. You've received
personal statements from me that this is not a delay tactic.

> After an incredible period of 9(!) months, an incredible amount of around
> 15-20(!) versions of the 14(!) pages 'Proposal of TDF In-House-Developers'
> and incredible efforts from especially Kendy and Paolo (big thanks to both
> of you!) it seems to me that some want to restart the process ('stop here
> and restart, from a clean state'; 're-evaluate', ...).
> For what reason? Because of one sentence? Incredible!
> 
This is unfortunately the situation, yes. Sometimes, one sentence can
make a whole lot of a difference - just imagine we would remove the
first sentence from our statutes: "The objective of the foundation is
the promotion and development of office software available for use by
anyone free of charge."

This is not to say any board decision will require the fought-over
sentence, just that the proposal now up for voting is not balanced
without it.

Like the next guy, I'm not eager to fight over 14 pages of rather
verbose text for another 9 months. Thus the suggestion to start from a
clean slate.

> Furthermore, I think that a good relationship with everyone is
> valuable and helpful for all parts of the community and for the
> common projects.
>
I fully support that notion. That indeed though includes all parts
of our community, several of them are on record of being rather very
unhappy with the proposal in its current state.

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi all,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 25/11/2022 14:04, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> > We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the
> > LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if the
> > board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, my
> > teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts.
> 
As pointed out (I believe at considerable length) during the board
call on Monday, November 14, this proposal is not ready to vote on.

> All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as
> agreed, has been finalised by both myself and Jan so I'm sure the community
> is expecting that they follow through with their votes.
> 
It is frankly shocking to read this statement. There has been support
for the idea in general, but certainly not for this specific version.

Paolo was very clearly aware of that, even more so, since we've got
the topic with lots of questions on the Monday call agenda.

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Sophie,

sophi wrote:
> just for clarity for all, what would prevent it to be released as an
> extension on the extension site? is it too complex?
>
No, not at all, just needs someone updating it there (an older release
is available already:
https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/wollmux).

> > > Is everything (code comments, strings, doc) still in German?
> > > 
> > See proposal, pretty far down the list - start with code & comment
> > translation DE->EN.
> > 
> > So the answer is, the work has started. ;)
> 
> great, is it a lot of work? do you have an idea of when it will be
> available for the whole community?
>
It is not massive (but it's still large enough that we'd like to ask
people to jump in & help). Code has around 80 kLOC, but quite a lot of
the main sources are already in English (comments, variable names, test
assertion outputs etc).

Documentation is in markdown, and currently only in German. Looking at
the most recent version (for 18.2), this is the size:

 $ find WollMuxHandbuch/markdown/18.2 -iname '*.md' | xargs wc
...
 lines: 9870  words: 86501 in total

Best,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Susanne, all,

Susanne LO wrote:
> I will try to install wollmux, it does not work today. 
> If it works, ipost some examples.
> 
WollMux 18.2.10
(https://github.com/WollMux/WollMux/releases/tag/RELEASE_18.2.10), the
latest release, is only tested to work with LibreOffice 6.4.

For 7.3/7.4, please everyone build directly from source, the current
master branch was fixed to work with newest LibreOffice releases.

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Sophie,

sophi wrote:
> Will that stay as an extension or will it be integrated to
> LibreOffice core?
>
There's currently no plans to do so, no. I don't think that is
technically desirable, since the implementation is
Java-only.

> Is everything (code comments, strings, doc) still in German?
>
See proposal, pretty far down the list - start with code & comment
translation DE->EN.

So the answer is, the work has started. ;)

> Are there some examples of how it works and what it does and for
> which users it is expected?
>
Can I refer you to our LibOCon talk? I can ask Mike if the video is
perhaps ready soonish, so that can then be part of the public
information here.

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

as announced during LibOCon, and subsequently discussed in the ESC,
here's the formal adoption proposal for the "WollMux" template / form
letter / mail merge engine / Java extension, from the City of Munich.

For reference, I attach the full proposal (so the initial version gets
archived). For interacting with it, please use this direct edit link
on Nextcloud though:

 https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/ftrSdx3A5dgmNR8

Reply-To: board-discuss please, unless there's technical questions to
discuss (for those, I copy the developer list).

Plan is to give this 1-2 weeks for discussion. Depending on the
feedback, the hope is, the proposal can then be referred to the board
for a final decision.

Looking forward to your feedback, all the best,

-- Thorsten
# WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation

## Summary

The [city of Munich](https://muenchen.digital/it-at-m/) (with the help
of [allotropia software GmbH](https://allotropia.de/)) offers TDF to
adopt the WollMux template and mail merge system, in production use at
the city and elsewhere since 2007. The project has been migrated from
OpenOffice to LibreOffice alongside the city-wide adoption of
LibreOffice in 2013. It provides professional, battle-tested
functionality for complex template, form letter and mail merge needs,
as one frequently finds in public sector and corporate office
workflows.

## History

- 2004: Munich announces LiMux, based on OpenOffice
- 2005: work on WollMux development starts
- 2012: Major upgrade & rework, migration to LibreOffice (from OOo)
- 2013: Completion of MailMerge work for LibreOffice
  - since Release 13.10 (target was LibreOffice 3.6)
- 2014: work on update to LibreOffice 4.1
  - since release 14.04
- 2016: work on update to LibreOffice 5.2
  - since release 16.10
- 2017: Munich announces plan to return to Microsoft
- 2019: work on update to LibreOffice 6.1
  - supported since release 18.1
  - move from ant to maven in the build system
- 2020/21: Update to LibreOffice 6.4 (since Release 18.2)
  - migration from Java Swing to native LibreOffice GUI
  - support for sidebar added
- 2023: scheduled end of migration to Microsoft

## Architecture

- written in Java, and deployed as a single, full-featured LibreOffice extension
  - using LibreOffice's Java UNO API
  - and much of Writer's advanced features, like RDF annotations,
bookmarks, and text visibility
  - the WollMux gui was reworked, and now resides in dedicated sidebar
decks, using native LibreOffice gui elements
- core code uses UNOHelper classes
  - UNOHelper is a wrapper for frequently used API calls
  - to make Java programmer's life easier & code more readable
  - UNOHelper is available as a separate git project, and likely a
useful productivity boost for all LibreOffice java integrators
  - this could be the next ScriptForge-alike project, but for Java
- configuration
  - contains template fragments, datasources, and more …
  - as well as a plugin system
  - can be maintained locally, or remote (nice for large-scale deployments)

## Key project features

- project mission: have a single, integrated application for letterheads, form
  templates, and mail merge, deeply intergrated with LibreOffice
  - there were only disjoint, proprietary solutions before
  - in 2004 - no software available that met all requirements
  - extends LibreOffice mail merge for business needs - 1000s of
recipients possible, in decent time (1-2 mins for 1000 copies)
- integrates deeply with LibreOffice, and nicely embeds within its GUI
- OpenSource – licensed under European Union Public License (EUPL)

