Re: [board-discuss] CommunityBylaws and actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity
Hi Lionel, Original-Nachricht Von: Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu I'm reading the wiki page CommunityBylaws, and I'm confused. It says These Bylaws do not apply to the actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity (...). Yes, (unfortunately) the current situation has some cunfusing points. We all hope that this will be resolved within the next few (hopefully two) weeks. But then they go on doing exactly that. For example, they explain how the Board of Directors is elected, and by whom. The board of directors is AFAIK usually the people responsible to the law / state / courts that e.g. the money of the foundation is used in accordance to the goals of the foundation. The Bylaws were drafted from a communitie's point of view, when we did not exactly know, what legal model the foundation will follow. So while many things in the bylaws match legal terms ans structure, it is not _exactly_ what we will see in legal statutes. So to me, it is factual that the Bylaws *do* speak about the actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity: they speak about the composition of the BoD, and the BoD is part of the structure of the foundation as a legal entity, and by law the BoD must be involved in the governance of the foundation as a legal entity. Yes, at some points, the bylaws match the legal structure, BoD is one of the perfect (99%) matches. Other examples: * The Chairperson (CH) is in charge of representing the Foundation. This is something we need to change, if the foundation will be approved by German authorities. As you quoted, in German law the Board (of directors) represents the Foundation. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[board-discuss] Reminder: next BoD call in 6 hours
Hello, just a reminder: the next BoD call is in 6 hours. For more information, see yesterday's mail. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Board of Directors at The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] CommunityBylaws and actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity
Hi :) The key words afaik are as a legal entity. TDF's assets are currently being looked after by 1 (or more) of the community organisations that are legally registered as legal entitys. TDF has not yet gained the status of being a legal entity. When it does the assets will be transferred. It was great to hear that the registration process is nearly complete already! I thought it would take at least a year! :) But perhaps i am reading too much into Andre's post. Regards from Tom :) --- On Wed, 30/11/11, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net wrote: From: Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Subject: Re: [board-discuss] CommunityBylaws and actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity To: board-discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: Wednesday, 30 November, 2011, 9:23 Hi Lionel, Original-Nachricht Von: Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu I'm reading the wiki page CommunityBylaws, and I'm confused. It says These Bylaws do not apply to the actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity (...). Yes, (unfortunately) the current situation has some cunfusing points. We all hope that this will be resolved within the next few (hopefully two) weeks. But then they go on doing exactly that. For example, they explain how the Board of Directors is elected, and by whom. The board of directors is AFAIK usually the people responsible to the law / state / courts that e.g. the money of the foundation is used in accordance to the goals of the foundation. The Bylaws were drafted from a communitie's point of view, when we did not exactly know, what legal model the foundation will follow. So while many things in the bylaws match legal terms ans structure, it is not _exactly_ what we will see in legal statutes. So to me, it is factual that the Bylaws *do* speak about the actual structure and governance of The Document Foundation as a legal entity: they speak about the composition of the BoD, and the BoD is part of the structure of the foundation as a legal entity, and by law the BoD must be involved in the governance of the foundation as a legal entity. Yes, at some points, the bylaws match the legal structure, BoD is one of the perfect (99%) matches. Other examples: * The Chairperson (CH) is in charge of representing the Foundation. This is something we need to change, if the foundation will be approved by German authorities. As you quoted, in German law the Board (of directors) represents the Foundation. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Hi, NoOp wrote on 2011-11-30 05:02: I disagree. The moderators list is active, you guys post there regularly - try it on yourselves before creating a why is this happening panic on this list? Keep in mind that this list is also used by general users: well, I don't want to disable the current mangling at all - but if we want to evaluate the impact, I thought it make sense to do it on a larger list. A list with a few subscribers and basically no e-mails is not an ideal test object... But now it looks like the mangling change will only be relevant for a few lists, indeed. Better yet, try it on the dev list as this seems to be where the request is originating from. That change is already in effect on the dev list, but I think it's not comparable to other lists at LibO. :) Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Board of Directors at The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Hi NoOp, *, Am 30.11.2011 04:50 schrieb NoOp: On 11/28/2011 08:23 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: [..] * make it easy for new and peripherally involved users to get replies to their casual E-mails without doing a long list of operations. Where by a long list of operations, I mean, that in order to get a reply to your mail/question, first you need to: [.. trimmed the referenced paragraph ..] You've obviously never spent time on the OOo user discuss lists... [.. bad experience with above use case ..] I subscribe to over 80 lists (via gmane.org) Using a nntp-client You are not affected by the change.. and respond regularly to 10-15 daily. Were I required to adjust my standard 'Reply' to specifically reply to the list rather than the individual poster I'd have to make major modifications to my client (SeaMonkey). Would You consider to do that change if You knew making life