Re: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal? (was Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, November 14th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1))
Hi all, Am 18.11.22 um 11:30 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: (...) (I won't comment much on the perceived attempt of delaying this proposal further as my comments on a similar thread led to my "conviction" for a CoC offence by the board. As I complained about the fact that the case has been handled by someone that didn't demonstrate much objectivity and impartiality in my regards, the board decided to spend time and money to find an external "communication expert" to deal with the case. Apparently I'll be actively censored if I discuss the case further, internally or externally, so I'm not sure if I can comment more about it. For those that forgot, this was the public accusation: I read about the decision to create a new CoC committee from community members (https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01000.html). 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)? I'm curious about a detailed explanation from the board, why the own TDF CoC committee is incompetent for the handling of the situation. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal? (was Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, November 14th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1))
Hi Thorsten, hi all, Am 18.11.22 um 11:31 schrieb 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! you asked and got input for this proposal for more than 9 month yet. There were among other volunteers two board member working on the document for about 8 to 9 month and the board is postponing the item from meeting to meeting without any final vote. And if the hiring of inhouse-developers is unanimous agreement inside the board and also that it has high priority, I wonder why you, the board chair, has not personally took care of this task already and make the vote happen in time. Thus the whole process tells his own tale. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal? (was Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, November 14th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1))
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))
Hi all, On 18/11/2022 10:27, Thorsten Behrens wrote: 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. It seems like Thorsten hasn't been following the progress, might have forgotten what has been agreed at LibOCon and might have forgot what has been said during the board meeting on Monday. As agreed with all the board the proposal has been sent to our legal counsel for a final verification before the vote. With that done there was only once sentence left to discuss: "TDF in-house developers will not compete with commercial contributors and will not develop alternative implementations of Open Source projects actively maintained by LibreOffice volunteer or corporate contributors – like Collabora Online, mdds, or cppunit." I proposed to remove that from the "Concerns expressed by the commercial contributors" section as we agreed months ago that eventual scope limitations linked to commercial contributors is covered by the text in page 1: "Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on which the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are already engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate agreements and relevant communications between TDF and the third parties." Then Jan resigned. Thorsten's statements may lead some to think that reality is perceived in different ways by different people: " * Kendy resigned because no compromise was reached * stop here and restart, from a clean slate * if quick action is required instead, tender out as contracted work?" (I won't comment much on the perceived attempt of delaying this proposal further as my comments on a similar thread led to my "conviction" for a CoC offence by the board. As I complained about the fact that the case has been handled by someone that didn't demonstrate much objectivity and impartiality in my regards, the board decided to spend time and money to find an external "communication expert" to deal with the case. Apparently I'll be actively censored if I discuss the case further, internally or externally, so I'm not sure if I can comment more about it. For those that forgot, this was the public accusation: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00554.html) The board agreed on the process and has access to all the versions being created, the document has been vetted by our legal counsel and the last sentence is covered by previously agreed text so I believe this version is ready to be voted on: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB 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 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital 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))
Hi Thorsten, hi all, Am 18.11.22 um 10:27 schrieb 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. I already saw and read through them. 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. I don't see a set-back. The comments and agreements from him are still there. Why is there a need to throw away the whole resources which have been invested into the current proposal and start from scratch again. It looks as if there is no will from a majority of board members to work constructively on the document with Paolo. 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. If I read through the minutes (after more than nine month of working on the proposal) I'm not convinced about such an unanimous agreement. If the majority of the board acts in this way further, TDF inhouse developers will not be hired during its tenure of office. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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: Progress on Inhouse-Developer Proposal? (was Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, November 14th, 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1))
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