## Key benefits for TDF

- this is a show-case extension project - for putting on display what is
  possible with LibreOffice
- professionally developed since 2008
- a success story & a production-ready, powerful template management & 
programming environment
- commitment to further cleanup, improve & maintain
- existing user base, thus adopting it serves TDF's mission of
  providing FLOSS office productivity for everyone
- and in addition, it's an excellent QA project tool, for integration-testing 
Java and UNO
  API functions - aka "if WollMux works, every Writer java extension
  will work"

## Adoption proposal

- the ESC has looked at the project, discussed the matter, and
  [approves of the 
migration](https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/2022-October/011302.html)
- after discussion & acceptance, the following steps would be taken:
  - move the existing, public git repositories into the libreoffice
organisation at github:
- 
- don't migrate the 'public archive' ones (or move them straight
  into the TDF attic, if the project sees value in retaining them on
  our infra)
- the code is available under the EUPL-1.1 (weak copyleft),
  documentation is under CC-BY-SA-4.0 - as such, this appears
  compatible with project norms
- two developers from two 

Re: [board-discuss] Report about numbers from Apple App Store

[Thorsten Behrens]

Good evening Andreas, hi all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I asked the board more than three weeks ago, to provide to TDF members
> the numbers from the Apple app store for the last years.
>
The current numbers were just published by Florian; for the past -
you've received a quite detailed answer from Michael Meeks on the
members list.

It is indeed unusual to discuss individual donations (in kind and
monetary) of any specific donor, even more so in public. TDF in
general is grateful for all contributions, big and small.

I suppose that might have been the reason, that nobody from the board
felt compelled to engage with your request yet.

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Re: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal?

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I read about the decision to create a new CoC committee from community
> members
> (https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01000.html).
>
Just to insert here, that the new CoC process is, in my mind,
unambiguously positive, and I'm very happy about the enlarged group of
people handling it.

> And the board really decided instead of involving this own CoC committee
> to throw a lot of _donation_ money on contracting an external
> 'communication expert' (they are regularly very expensive)?
> 
That is not what happens. A CoC verdict was not accepted by one of the
parties, so the board is now getting neutral, external expertise.

There's added value, in that arguably a completely external view on
our interactions (board and elsewhere) can only improve how we
collectively work.

Rest assured, I would have preferred to avoid both the challenging
situation, as well as any extra work (or expense).

> I'm curious about a detailed explanation from the board, why the own TDF
> CoC committee is incompetent for the handling of the situation.
> 
That framing is untrue, and offensive towards the volunteers in the
committee.

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal? (was Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, November 14th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1))

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> If the majority of the board acts in this way further, TDF inhouse
> developers will not be hired during its tenure of office.
> 
There's no need for that level of negativity.

Rest assured, the board is as frustrated as everybody else with the
slow progress & acrimony (and even more with the fact, that this at
least contributed to another resignation).

Personally, I will take a deep breath, and will try looking into this
with a fresh mind & positive energy. We'll keep the agenda item for
the next board call in any case - (constructive) input appreciated!

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal? (was Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, November 14th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1))

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I'd like to ask if there were progress to reach a final version and vote
> on this item during the meeting.
> 
The minutes for the Monday meeting have just been posted, there was no
vote.

> But if there is not yet (after nine month of work) a final proposal that
> could be voted on, what is missing to get to this state.
> 
What is still missing, is a proposal that gets a majority behind
it. With Kendy's resignation, that work just got dealt a massive
set-back.

> If there is no final proposal yet I think it is of interest for the
> whole community how to proceed with this item. I'd like to read a
> detailed plan on this then.
> 
I agree, it's important to get this done. My impression is, there's
unanimous agreement that we want to hire devs.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Re: Resigning from the Membership and from the Board of Directors

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Kendy,

Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> I resign from the Membership (Board of Trustees), and consequently I
> also resign from the Board of Directors.
> 
It's with a lot of sadness, that I read your resignation. It is also
unfortunately not coming as a surprise. :(

I'd like to thank you a lot, for your calm and effective work, your
passion, dedication, and all the time you've invested over all those
years. We will miss your experience and patience, and deep insight
into FLOSS at the board & in the membership.

At the same time, I look forward to continue working with you on the
code.

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi *,

just a few thoughts, since I seem to be mentioned in the email. ;)

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 05/11/2022 00:04, Stephan Ficht wrote:
> > Sorry, Simon, but IMHO I don't think this is the right wording.
> > PI and, if there are, resulting CoI's are clearly defined and written
> > down in all the paperwork TDF has established and agreed to or in
> > binding German laws.
> > Not explaining a conflict, IMO, doesn't mean that it does not actually
> > exist. Otherwise that would be too trivial.
> 
> I kind of side with Simon in the specific example of the investigation
> against me in relation to LOOL.
>
I think that's a comment where perhaps we can start a constructive
discussion upon.

Stepping back and looking at the feedback from all corners, over the
past year on the topic - it seems that almost all sides are unhappy
about the way the CoI policy is applied (to them personally). Using
individual frustration as a stepping stone to iterate how we deal with
this (instead of fuel to fight) - wouldn't that be desirable?

> I found it very odd that our chairman started the investigation
> against me while he's the director of a company reselling LOOL's
> fork and 3 others, 2 representing the vendor and 1 is his employee,
> voted to start the investigation and spent a considerable amount of
> time focusing on me without looking at their own position.
>
But here we are again, using perceived interests as a means to
de-legitimize or exclude.

> So in a way a CoI could be "weaponised" by dragging on an
> investigation for 3/4 months, I don't know when they actually
> started it, to censor a director.
>
Paolo has not been censored, nor excluded.

Finally - Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> It is a start which helps in refining standard procedures, which are
> generally handled by you Stephan, so that all members of the board
> follow their fiduciary duties by preparing for the meeting reading
> and evaluating the relevant information so that they can also start
> sending the list of their personal interests and avoid influencing
> the relevant discussions/votes.
>
I'm glad people seem to generally like this addition to the board
meeting boilerplate (I had added the general affiliation update at the
start of this term, and the 'state my interests on the agenda' one
(after suggestions from Simon), at our Milano in-person meeting).

Thanks to Simon, therefore, for interacting constructively with an
otherwise sadly over-heated topic.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Stephan,

Stephan Ficht wrote:
> Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
> that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?
> 
I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Nuisance With Private Emails

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I want to inform you that I get on a regularly basis emails in private,
> with 'friendly' instructions what I'm not allowed to address on mailing
> lists.
> 
I can imagine that you might refer to one of my recent emails, where I
asked you to please keep developer list discussions on-topic
(political arguments are mostly off-topic there). That was sent in my
role as list moderator. It is recommended, standard behaviour to send
those in private (since it is of no interest to the other list
subscribers).