easier for *many* community co-members by doing so? Anyways - You don't have to ;o)) I view and respond to a list, not to individual posters. There are so many pro and cons regarding that, how about having it most easy *for both sides* to follow their believing? Further, the changes that you are requesting (if I understand them correctly) You probably don't.. The change in question only concerns reverting the setting of the reply-to: $list header added by the mailinglist software to each message sent. would mean that I'd then have an additional, direct email in my inbox from each list poster when I've specifically chosen to view respond via an nntp source (gmane.org) rather than list email. No. This can happen if accidently a poster uses reply to all instead of reply-to-list, without trimming the posters address. Your request now places the burden on each list user to make changes in order to avoid responding to the list poster and instead reply to the list in general. No. Only those using reply instead of reply-to-list have to change their habits (which admittedly might cause some annoyance during the changing period). [.. general mailinglist access proposal ..] If you wish to reply to each poster individually, then perhaps you can modify Evolution 3.0.2 to conform to Reply and 'Reply All' to suit your requirements. Thats the reason the change will be done: Make Your mail software work how it's intended to work, regardless which one. -1 Wrong assumption? Gruß/regards Friedrich -- Friedrich Strohmaier - Admin team - The Document Foundation http://www.documentfoundation.org/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Regina Henschel wrote: I see no problem for this steps. That has worked all the time for our German OOo-lists, so why shouldn't it work for an international list? Users get a reply from the list moderator which describes what to do. Ugh. Citing the late OOo as something that has worked especially well strikes me as at least debatable. ;) I think the point you want to make is - I'm used to this - which is fine, but the problem that is to be addressed here is mostly about people *not* used to it, but coming from outside / the fuzzy edges of this project. I would think, if all LibO lists would behave similarly, it wouldn't take longer than a day or two to adapt personal habits? At any rate, here's the ultimate answer in this whole reply-to-munging debate (for who ever is amenable to technical argument): http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Thorsten Behrens wrote (30-11-11 14:48) At any rate, here's the ultimate answer in this whole reply-to-munging debate (for who ever is amenable to technical argument): Me thinks there's different habits, skills, expectations with devs and non-devs (to put it black white) Since I have no time to really dive into the discussion, and am happy to work with both (libreoffice@fdo en users_etc_@) any outcome is OK for me... Hmm, maybe I'm in the mood for an experimental approach ;-) -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Am 30.11.2011 14:48, schrieb Thorsten Behrens: At any rate, here's the ultimate answer in this whole reply-to-munging debate (for who ever is amenable to technical argument): http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html The issue was definitively settled in 2001, and Chip won. LOL this was a good one :-) thx, cheers Erich -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Hi Friedrich, Friedrich Strohmaier schrieb: [..] No. This can happen if accidently a poster uses reply to all instead of reply-to-list, without trimming the posters address. I use Seamonkey and there I see nothing like reply-to-list, there is only (1)Antwort auf dieses Nachricht and (2)Antwort an Absender and alle Empfänger. (1) generates a mail to reply-to if set and to from in the other cases. (2) generates a mail to reply-to if set and CC from and other CCs, or if reply-to is not set to from and CC other CCs. So how to reply-to-list? Kind regards Regina -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Re: overall communication guidelines and reply-tomangling
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote in message news:4ed5e9fe.5040...@documentfoundation.org... Hi, NoOp wrote on 2011-11-30 05:02: I disagree. The moderators list is active, you guys post there regularly - try it on yourselves before creating a why is this happening panic on this list? Keep in mind that this list is also used by general users: well, I don't want to disable the current mangling at all - but if we want to evaluate the impact, I thought it make sense to do it on a larger list. A list with a few subscribers and basically no e-mails is not an ideal test object... But now it looks like the mangling change will only be relevant for a few lists, indeed. Better yet, try it on the dev list as this seems to be where the request is originating from. That change is already in effect on the dev list, but I think it's not comparable to other lists at LibO. :) Florian I think the idea that a simple Reply should only go the OP is very poor: 1. People will not be able to see whether or not a question has been answered, or if it has been answered well. 2. People who didn't ask the question might nevertheless be interested in [some aspect(s) of] the answer but they won't get it. 3. Many of the people who ask questions are not technically familiar with the intricacies of e-mail. Thus, if they have a follow up to an answer and just hit Reply (which they will because they don't know better), that follow up will *only* go to the person who responded to the original question instead of to the list. 4. In general the scheme will proliferate private conversations which is the exact opposite of the intention behind using a list. 5. If you want this sort of behaviour, use a *forum* where the questioner can subscribe to only his/her question threads Perhaps for expert groups like Dev, the idea *might* be OK but for the lists designed for general support I really don't think it is sensible. Harold Fuchs London, England -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] libreoffice 3 writer printed page top margin does not match preview page top margin
Printed page top margin does not match preview page top margin; however I attempt to set the top margin the page prints with zero top margin. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice-3-writer-printed-page-top-margin-does-not-match-preview-page-top-margin-tp3549768p3549768.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
