Re: [Meta] Discussing in board-discuss [ was: Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF]
Hi Simon, On 12/06/2022 12:42, Simon Phipps wrote: Please note that I have (intentionally) refrained from responding to earlier messages. But no-one (including you) was addressing the repeated negative framing of Andreas' many e-mails so I offered a contribution from experience to balance it. Some actually addressed Andreas' emails and understood the requests for a positive change for TDF. If others wants to look away when there are criticisms they a free to do it but then they shouldn't negatively affect those that wants to fix issues. > By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with > other members through selecting positive elements of their > contributions. I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise, mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor. Doing everything by text-only for two years has been extremely toxic. The positive side of it is that we now have clear records in email threads that allowed us to pinpoint issues that then had to be dealt with. That's not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the Foundation since a lot of time. Andreas was one of the founding generation of TDF so has been involved in the project for a long time, yes. He contributed great work on infrastructure and deserves credit for it. He was unhappy when TDF migrated from Plone and I believe felt insulted by that step because his work was lost, which we regretted. I do understand that frustration, and have experienced it myself. Regardless of the reasons behind his will to participate to discussions I found Andreas' contributions very useful. Sometimes he's very direct but we have to accept that there are different communication styles and that we can't block or refer to the CoC people only because they say something that might not conform with our own ideas. I hope that more community members will find the courage to speak out if they see that there are issues that need to be dealt with. > How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming > the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless > of how they are answered? Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones, possibly something to discuss is there. Absolutely right. My original message however was to indicate that there is a very old problem that has not been "let go" and which newcomers might not recognise, and its repetition should probably not be heavily weighted as an indicator of the validity of the concerns today. Old problems should not be "let go" they should be evaluated objectively and addressed. If Andreas was demanding that we re-implemented his Plone infrastructure I'll be one of those saying that it's probably better if he "let go" but as far as I can see Andreas comments had nothing to do with it and all to do with improving our processes, increasing transparency and adding bits of information that are difficult to source as they might be spread in old email archives. I've been on the receiving side of Andreas' effort to keep an eye on board's decisions pointing out potential issues and I've actually appreciated that. I think there should be more people like him to keep the board in check and make sure we don't get too complacent or reliant on a narrative coming from only one source. Cheers Simon -- *Simon Phipps* /TDF Trustee/ Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details:https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
Re: [Meta] Discussing in board-discuss [ was: Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF]
Hi Emiliano, On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:03 AM Emiliano Vavassori < syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Il 12/06/22 11:17, Simon Phipps ha scritto: > > I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being > > aware of the true history of the project (especially at a time when > > there are voices trying to reframe history) is very important and > > refusing to do so may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance > > of untrue framing. > > I didn't say I found it useless, I said it wouldn't really still help > with moving the general balance of the discussion towards a positive > outcome, which was the main objections to Andreas' mails. > Please note that I have (intentionally) refrained from responding to earlier messages. But no-one (including you) was addressing the repeated negative framing of Andreas' many e-mails so I offered a contribution from experience to balance it. > By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with > > other members through selecting positive elements of their > > contributions. > > I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some > discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and > recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise, > mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor. I don't think it's primarily about the length of time contributing. I'd suggest the problem is more that the decision-making style at TDF is a friend-to-friend collaboration that, when there is a strong disagreement, reverts to face-to-face discussion. We have discovered over the long term that text-only discussions lead to both misunderstandings and escalation that are (usually) resolved when people meet in person. We have also discovered that text disagreements discourage participation by people who are either conflict-averse or concerned the argument is public and permanently recorded. Attempts to do what we always did in the past when there were disagreements - stop arguing in e-mail and have a phone call, and have a face-to-face if that doesn't work - have been blocked. I am really pleased to see the Board has been gathered in-person this weekend and sincerely hope you've all been able to devise ways to work together. Doing everything by text-only for two years has been extremely toxic. > That's > not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the > Foundation since a lot of time. > Andreas was one of the founding generation of TDF so has been involved in the project for a long time, yes. He contributed great work on infrastructure and deserves credit for it. He was unhappy when TDF migrated from Plone and I believe felt insulted by that step because his work was lost, which we regretted. I do understand that frustration, and have experienced it myself. > How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming > > the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless > > of how they are answered? > > Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are > even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones, > possibly something to discuss is there. Absolutely right. My original message however was to indicate that there is a very old problem that has not been "let go" and which newcomers might not recognise, and its repetition should probably not be heavily weighted as an indicator of the validity of the concerns today. Cheers Simon -- *Simon Phipps* *TDF Trustee*
Re: [Meta] Discussing in board-discuss [ was: Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF]
+1 Paolo On 12/06/2022 12:03, Emiliano Vavassori wrote: Hi Simon, Il 12/06/22 11:17, Simon Phipps ha scritto: They are to help newcomers like you become aware that the complaints being made are not in fact new or related to the current situation but date back to a dispute that is many years old and still unresolved due to personal enmities. That is still setting a (partial, angled) framing of the situation (as Andreas was doing, to some extent). What still worries me is that said frictions are still there after a lot of years and weren't solved, and honestly I don't buy it is a constellation of personal issues, rather than a misunderstanding on how effectively implement the shared goals we all should have. I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being aware of the true history of the project (especially at a time when there are voices trying to reframe history) is very important and refusing to do so may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance of untrue framing. I didn't say I found it useless, I said it wouldn't really still help with moving the general balance of the discussion towards a positive outcome, which was the main objections to Andreas' mails. By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with other members through selecting positive elements of their contributions. I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise, mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor. That's not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the Foundation since a lot of time. How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless of how they are answered? Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones, possibly something to discuss is there. Cheers, -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[Meta] Discussing in board-discuss [ was: Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF]
Hi Simon, Il 12/06/22 11:17, Simon Phipps ha scritto: They are to help newcomers like you become aware that the complaints being made are not in fact new or related to the current situation but date back to a dispute that is many years old and still unresolved due to personal enmities. That is still setting a (partial, angled) framing of the situation (as Andreas was doing, to some extent). What still worries me is that said frictions are still there after a lot of years and weren't solved, and honestly I don't buy it is a constellation of personal issues, rather than a misunderstanding on how effectively implement the shared goals we all should have. I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being aware of the true history of the project (especially at a time when there are voices trying to reframe history) is very important and refusing to do so may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance of untrue framing. I didn't say I found it useless, I said it wouldn't really still help with moving the general balance of the discussion towards a positive outcome, which was the main objections to Andreas' mails. By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with other members through selecting positive elements of their contributions. I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise, mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor. That's not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the Foundation since a lot of time. How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless of how they are answered? Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones, possibly something to discuss is there. Cheers, -- Emiliano Vavassori syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