If your posting here indeed referred to my mails -

> I find this form of cautionary private emails pestering and not
> appropriate for an open Free Software project.
> 
Then I apologize, if perhaps form or tone where not appropriate. On
the process per se (having 1:1 discussions or content moderation
suggestions as private emails) - this is, as said, standard
practice. For this list, it is even the recommended behaviour [1].

All the best, Thorsten

[1] 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00455.html

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2022-10-17

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi *,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> it would help much more to read through the document from the European
> Commission, which was linked in the mail from Paolo in this thread.
> 
We are a free software community, not a supranational, state-like
entity like the EU.

I would prefer we return to a sense of proportion & pragmatism, rather
than arguing arcane cases (again, there wasn't even a disagreement in
the meeting, so I _really_ wonder what this is all about).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

-- 
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] Board of Directors Meeting 2022-10-17

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Am 21.10.22 um 15:18 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 1:54 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:
> > if I read the minutes correctly there are four board members
> > with a CoI, because they provided or were involved in
> > providing LibreOffice in the app stores within their company /
> > brand.
> > 
> > No, you do not read the minutes correctly. No-one declared a conflict
> > of interests. The directors involved declared an interest, but did not
> > feel that it was in conflict with their duties as directors and
> > consequently there was no conflict of interest.
>
That is indeed what happened.

People in the meeting will have noticed, that there was in fact
consensus on how to proceed with the app stores. Hardly an indication
of diverging (or conflicting) interests.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
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] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 17th at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> if the person concerned (like in this case) has no issue to discuss the
> topic in public there shouldn't be any reason to handle this in private.
>
There are good reasons to have a quick private discussion on the matter.

Of course, if the rest of the board agrees, we can move all, or part
of that discussion to the public part.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 17th at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 17 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221017T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
   questions to the board and about TDF

2. Discuss: Progress Strategy - using LibOCon discussion result and
   combining with Survey results (Cor Nouws, 15 mins)

   * status report & next steps
   * important to talk about how to organize this in a smart way

3. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores
   (Florian Effenberger, 5 mins)

   Status report and various ongoing discussions
   * current status & timeline
   * revenues from last month
   * upgrade cycles - how many updates will users get?

4. Vote, Discuss: Move board-discuss to Discourse (Florian
   Effenberger, Thorsten Behrens, 5 mins)

   * discuss remaining question
   * decide on moving ahead or not

### Private Part

5. Status Report: HR topic #1 (Florian Effenberger 5 mins)
   Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

6. Status Report: HR topic #2 (Florian Effenberger, Gabor
   Kelemen, 5 mins)
   Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

7. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten
   Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

8. Status Report: Status of prelim CoI investigation (Thorsten
   Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)

   Reason for privacy: legal topics

9. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
   sending the agenda

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Next steps Code of Conduct update (was: Updated Code of Conduct - blind-sided)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Michael, all,

[pulling the three mails together]

Michael Meeks wrote:
> It is deeply disappointing to me that in a community committed to
> transparency - the first time I see or have input into this text is when it
> is published as law. This despite having done the work as half of the CoC
> committee for the last many years, and having helped to tweak and introduce
> the previous compromise policy. How did we fail that hard ?
> 
Apologies for this obviously rushed roll-out of a new CoC. As Paolo
said, there was a first round of discussions during the conference
(board/MC/staff), and the plan was to then publish a draft, and
properly discuss it in the community.

The reason for the very short-notice decision (which the board took
unanimously on Thursday morning), was that the old, minimal CoC was a
blocker for Outreachy participation.

Cor Nouws wrote:
> Not mentioned in the announcement, is that due to the short notice, some
> topics hadn't been fully discussed in the board etc.. So we'll further pick
> that up, together with the Committee. Giving opportunities to improve on
> short notice too, I expect.
> 
Confirmed.

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Contributions from the whole community are desired and welcome and as you
> are a native English speaker please do suggest further improvements.
> 
Confirmed, and stressing the point that your involvement with the
process, and being part of the current CoC committee, makes your input
particularly relevant.

Michael Meeks wrote:
> When we last did a CoC change we had wide discussion and input
> from many perspectives. We had a talk with feedback from the Rome
> conference (we had a perfect opportunity to do the same only days
> ago in Milan - was that deliberately missed?). When this appeared on
> the board agenda I asked about it privately to Sophie and the
> directors, and got nothing.
>
I'm sorry for that. It's not how we should have done it. I was
personally totally swamped pre-conference (and others might, too - not
a good reason, but perhaps an explanation).

> This is a particularly wasted opportunity - because a new CoC (with
> which I have no problem in principle[1]) can give a useful point to reset
> our discourse as a community and to draw a line under some of the past
> unhelpful behavior. An opportunity for a fresh start from a new place that
> improves some of our interactions. Basing that on the trust re-built
> in-person at the conference is a great idea in principle.
> 
It would be great if we could still move towards those goals; your and
others' input therefore greatly appreciated. I'm with you there, that
a CoC update was due, and agree it's an opportunity (also to iterate
TDF's underlying community rules more towards shared norms of other
FLOSS foundations).

In particular, getting line-by-line feedback, where you think we're
needlessly deviating from standards, would be great.

> At a bare minimum I would expect each individual behind this,
> -particularly- if they are on the new CoC committee, to at least -try- to
> repair the situation by re-assuring the community that (despite apparently
> excluding people & views during the process of creating and pushing this
> initiative through) - that when actually enforcing the CoC they will
> respectfully listen to all views and act in an inclusive and balanced way.
> 
The current committee is meant to be temporary. My personal
expectation wrt CoC work is indeed, to affect behaviour of everyone in
a positive way, rather than excluding people or opinions. With that
view, it would be great to see the group expanded, perhaps even by
people with relevant experience, but entirely outside our community
(which should help with neutrality and balance, I guess).

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] MC Elections - Announce Of Final Results?

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> When could the community expect to get the announcement of the final
> results of the MC elections 2022?
> 
The announcements just went out. The above is an odd question (from
someone who used to be on the board), less than 24h after the
challenging phase ended. You're aware that decision-making is not
instantaneous.

I consider your increased needlings and sarcasms incompatible with the
board's request to improve communication habits on this list. Please
strive for a more positive, and constructive attitude.

Thanks a lot,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Ahmad,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Ahmad Haris, elected substitute member of the Membership Committee
of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the
Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2022.

Signed: Ahmad Haris


Ich, Ahmad Haris, gewähltes Ersatz-Mitglied des
Mitglieder-Komitees der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt
innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit
beginnt am 19. September 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Ahmad Haris



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Balázs,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you for
your election into the Membership Committee! With this email, I kindly
invite you to officially accept your position into the MC, by
answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Balázs Varga, elected substitute member of the Membership Committee
of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the
Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2022.

Signed: Balázs Varga


Ich, Balázs Varga, gewähltes Ersatz-Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees
der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Balázs Varga



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Shinji,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Shinji Enoki, elected substitute member of the Membership
Committee of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position
within the Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start
September 19, 2022.

Signed: Shinji Enoki


Ich, Shinji Enoki, gewähltes Ersatz-Mitglied des
Mitglieder-Komitees der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt
innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit
beginnt am 19. September 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Shinji Enoki



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Gabriele,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Gabriele Ponzo, elected member of the Membership Committee of The
Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2022.

Signed: Gabriele Ponzo


Ich, Gabriele Ponzo, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der
The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Gabriele Ponzo



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Uwe,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Uwe Altmann, elected member of the Membership Committee of The
Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2022.

Signed: Uwe Altmann


Ich, Uwe Altmann, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der The
Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Uwe Altmann



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Gustavo,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco, elected member of the Membership
Committee of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position
within the Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September
19, 2022.

Signed: Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco


Ich, Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco, gewähltes Mitglied des
Mitglieder-Komitees der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt
innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt
am 19. September 2022.

Unterzeichnet: Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Marina,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Marina Latini, elected member of the Membership Committee of
The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the
Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19,
2022.

Signed: Marina Latini


Ich, Marina Latini, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der
The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September
2022.

Unterzeichnet: Marina Latini



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Acceptance of MC role

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Miklos,

let me first take this opportunity to personally congratulate you
for your election into the Membership Committee! With this email,
I kindly invite you to officially accept your position into the
MC, by answering this message with a "Reply to all".

On behalf of the board, Thorsten



I, Miklos Vajna, elected member of the Membership Committee of
The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the
Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19,
2022.

Signed: Miklos Vajna


Ich, Miklos Vajna, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der
The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung
bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September
2022.

Unterzeichnet: Miklos Vajna



-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] Final Results for the 2022 Membership Committee election

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear members, all,

## 2022 MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE ELECTION RESULTS

The TDF board, as the body administering the 2022 Membership Committee
election, hereby announces the FINAL results. The challenging phase
has ended with no complaints.

Elected as full members of the TDF Membership Committee are, in this
preference order:

01. Miklos Vajna, Marina Latini (tied for first)
03. Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco
04. Gabriele Ponzo
05. Uwe Altmann

Elected as deputy members of the TDF Membership Committee are, in this
preference order:

06. Shinji Enoki
07. Balázs Varga
08. Ahmad Haris

Our thanks go out to all the candidates for running, and to all
voters, for taking part in our Foundation matters. We congratulate all
the elected!

By separate mail each one will be invited to accept their new role as
Member or Deputy Member of the TDF Membership Committee.

The newly elected Membership Committee will only be in charge starting
Monday, 2022-09-19.

On behalf of the board,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [tdf-internal] [board-discuss] Conflict of interests - Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, September 19th at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear all,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Some members of the board alleged that I was in Conflict of Interests (CoI)
> in regards to LibreOffice Online (LOOL) and Collabora Office Online (COOL).
>
Correction - the board has determined that Paolo has/had a private interest
in Online. According to our CoI policy, the next step is now to determine,
if an actual conflict of interest is there.

> I wouldn’t mind to have this discussed in public.
> 
There's only very limited time on Monday, and we tend to discuss
delicate matters in private first. Proposal: let's see where we are
after the call, then we can decide within the board how & where to
proceed. Ok?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reminder: please check your ballot & report back if there's an issue (was: [board-discuss] [ANN] PRELIMINARY Results for the 2022 Membership Committee election)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear members, all,

that was obviously meant to be one day, and one hour - the challenging
phase ends Thursday, 2022-09-15, 24:00 CEST/UTC+2. ;)

Apologies, Thorsten

I wrote:
> Dear members, all,
> 
> a quick reminder that the challenging phase for the MC election ends
> in about one hour. If you haven't done so, please verify your ballot
> was correctly registered, at
> 
>  https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15
> 
> All the best, Thorsten
> 
> I wrote:
> > Dear Members, all,
> > 
> > this is the announcement of the PRELIMINARY results of the election
> > for the next TDF Membership Committee.
> > 
> > The number of members that cast their vote was 106, 81 members did
> > not. The board thanks all candidates for running, and all voters for
> > their participation!
> > 
> > ## PRELIMINARY RESULTS
> > 
> > Candidates are sorted in their order of election preference, after all
> > preferences have been considered according to the Meek STV method with
> > Droop-Dynamic-Fractional setting, default threshold.
> > 
> > ### Elected Members:
> > 
> > * Miklos Vajna, Marina Latini (tied for first)
> > * Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco
> > * Gabriele Ponzo
> > * Uwe Altmann
> > 
> > ### Elected Deputies:
> > 
> > * Shinji Enoki
> > * Balázs Varga
> > * Ahmad Haris
> > 
> > ## CONFIRMATION PERIOD:
> > 
> > The detailed results of running OpenSTV will soon be published at
> > https://elections.documentfoundation.org/results.php?election_id=15
> > and a list of all votes cast is already available at
> > https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15
> > 
> > The above results were calculated using the same tooling and rules as
> > usual: OpenSTV (https://github.com/Conservatory/openstv -
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek).
> > 
> > Unfortunately, given that there were 8 candidates and 9 seats, all
> > versions of OpenSTV refused to run the ranking out of the box. To
> > overcome this issue, we ran the algorithm manually
> > (http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE1/P2.HTM), and also for ease of
> > verification via OpenSTV, added a dummy candidate to the ballot, with
> > zero votes cast. Both approaches led to the aforementioned result,
> > that takes voters' preferences beyond first choice into account.
> > 
> > Before these results can be final, we have the challenging phase from
> > Friday, 2022-09-09, 00:00 CEST/UTC+2, until Thursday, 2022-09-15,
> > 24:00 CEST/UTC+2.
> > 
> > As member who voted, you are invited to verify your votes, via the
> > anonymous token given to you by the election system at that time. It's
> > only you who have that token!
> > 
> > The results to verify, for all members who voted, are here:
> > https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15
> > 
> > In case you think there is any irregularity, or if there are other
> > questions, please contact the board AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and in any
> > case no later than Thursday, 2022-09-15, 24:00 CEST/UTC+2, via
> > electi...@documentfoundation.org
> > 
> > For further details and the timeline, please check this summary page:
> > https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2022-mc/rules.html
> > 
> > On behalf of the board,
> > 
> > Thorsten
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
> > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
> > Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> > Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
> > 



Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] [NO DECISION] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

for the moment, this is a members-only discussion.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reminder: please check your ballot & report back if there's an issue (was: [board-discuss] [ANN] PRELIMINARY Results for the 2022 Membership Committee election)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear members, all,

a quick reminder that the challenging phase for the MC election ends
in about one hour. If you haven't done so, please verify your ballot
was correctly registered, at

 https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15

All the best, Thorsten

I wrote:
> Dear Members, all,
> 
> this is the announcement of the PRELIMINARY results of the election
> for the next TDF Membership Committee.
> 
> The number of members that cast their vote was 106, 81 members did
> not. The board thanks all candidates for running, and all voters for
> their participation!
> 
> ## PRELIMINARY RESULTS
> 
> Candidates are sorted in their order of election preference, after all
> preferences have been considered according to the Meek STV method with
> Droop-Dynamic-Fractional setting, default threshold.
> 
> ### Elected Members:
> 
> * Miklos Vajna, Marina Latini (tied for first)
> * Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco
> * Gabriele Ponzo
> * Uwe Altmann
> 
> ### Elected Deputies:
> 
> * Shinji Enoki
> * Balázs Varga
> * Ahmad Haris
> 
> ## CONFIRMATION PERIOD:
> 
> The detailed results of running OpenSTV will soon be published at
> https://elections.documentfoundation.org/results.php?election_id=15
> and a list of all votes cast is already available at
> https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15
> 
> The above results were calculated using the same tooling and rules as
> usual: OpenSTV (https://github.com/Conservatory/openstv -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek).
> 
> Unfortunately, given that there were 8 candidates and 9 seats, all
> versions of OpenSTV refused to run the ranking out of the box. To
> overcome this issue, we ran the algorithm manually
> (http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE1/P2.HTM), and also for ease of
> verification via OpenSTV, added a dummy candidate to the ballot, with
> zero votes cast. Both approaches led to the aforementioned result,
> that takes voters' preferences beyond first choice into account.
> 
> Before these results can be final, we have the challenging phase from
> Friday, 2022-09-09, 00:00 CEST/UTC+2, until Thursday, 2022-09-15,
> 24:00 CEST/UTC+2.
> 
> As member who voted, you are invited to verify your votes, via the
> anonymous token given to you by the election system at that time. It's
> only you who have that token!
> 
> The results to verify, for all members who voted, are here:
> https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15
> 
> In case you think there is any irregularity, or if there are other
> questions, please contact the board AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and in any
> case no later than Thursday, 2022-09-15, 24:00 CEST/UTC+2, via
> electi...@documentfoundation.org
> 
> For further details and the timeline, please check this summary page:
> https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2022-mc/rules.html
> 
> On behalf of the board,
> 
> Thorsten
> 
> -- 
> Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
> Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
> 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] PRELIMINARY Results for the 2022 Membership Committee election

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Members, all,

this is the announcement of the PRELIMINARY results of the election
for the next TDF Membership Committee.

The number of members that cast their vote was 106, 81 members did
not. The board thanks all candidates for running, and all voters for
their participation!

## PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Candidates are sorted in their order of election preference, after all
preferences have been considered according to the Meek STV method with
Droop-Dynamic-Fractional setting, default threshold.

### Elected Members:

* Miklos Vajna, Marina Latini (tied for first)
* Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco
* Gabriele Ponzo
* Uwe Altmann

### Elected Deputies:

* Shinji Enoki
* Balázs Varga
* Ahmad Haris

## CONFIRMATION PERIOD:

The detailed results of running OpenSTV will soon be published at
https://elections.documentfoundation.org/results.php?election_id=15
and a list of all votes cast is already available at
https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15

The above results were calculated using the same tooling and rules as
usual: OpenSTV (https://github.com/Conservatory/openstv -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek).

Unfortunately, given that there were 8 candidates and 9 seats, all
versions of OpenSTV refused to run the ranking out of the box. To
overcome this issue, we ran the algorithm manually
(http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE1/P2.HTM), and also for ease of
verification via OpenSTV, added a dummy candidate to the ballot, with
zero votes cast. Both approaches led to the aforementioned result,
that takes voters' preferences beyond first choice into account.

Before these results can be final, we have the challenging phase from
Friday, 2022-09-09, 00:00 CEST/UTC+2, until Thursday, 2022-09-15,
24:00 CEST/UTC+2.

As member who voted, you are invited to verify your votes, via the
anonymous token given to you by the election system at that time. It's
only you who have that token!

The results to verify, for all members who voted, are here:
https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=15

In case you think there is any irregularity, or if there are other
questions, please contact the board AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and in any
case no later than Thursday, 2022-09-15, 24:00 CEST/UTC+2, via
electi...@documentfoundation.org

For further details and the timeline, please check this summary page:
https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2022-mc/rules.html

On behalf of the board,

Thorsten

--
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://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] [ANN] Lifting moderation on this list

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community, all,

with the MC election over & the discussion culture on this list much
improved, the board has decided to end the moderation of this list
effectively now.

We encourage everyone to still strive towards civil, friendly &
forward looking messages, assuming goodwill and continue to be
constructive. Please follow our CoC [1] and also the communication
best practices [2].

In the unlikely event that the discussion culture would deteriorate
again, we would first explain to the involved persons off-list, what
behavior is considered problematic. Moderating this list, or
individual persons, is then hopefully not necessary anymore.

All the best, Thorsten

[1] https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/
[2] 
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05644.html


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Let's please have technical discussions where they belong (was: Lets sort out the patch review before continuing here)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas,

I suggested it earlier, let me now strongly suggest it again - if you
want actual, code-related or technical questions solved for real,
please let's bring it to the attention of the developer
community. Here's the way to get direct interactions: [1].

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Nevertheless the merged patch is marked as signed by me.
>
We don't tend to use that commit msg metadata line in the project, so
that's probably been an oversight. But I agree, would have been better
to remove that.

> The new patch didn't revert the naming change, done about five month
> ago. The changed naming to 'cool' stayed in the LibreOffice core
> repository and it is not yet clear, if and when this line will be
> removed ever.
>
The merged patch resolves the issue in a way that is consistent with
project conventions (don't break downstream consumers w/o time to
adapt, and use consistent naming (lok in this case)).

There was no answer on the question whether you'd want to provide the
change yourself, so someone else jumped in & did it (after having
offered it). That's helpful IMO.

> In addition the new patch breaks the connection to two downstream
> consumer projects and to the LibreOffice online repository too.
> 
We should discuss technical needs of downstream projects on the dev
list. Can you please follow-up there? It would be of particular
interest, where those downstream git repos are hosted, and what
platforms they build for.

[1] 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/GetInvolved#Connect_to_our_communication_channels

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Reminder: Please vote for the next TDF Membership Committee!

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Members,

the vote for the next TDF Membership Committee is ongoing. You've got
a bit less than two days left to cast your vote, the voting phase ends
at:

 Wednesday, 2022-09-07, 24:00 CEST/UTC+2: end of the election

You should have received your Membership Committee elections voting
token from the sender

 "electi...@documentfoundation.org"

with a subject of

 "Your The Document Foundation 2022 Membership Committee Elections Voting Token"

If you haven't voted yet, please check for that mail as soon as
possible and cast your vote! With the election you have the
opportunity to express your preferences, and elect your
representatives at the Membership Committee.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Lets sort out the patch review before continuing here (was: Merging Of Contributions)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Am 02.09.22 um 18:47 schrieb Andras Timar:
> > Just for the record, the incriminated code is used solely by the iOS
> > app (Collabora Office). Are there other iOS apps that broke because of
> > the lool->cool change? As far as I'm concerned there aren't any. It's
> > good that we discussed the issue at length, and will have a vendor
> > neutral message handler name finally. ;)
> 
> I'd appreciate if you read my message completely. And I'd be curious if
> there is common opinion among you and your colleagues. Currently I'm a
> bit puzzled.
> 
Let's please assume good intentions on all sides. TTBOMK, there's
indeed currently only Collabora providing binaries for iOS.

But honestly, that's all besides the point, and this entire thread is
dealing with the issue from the wrong end.

Andreas, can you please first and foremost interact with the reviewers
on gerrit? I'm convinced we can address all remaining questions there
& get a suitable change merged.

And **only** if that fails, it's justified to consume more board &
member's time here. Right now, there's purely technical matters to be
solved.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I wonder what is the usual time slot it needs to merge a reviewed
> and ready patch into the LibreOffice repository.
>
Answering as a developer here (and not as board member) - I think you
will get better answers & suggestions what to do, on the LibreOffice
developer list, or on IRC (see [1] for details).

Please also include a link to your concrete submission, so people can
jump right in.

[1] 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/GetInvolved#Connect_to_our_communication_channels

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] Membership Committee elections: voting tokens sent, voting starts in less than a day!

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear TDF members,

you all should have by now received an email with your personal token
and the invitation to vote for the new Membership Committee!

It was sent with the subject

 "Your The Document Foundation 2022 Membership Committee Elections
  Voting Token"

and the sender is

 "electi...@documentfoundation.org"

Please don't forget to check your spam folder too, in case you do not
see that mail. If the message with the instructions and the token is
missing, please immediately poke us at
electi...@documentfoundation.org, or contact me directly as soon as
possible.

Voting will run
from Thursday, 2022-09-01, 00:00 CEST/UTC+2 (i.e. beginning of the day 01)
until Wednesday, 2022-09-07, 24:00 CEST/UTC+2 (i.e. end of the day 07).

A list of candidates and their reasons for running is available at
https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2022-mc/candidates.html

Please do make use of your rights, and participate in voting for the
new MC. Best of luck to the candidates, and thank you all for standing
for the election!

All the best,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] live town-hall meetings with the Membership Committee candidates

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi *,

as hinted at last week in my announcement for the election roster,
we'll have live Q sessions with the candidates!

## Where

* on TDF's Jitsi instance
* same URL for all three sessions:
  https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/MCElections2022

## When

- Tuesday, August 30th: 11.00-13.00 UTC / 13.00-15.00 CEST: session suitable 
for JST timezone
  
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20220830T11=tz_cest=tz_brt=tz_jst=1440
- Tuesday, August 30th: 18.00-20.00 UTC / 20.00-22.00 CEST: session suitable 
for CET timezone
  
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20220830T18=tz_cest=tz_brt=tz_jst=1440
- Wednesday, August 31st: 21.00-23.00 UTC / 23.00-01.00 CEST: session suitable 
for BRT timezone
  
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20220831T21=tz_cest=tz_brt=tz_jst=1440

## A few notes:

* please send in your questions beforehand if possible, to
  electi...@documentfoundation.org
* pick the session that suits you best (so you can ask live
  questions)
* the sessions are optional for the candidates, so while I'm
  grateful for everyone joining - if someone can't make it, that
  is fine, and people can always ask questions here on the list!
* to give attendees the opportunity to ask questions in a
  language different from English, we'll try to have a person
  doing live translations in every session
* questions towards the candidates will be prepared in English,
  and/or translated to English on the go
* we will record the sessions, for our members not able to attend
* when you attend via Jitsi:
  - please mute yourself when not speaking
  - keep your vide off and ask your questions in the Jitsi chat,
if you don't want to be recorded
  - note that the chat content itself might also be part of
the recording though

Please do follow-up with any questions - we're looking fwd to
meet many of you in the next three days!

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] List of candidates for the Membership Committee election

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

the election for TDF's membership committee starts next Thursday, and
the nomination phase has ended - see [1] for the exact timeline.

You can find the list of candidates, plus their short candidacy
statement, here [2].

For each candidate's self-nomination email, see the following list of
links to the list archive. Those emails are a bit longer-form, and
also an ideal starting point to ask the candidate questions!

This list is sorted by submission date.

* Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00836.html
* Uwe Altmann:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00847.html
* Miklos Vajna:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00848.html
* Balázs Varga:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00863.html
* Shinji Enoki:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00869.html
* Marina Latini:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00870.html
* Gabriele Ponzo:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00871.html
* Ahmad Haris:
  
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00872.html

If you have sent your candidacy statement and your name is not listed,
please do reach out to me as soon as possible!

As for the last board election, we plan to host a few Q video calls,
for the candidates to answer questions from the community. I'll reach
out to the candidates for available timeslots, please watch this space
over the course of the weekend, for further announcements!

The sessions are not mandatory (the candidates can decide whether or
not to attend), and TDF members can send the questions to be asked
during the live session in advance to the board [3]. We will collect
those questions & prepare them in advance (also we can ask them in an
anonymized way, if requested), to make moderation of the sessions
easier.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Thorsten

###

[1] https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2022-mc/rules.html
[2] https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2022-mc/candidates.html
[3] electi...@documentfoundation.org

--
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://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] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear board, all,

Caolán McNamara wrote:
> We hereby call for the following VOTE, which will start Friday, 
> 2022-07-29 00:00 UTC+2/CEST and will then run for 72h.
> 
Given the current, substantially different situation the board finds
itself in, I would much prefer to shelve this vote for the moment.

Depending on availability, I suggest the board comes together for an
extraordinary private call during the usual slot 1600 UTC / 1800
Berlin time, the coming Monday, August 1st, to discuss the matter.

We need to, in any case, then elect a new deputy chairperson.

(I'm personally offline until Sunday, starting in about one hour)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Resignation of Caolán McNamara from the Board of Directors

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

effective Friday, July 22, Caolán McNamara has announced his
resignation from the Board of Directors.

The Board will follow-up in due course with the next steps, including
election of a new Deputy Chairperson.

I'd like to personally thank Caolán for all his passion, dedication,
time and effort he has invested into the project, and during his time
on the board. I'm deeply saddened by his decision. We will miss his
honest voice of reason, calm & pragmatic effectiveness. At the same
time, I look forward to continue working with him in the community.

All the best, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] Updated Conflict of Interest policy for the current MC

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear members, all,

the current MC has recently adopted an amended CoI policy (closely
following the board's update one from here [1]).

The policy is available from the MC's wiki page [2].

All the best, Thorsten

[1] 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00336.html
[2] 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Committee#Policies_issued_by_the_Membership_Committee

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [ANN] Announcing the election for the next TDF Membership Committee

[Thorsten Behrens]

).

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Thorsten

###

[1] https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf (binding version) and
https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf (non-binding translation)

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] no obvious double-standards (was: List Moderation - Apply Double Standards?)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

your assessment of the situation does not seem accurate. The fact that
all TDF directors can currently approve emails to this list, should
ensure balance.

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> The list was set under moderation, because some of the board members
> felt, the discussion here was not friendly enough.
> 
That is certainly an understatement.

> It looks like if some of the board members, which support the list
> moderation, have the intention to ban uncomfortable discussions in terms
> of content and the process from this list.
> 
The fact that your email passed moderation should be testament to this
not being the case?

> This is a typical behavior in locked groups of organizations. It
> shouldn't be appropriate to open source projects which delineate
> themselves as open for everyone (and as open minded).
> 
An appropriate & friendly way to phrase the above, would be to first
assess whether your assumptions are correct (which apparently they are
not), and then recommend changes. Stereotypings like yours are a
negative, not a positive way to interact.

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Re: Tracking user data with Polypoly

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Heiko, all,

Heiko Tietze wrote:
> There is no immediate action required, but some generic thumbs-up support
> would be appreciated. It's planned to outline the project in a blog post as
> next step. And to bring it to the attention of the ESC.
> 
Sounds very supportable to me, thx for the heads-up here!

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Alex,

Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
> Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in
> the amended version ?
>
That clause got added - it wasn't there before.

> My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer,
> trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was
> felt necessary.
>
In the cited decision, that clause helped to strike down a contract as
invalid, that would have otherwise been harmful to that other
foundation.

Best, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Whether technical moderation of this list is needed

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear list,

there was a lot of support in the board to at least temporarily switch
this list to moderation.

As such, every email to this list will npw be moderated - we'd like
everyone to please aspire to our communication guidelines, and in any
case comply with our Code of Conduct.

This is not a desirable place to be in, and we'll try hard to calm
emotions down over the near future - and then hopefully be back to
something friendly, welcoming and fun (without the need for
technical moderation).

Thanks a lot for your understanding,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Whether technical moderation of this list is needed

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear list,

it seems a number of appeals to get the discussion on this list to
become friendly and constructive again have failed.

Over the time, me and others have tried (in public and in private) to
nudge people to be considerate, and also to moderate discussions (in
the sense of balancing positions - if anyone's interested in my
private suggestions, there's no problem to share them. Though they're
quite boring references to the communication best practices).

I find the most recent escalation unbearable, and don't want to be
exposed to that sort of language, even less so in public. Others have
expressed similar sentiment.

Additionally the board has their hands full with tasks working for the
future of TDF. It would be great, if in our volunteer time, we would
be able to concentrate on positive topics.

The only practically effective solution I currently see, for that
problem, is to put this list on moderation. We all share a collective
duty to keep TDF & LibreOffice a friendly and fun place.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[DISCUSS] atticization for LibreOffice (was: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

[changing the subject to reflect the discussion character]

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> >> it is very interesting to read this criteria and compare it with the git
> >> log of COOL. It seemed even this Github repo (project) didn't  attract
> >> the number of volunteers, which are requested in the decision proposal.
> >
>
Just to clarify - the attic decision talks about developers (volunteer
or not - should not make a difference).

The ESC proposal, on which this is based, considers Online to be of
medium complexity. To be able to maintain that code over longer
periods of time, 3 developers where deemed necessary.

So any comparison should count all commits I guess (that also makes
evaluation much easier - just run a git shortlog -n -s).

> The last part of this 'communication strategy' reached me in private on
> July, 3rd at 7.29pm, when I was told that I should contribute objective
> reason / points to the debate around LOOL and the decision about its
> atticization for LibreOffice Online.
>
And thanks for keeping the conversation here constructive indeed.

I suspect what happens was adherence to the board communication best
practices, which recommends to take bits of the conversation, which
are of no particular public interest, private.

This is a list with more than 200 subscribers - every not-so-relevant
email that people don't need to read, because it wasn't sent to the
list (or every email at least without a fullquote), leaves our
community more time & energy to do fun & productive work on the
project.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Sophie,

sophi wrote:
> Could you explain me why you see it as a marketing topic?
>
That is a misunderstanding - I was referring to Uwe's workshop,
which was called 'marketing workshop' on both occasions.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Uwe,

Uwe Altmann wrote:
> I'm willing to prepare and moderate a session (similar to the one in
> Brno) If there is some interest within the community because it
> doesn't make sense to do this with three to five Persons new at the
> project as we had in Rome.
>
I'd certainly be interested. It would be the marketing workshop, like
in Brno?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] [DECISION] Delayed atticization for LibreOffice Online

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

the following vote happened after our Monday board call, on request as
a private email vote:

> The board sees positive & constructive news around renewed
> developer interest in LibreOffice Online. To further encourage
> initiatives to collaborate on a single, TDF-hosted repository, the
> board resolves to postpone formally atticizing Online for three
> more months. Unless the de-atticization requirements [1] (3
> different developers contributing non-trivially) are fulfilled by
> then, and/or if necessary binding corporate commitments are not
> made by 2022-10-01, Online will be automatically moved to the
> attic.
>
> [1] 
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic#Deatticization_requirements
>

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 6 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

Result of vote: 2 approvals, 3 abstain, 1 disapproval.

**Decision: The proposal has been accepted.**

Two deputies support the proposal.

Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):

Ayhan, Caolán, Cor, Emiliano, Gabriel, Kendy, László, Thorsten

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the
> member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected.
> 
Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an
interest in something, and the determination of an actual conflict of
interest. At the time, the vote was called & the decision published &
acted upon (so apparently there was no CoI determined).

I don't think it is constructive to revisit the details of a decision
the previous board took in 2020.

If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your case
to the current board, with arguments not attacking an old vote, but
why the actual change would be needed.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Current repo for Andreas' Online branch (was: [board-discuss] Re: LOOL is about to be archived)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> it would be great, if we could work together on a process to merge
> both branches together and get the community versions in sync. I
> think this could be done most easy on Github.
>
In preparation of the board call tomorrow, was trying to find your
sources - is it this repo on github:

 https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online

?

Thanks, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, *,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I don't see the necessary respect for the work of every individual
> in the LibreOffice community and all talents. It looks like if the
> developers think they are the only important part in the community.
>
TDF has been celebrating & acknowledging the work of all volunteers,
if not since day one, then at least when we started to have dedicated
marketing staff. I'm personally very grateful to each and everyone,
contributing their time, energy, commitment & personal resources to
our projects.

I therefore find your statement needlessly divisive, at a time when
instead we should work towards more unity. It is also not constructive
- e.g. if you would have written 'the email from developer XY made me
think they consider themselves the only important part in the
community', we could have asked that person to clarify.

As it stands, it blames a large group of community members of
something that is likely not true (e.g. I myself don't believe only
developers are important).

The quoted excerpt is thus not the way we want to communicate here, so
let's please try to do better next time.

Thanks,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Reminder: please be respectful & patient to each other

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear list,

just the occasional reminder, to please:

- be inclusive, and patient - lets have email threads make incremental
  progress towards a shared understanding (and stop, once we realize we
  need to agree to disagree)
- recognise each other as humans (with our different quirks &
  cultures), and don't assume we stand for our group, company, or
  nationality
- try to resolve personal conflicts privately (if necessary by asking
  for moderation)
- above all, we try to keep discussions focused on issues, not
  on persons involved. If we offend, we apologize - if we feel offended,
  we try to be generous
- and if all else fails, we stop writing emails, and sort things out in
  a call

For the discussions recently started, it would be great to keep them
constructive!

Thanks a lot,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reminder for feedback (was: [board-discuss] Status update developer hiring process)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

bumping the message below, if you have additional feedback on the
proposal. Please also indicate if you think there should be more time.

Best, Thorsten

I wrote:
> Dear community,
> 
> we should now seek to finalize work on the in-house developer
> proposal.
> 
> - we agree that we want to hire developers
> - there is now only very few areas where the merged proposal should be
>   tweaked to reach broader consensus
> - we do want a single document to vote on in the end
> - we strive to finish the above within the next two weeks, in time
>   to have the final proposal ready for the next regular board meeting
> 
> Also on behalf of Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Gabor, Gabriel, Kendy and
> Laszlo,
> 
> -- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

QA policy discussion (was: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi *,

if possible, I would prefer if the discussion on what is, and is not,
a valid bug report on TDF's bugzilla would happen in the QA project
first and foremost.

I do see valid points on Alex' side (who spent a lot of time reporting
bugs), and also from Adolfo (who is right, that e.g. downstream Linux
distro bugs where always encouraged to be reported in distro
bugtrackers - because many times, it was e.g. a Gentoo quirk that
triggered a problem).

In any case, trying to be considerate to each other and understanding
the frustrations of the other side, would be my general wish,
all-over.

There is possibly a more general question behind this (along the
'using foundation resources' issue), which perhaps the board can form
an opinion on. Then it would be on-topic here.

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[board-discuss] Status update developer hiring process

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear community,

we should now seek to finalize work on the in-house developer
proposal.

- we agree that we want to hire developers
- there is now only very few areas where the merged proposal should be
  tweaked to reach broader consensus
- we do want a single document to vote on in the end
- we strive to finish the above within the next two weeks, in time
  to have the final proposal ready for the next regular board meeting

Also on behalf of Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Gabor, Gabriel, Kendy and
Laszlo,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Paolo,

[last comment from me on this sub-thread]

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> There isn't and hasn't been much debate going on and the ESC has
> been asked to vote today about killing LOOL.
>
Whatever the outcome of the ESC discussion - moving to the attic is
not 'killing' a project (which is an unnecessarily charged word
anyway). Additionally, there has not been any commits to LOOL in
almost 2 years. The status quo is already the 'attic', for anything
but the name.

And now let's wait for the ESC to act (or not).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Am 8. Juni 2022 22:35:01 MESZ schrieb Thorsten Behrens 
> :
> >As such, lets please get back to the topic.
> >
> 
> Because the acting people from that years hasn't realy changed I
> think that gives a clearer view on their mindset and agenda. It's
> important to help understanding the whole process in this thread.
>
Hmm. I wonder how much of these discussions here really is about
frustrations of the past (and people not liking each other),
vs. interacting positively with new proposals.

I think it would be in everyone's interest (in particular in TDF's
interest), if we could discuss the merits of proposals and ideas
independent of who brought them in.

The ESC btw is such a place, and therefore still quite a pleasant
experience, with calm & constructive discussions between all
stakeholders.

All the best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear list,

Andreas Mantke wrote:
> > Interestingly I cannot remember TDF ever tendering for LibreOffice
> > Online work, can you please point me to the details?
> TDF tendered in 2014/2015 the work for the Android editing, which was
> explained to the board also as important for LOOL.
>
That seems to be a very technical argument (on both sides); in any
case I doubt that a discussion of something that happend 8 years ago
helps us in moving the developer hiring proposal forward.

As such, lets please get back to the topic.

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> With a very odd timing the 02/06/2022 Mr Meeks added to the ESC agenda,
> during the meeting, the request to actually kill LOOL. From the emails on
> board-discuss it seems clear that that he doesn't want that in-house
> developers to even thinking about reviving LOOL to make sure TDF cannot
> promote even a basic version of it.
>
Same here - mixing lots of other topics into this discussion is not
useful in us making progress.

It is also premature, since the ESC is still discussing the
matter. Debating the merits of the proposal should happen there, not
here (for the while). Unless the board wants to run its own, competing
motion for how to deal with the Online repo (which I would consider
nonconstructive).

Thanks,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi *,

Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 04.06.22 at 10:59:
> > Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were
> > recorded so 2 must have been absent.
> 
> that's something for the board to decide, how they want to handle this -
> happy to update the vote template if the board is fine with that.
> 
I would support the proposal (independent of the vote at hand).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Ilmari,

Ilmari Lauhakangas wrote:
> On 3.6.2022 11.58, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > [1] curious as in - how much weight should that carry, when writing
> > the job posting / assessing skills?
> 
> It's a necessity. I have newbie level experience that I definitely hope to
> grow alongside all the other interesting tasks.
>
Perhaps I misunderstood the need then - I took it as having general
technical expertise, such as reading code, assessing tests and
deliverables. Those in my experience are relatively generic skills,
and translate well across different areas of the project.

So that's not what you had in mind, but rather deep expertise, to the
level of 'I could have written the code myself'?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Ilmari, all,

Ilmari Lauhakangas wrote:
> Tendering and in-house development are not interchangeable, but they are
> interlinked. Keep in mind that the in-house devs would participate in
> running tenders.
> 
That's a possibility, yeah. But just curious [1], is that currently a
bottleneck for tenders? Since there's you, Cloph, Hossein and Xisco
already, with cumulative many years of development experience.

[1] curious as in - how much weight should that carry, when writing
the job posting / assessing skills?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Please take personal conflict off-list (was: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear list, Kendy & Andreas,

let me repeat my earlier request to keep the interaction on this list
friendly and productive.

In particular, don't offend, and try not to be offended. This part of
the thread is not making progress towards coming up with a final,
merged proposal for in-house developers.

Thanks a lot,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature