from:"Andreas Mantke"

[tdf-discuss] Board elections and a Pledge for LibreOffice

2023-12-08 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hello everyone,

As some of you may know, the Foundation's board election is currently
taking place.

A group of community members from different countries and continents
have come together and made a pledge for LibreOffice.

Sophie Gautier, who you know from the international project, has
nominated the individual candidates. [1] All of them accepted the
candidacy and signed the pledge for LibreOffice:
- Sophie Gautier, from the French community,
- Eliane Domingos, from the Brazilian community,
- Osvaldo Gervasi, from the Italian community,
- Paolo Vecchi, from the Italian community,
- Jean-Baptiste Faure, from the French community,
- Franklin Weng, from the Taiwanese community,
- Daniel Rodriguez, from the Argentinian community,
- Mike Saunders, from the German community,
- myself (Andreas Mantke) from the German community,
- Jean-François Nifenecker, from the French community and
- Enio Gemmo, from the Italian community.

You can find the pledge at
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/D5drr8Hbom6tYTD.

If you have any questions, please contact me. We, the signatories and
candidates, would be delighted to work with you to shape the future of
the Foundation and return the TDF to its golden age.

I wish you all a great weekend.

Kind regards,
Andreas

[1]
https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/nominations-for-the-elections-of-the-tdf-board-of-directors/11759

--
## Free Software Advocate
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: 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/discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

[tdf-discuss] More Attacks On Employees And Inappropriate Behavior Of The Chair (was: [VOTE] Technical Budgeting Procedure)

2023-07-12 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Community,

Unfortunately, it seems posts get frequently flagged in the
board-discuss forum, where currently also the behavior of some board
members is criticized and discussed. I hate this form of limiting
discussions and censorship. It's not appropriate to a free software project.


Hi Thorsten, hi all,

Am 11.07.23 um 16:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens via The Document
Foundation Community:

   \ 45x45 thb 
   July 11

   Hi Paolo,

   PaoloVecchi:

   Is the decision to send out that vote with those issues your own
   or it has been taken by the “shadow board”?

   It is ok to disagree with the policy (although a lot of effort went
   into drafting it). But “shadow board”, really? Next thing will be
   you accusing staff of being the “deep state”?


the last sentence is offensive towards Paolo and all members of staff.

I personally (with some experience in people’s management) wouldn’t even
have thought about such a labeling of members of staff.

The above sentence seemed to show the real view of the author on the
members of staff. And it shows that he expects a bad person behind every
corner. That is no ground for building a winning team.

Your repeated bad (and not only inappropriate) behavior towards people
with other opinions, including the members of TDF staff, is already
sufficient and broad documented and confirmed by many community members.

No community could and should tolerate such behavior. In any company or
institution, you would have been released of your management duties
immediately, to protect people’s mental (and physical) health and
well-being.

It is a shame and not in any case tolerable, that the majority of the
board, except Paolo and Emiliano (who are not members of the ‘shadow
board’) are not taking actions immediately.

If some of the members of the ‘shadow board’ own a spark of integrity,
they could prove that now and take the necessary actions immediately.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: 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/discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

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

2023-04-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, all,

Am 01.04.23 um 01:19 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

Hi Andreas, Cor & Paolo,

please take any conversations about specific interpretations of
statutes and other legal foundation frameworks to the internal list
(Cc-ed).

This is a matter for our members to discuss, not the general public.


it doesn't need further discussions. There is no doubt, that TDF and its
board has to follow Common sense and applicable law in many countries,
also in Germany. And this common sense law includes e.g. the rule that
nobody could be a judge in own cases, which covers the whole process
including the discussion of the case inside the decision-making body.

This rule is not on the disposal of the BoD (and of TDF) to change this
rule. It is higher-ranking law.

The whole topic has been explained more than once e.g. on this list. But
you and your companion deny to follow this mandatory rules again and
again. You try to create your own world at TDF where this rules would
not be valid. But I appeal to you get back into the real world and
accept that that you and also Cor and Gabor are not allowed to take part
in the whole decision making process about the three topics you declared
an personal interest, which is also a CoI.

It's time for you to not endless discuss and disclaim that you and TDF
have to follow the explained rules, but to take action and abstain from
any discussion and decision of topics where you have a personal interest
/ Conflict of Interest.

And it is also your pattern to ask for discussions in private or on
private lists, once you realize that your arguments are not sustainable.
Then you find a reason to banish it from the public behind the wall.
This is a behavior not appropriate to a free and open society and a
corresponding organization.

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

2023-03-31 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, all,

Am 31.03.23 um 16:35 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas, all,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 30/03/2023 14:28:

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.


Apart from the validity of your statement: as we all know, TDF is not
the average organization.

your statement is nonsense. TDF is a foundation within the German civil
law and thus has to follow the rules of the German law system.



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.


So you and Paolo forget TDF rules? Let's take a detailed look then.

= TDF Statues =
= = = = = = = =
(...)
- - - -

(4) The board of directors prevents conflicts of interest within
the Foundation. The board of directors is therefore obliged to ensure,
that the board of directors itself, the membership committee, and the
advisory board, at maximum have one third of their members being
employed by a single company, organisation, entity or their respective
affiliates of the aforementioned. The board of directors can expel one
member per month from each of the foundations bodies, until the
conflict of interest situation is either settled, or a re-election of
the entity has been initiated. The board of directors can to resolve
the conflict of interest by expelling the necessary number of members
from other committee at once, and/or replace member by other members
of such committee.

- - - -
   Conclusion: § 8.3. deals with § 8.4, i.e. the composition of the
   foundations bodies.
- - - -


You should read the first sentence as the general rule. TDF and its
board has to prevent conflicts of interest. The further sentences give
TDF and its board only some explicit extra options / actions.

This dilutes not the general rule. If there is a conflict of interest
TDF and its board need to prevent it. Thus it has e.g. to follow the
rule of the law that nobody could be a judge in own cases, which covers
the whole process including the discussion of the case inside
the decision-making body.

This rule is not on the disposal of the BoD (and of TDF) to change this
rule. It is higher-ranking law.

Conclusion:

Stop talking about CoI without taking Common sense and applicable law in
many countries, also in Germany,  into account. It is very clear that
you and also Thorsten and Gabor are not allowed to take part in the
whole decision making process about the three topics you declared an
personal interest, which is also a CoI.

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

2023-03-31 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, all,

Am 30.03.23 um 19:42 schrieb 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).


a personal interest / Conflict of Interest (CoI) exists independent of
the confirmation of the board. If one of the many examples for a CoI
applies to a topic (and also if it is only probably) it is the fiduciary
duty of the concerned member to stay out of any discussion etc. on that
topic. This is independent from its confirmation by the BoD.

There is a rule of law that you couldn't be a judge in own cases. This
rule cover the whole process including the discussion of the case inside
the decision-making body.

It's not on the disposal of the BoD (and of TDF) to change this rule. It
is higher-ranking law.

Thus I ask all of you, Thorsten, Cor and Gabor, to not participate in
any discussion (and decision) of the corresponding topics. This is
important because otherwise you violate obligations as board member and
create liabilities.

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

2023-03-30 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, all,

Am 29.03.23 um 15:58 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/03/2023 12:04:


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


Thorsten and Gabor declared a personal interest on the above topics (see
above). I ask if they both attended the call and the discussion during
this three topics of the private part of the meeting. Who lead the
meeting as chair during this three topics?


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.

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.


Further question: why didn't declare Cor also a personal interest about
this three topics?


Sorry if it is not there. IIRC I said the same applied for me - as is
usually the case - so my name should be there in the minutes too.


I ask you and also Thorsten and Gabor to not participate in any
discussion (and decision) of the corresponding topics. This is important
because otherwise you violate obligations as board member and create
liabilities.

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

2023-03-29 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 24.03.23 um 09:55 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2023-03-20
Meeting Minutes

Date: 2023-03-20
Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Thorsten Behrens
Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht

In the meeting:
   Board Members - Thorsten, Cor, Paolo, Gabor, Emiliano, Laszlo
   Board Deputy Members - Gabriel
   Membership Committee Members - Gustavo, Marina
   Membership Committee Substitute Members -
   Community - Andreas
   Team - Florian, Stephan, Sophie, Guilhem, Stéphane

Representation: Gabriel for Ayhan

(...)

Any updates regarding director affiliations and substantial interests:
* no changes, current affiliations see election page:
https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2021-board/candidates.html
* Gabor and Thorsten notify the board of trustees of allotropia's
  partnership with Collabora, through which they now fund part of
  our development work

Would any of the directors present need to declare an interest, for
any of the listed agenda items?
* 1.
* 2.
* 3.
* 4.
* 5. Thorsten, Gabor
* 6. Thorsten, Gabor
* 7. Thorsten, Gabor
* 8.
* 9.

(...)


### Private Part
(...)

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)


Thorsten and Gabor declared a personal interest on the above topics (see
above). I ask if they both attended the call and the discussion during
this three topics of the private part of the meeting. Who lead the
meeting as chair during this three topics?

Further question: why didn't declare Cor also a personal interest about
this three topics?

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

2023-03-28 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 24.03.23 um 09:55 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2023-03-20
Meeting Minutes

Date: 2023-03-20
Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Thorsten Behrens
Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht

In the meeting:
   Board Members - Thorsten, Cor, Paolo, Gabor, Emiliano, Laszlo
   Board Deputy Members - Gabriel
   Membership Committee Members - Gustavo, Marina
   Membership Committee Substitute Members -
   Community - Andreas
   Team - Florian, Stephan, Sophie, Guilhem, Stéphane



(...)

The public meeting commences at 17:00 UTC / 18:00 Berlin time.

## 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
(...)
* 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)


I looked into my personal notes and I missed here an important statement
from chair:

* hmm, wonder if we are already in election mode (Thorsten)

This can be perceived as an attempt intimidation in this context. It
stops the questioner. But it also mirrors the nervousness with getting
such question.

The chair of the meeting seemed not to be able to recognize the impact
on the community member (questioner) or he did it on purpose.

Regardless which option apply to his inappropriate behavior, it
disqualified him to lead a meeting/board call.


* what's the relevance of raising this right now? (Cor)


And then there was this aggressive behavior from another member of the
board against a community member. And the chair of the meeting
(Thorsten) didn't stop this behavior, rebuked the attacker or
protected the asking community member.

This confirmed that he is not able to act as a chair of a meeting.

Some members of the board act like a prince in the medieval and treat
members of the community as footman and without respect.

I wonder if such behavior is suitable for a chairperson. I like to add
that this was not the first time that the current chair of the board act
this way during a meeting.


* if there's concerns - perhaps ask directly or 1:1? (Thorsten)


This is also incomplete from my personal notes: Thorsten offered also to
discuss this topic on the mailing list, if there is serious interest.
There is an open thread on the board-discuss list
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2023/msg00072.html)
but without any answer from the chair.

The statement above from the call is a commonplace but no real answer to
the question. Thus currently the chair couldn't remember any important
achievement in the interest of the foundation during his first year.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2023-03-22 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Heiko, all,

Am 22.03.23 um 10:57 schrieb Heiko Tietze:

On 22.03.23 10:44, Andreas Mantke wrote:

what is the reason for this biting tone of your reply?


Thorsten's reply is not biting, neither I read Cor's question as
aggressive why you ask. The answer with keeping the show running is
reasonable given the challenges we face, although a bit pity for the
project.


if I didn't miss anything you have not been in the call this Monday and
according to the minutes of former BoD calls you have not been in those
meetings at least for a longer time.

If you would have participated in the call I'm sure you would have a
similar feeling. You would have recognized the facial expression and the
gesture connected to the questions. Thus with your professional
background  this should have given you a different assessment on the
situation.

For me the target course of the questions was very obvious. And I think
other participants in the call got the same perception.

And about the answer: your expectations on a chairman of the board and
on the board seemed to be very low. I don't know if the members and
donors of TDF would share your expectations.



Turning things positively means to not just ask for sake of asking but
to give ideas how to improve. Something like "it would be good to
define milestones for the board", ideally with your personal view.


The question was put to the chairman of the board. I wasn't asked to be
the prompter of the chairman. I think he and the members of the board
will be able to answer questions themselves without my assistance.

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

2023-03-22 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, all,

what is the reason for this biting tone of your reply?

Am 21.03.23 um 22:35 schrieb 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)


I made some notes myself and you forgot to mention the second part of
your reply to Stephan:

* you wonder if we are already in election mode

(This can be perceived as an attempt intimidation in this context. It 
stops the questioner. But it also mirrors the nervousness with getting
such question.)


  * what's the relevance of raising this right now? (Cor)


And this was an aggressive behavior of a board member against a
community member.

@Thorsten: why you didn't stop this behavior, rebuked the attacker or
protected the ones asking?


  * if there's concerns - perhaps ask directly or 1:1? (Thorsten)

From my notes you told that this could be discussed on the mailing list
too, and not only for concerns, but if there is honestly interest (on an
answer to that question).


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


If you'd look on your above answer from the perspective of the community
and also from the donors to TDF, what would be your perception? Did you
get any idea which important achievement for the foundation you reached
during the last year?

That a chair of the board and its meetings are able to run a successful
decision making process seemed to be nothing outstanding (important). It
is the usual job description.

But there is enough space in the other thread
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2023/msg00072.html)
to extend your answer and give the community more insight, what
seriously were your important achievements for the foundation during
your first year as chairman of the board.

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

2023-03-21 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 16.03.23 um 23:27 schrieb 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


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.

And even more unsettling and in no way appropriate are the attacks of a
board member on community members, especially questioning for a
justification about asking that question.

The board member also stated that he expect from the community members
to announce the subject of a question in advance of the call.

The chairman of the board, who was also chair of the meeting, didn't
intervene, stopped this attack, rebuked the attacker or protected the
ones asking.

This shows that some members of the board are not willing to hear any
serious question from the community during the call.

I'd remind the board that it was elected by the community and has to do
its work in the best interest of the community and the foundation. This
includes a fair interaction with all community / foundation members.

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

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

2023-03-21 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, board, all,

Am 16.03.23 um 23:27 schrieb 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


during the call a question from the community was asked to the chairman,
but he declined to give an answer in the call. But he said that the
question could be asked on this mailing list, if there is a real interest.

I think there is no doubt that there is a high and valuable interest for
an answer of the chairman to that question.

Thus I ask this question - as requested - here:

Thorsten:
You took over the position of the chairman of the board about one year ago.
What have been your most important personal achievements in the interest
of the foundation during this year?


i'd be interested in the answers of the other board members too, what
were their most important personal achievements in the interest of the
foundation during this last year.

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: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Budget request for marketing, community and events

2023-03-16 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Board, all,

Am 15.03.23 um 08:25 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2023-03-13, is
now made public in accordance with our statutes.

(...)


VOTE: I'd like to ask for pre-approval of the sums from the budget
draft, which is:

Marketing: 20.000 €
Community: 50.000 €
FOSDEM & LibOCon: 30.000 €



I wonder if TDF has no budget for the 2023 infrastructure costs. If I'm
not wrong e.g. the regularly biweekly Jitsi board calls
(https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard) runs on hardware which
is rent by TDF. The same should be true for e.g. Gerrit
(https://gerrit.libreoffice.org) and a lot of other infra services.

It is always known at the end of the previous year that there are
recurring costs for infra and other tasks in the upcoming year. Thus it
is necessary to make a decision about those budget items at the end of
the previous year to pay the bills from TDF money.

The timely start of the decision making about those budget items for
recurring costs is the responsibility of the board chairperson. If
he/she is not able to do his duty in time he/she is in charge of that.

Or is the chairperson so generous to pay those bills from private
budget? I estimate not.

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: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Budget request for marketing, community and events

2023-03-15 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, Board, all,

Am 15.03.23 um 16:04 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

Hi Cor, Board, all,

Am 15.03.23 um 15:19 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 15/03/2023 15:01:


would be interesting to know for which FOSDEM the budget item is
decided
on, for the one:
- in 2023?
or
- in 2024?


This is for the 2023 budget,


If I remember correctly the FOSDEM 2023 took place at first weekend in
Feb. 2023. The decision about the budget was taken more than a month
later.

Why was the board and it's chair not able to start the decision about
the budget for FOSDEM 2023 not in front of that event?



the correct question should be:

Why was the board and it's chair not able to start the decision about
the budget for FOSDEM 2023 in front of that event?




Did TDF already spent money in 2023 without any budget decision from the
board? And if so, how much was spent that way?


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: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Budget request for marketing, community and events

2023-03-15 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, Board, all,

Am 15.03.23 um 15:19 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 15/03/2023 15:01:


would be interesting to know for which FOSDEM the budget item is decided
on, for the one:
- in 2023?
or
- in 2024?


This is for the 2023 budget,


If I remember correctly the FOSDEM 2023 took place at first weekend in
Feb. 2023. The decision about the budget was taken more than a month later.

Why was the board and it's chair not able to start the decision about
the budget for FOSDEM 2023 not in front of that event?

Did TDF already spent money in 2023 without any budget decision from the
board? And if so, how much was spent that way?

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: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Budget request for marketing, community and events

2023-03-15 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Board, all,

Am 15.03.23 um 08:25 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2023-03-13, is
now made public in accordance with our statutes.

Florian Effenberger wrote on 09.03.23 at 15:22:


VOTE: I'd like to ask for pre-approval of the sums from the budget
draft, which is:

Marketing: 20.000 €
Community: 50.000 €
FOSDEM & LibOCon: 30.000 €


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.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.

Result of vote: 6 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.


would be interesting to know for which FOSDEM the budget item is decided
on, for the one:
- in 2023?
or
- in 2024?

I'm curious about the answer from the BoD.

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

[board-discuss] Propose And Not Deliver (was: Re: Some Questions On Decision Making)

2023-02-08 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

the BoD chair proposed that Cor will deliver / publish further details
on the topic 'hiring external communication expert' and answer my questions.

But although I waited for a longer time yet neither Cor nor the BoD
chair replied and submitted further information and answered questions.

It looks as if they are not willing or able to deliver. It shouldn't be
difficult to answer my questions and deliver the information (the data
should have been compiled by the board before the decision making).

Regards,
Andreas

Am 25.01.23 um 19:32 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

Hi Thorsten, all,

Am 21.01.23 um 14:07 schrieb 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?


I waited some days yet, but Cor didn't published any further details and
also didn't answer any of my questions.

When could I and the members / community expect the proposed further
details and answers?



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

2023-01-25 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, all,

Am 21.01.23 um 14:07 schrieb 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?


I waited some days yet, but Cor didn't published any further details and
also didn't answer any of my questions.

When could I and the members / community expect the proposed further
details and answers?

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

2023-01-21 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Cor,

I don't think that I'm asking too much details of board work. I think
you, the board, are responsible with respect to the community and at
least the TDF members to explain in detail your decisions (and it's
basics). You handle TDF only as a fiduciary for the members and the
community (and also for the donors).

If you are not able to share the basics and answer the questions, you
are not able to fulfill your function.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 21.01.23 um 11:10 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

I'll ask the board to share the decision, on which the hiring of the
external expert is based, public.
And for the rest you're asking too much details on board work IMO.

Cheers,
Cor

Andreas Mantke wrote on 20/01/2023 21:56:

Hi Cor,

if there is a clear description of the task it shouldn't be an issue to
make that public at least to the TDF members.

And it would also be of interest which consultancy firms you have
contacted.

Why have you only contacted those firms, although there are a lot of
providers of such offerings on the market?

What were the detailed criteria to choose only those firms?

Regards,
Andreas

Am 20.01.23 um 21:47 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

Good questions.
Yes, we had a clear description of the ask. We had contacted 4
consultancy firms with a summary, of which two seemed best matching.
We got offerings from them based on the precise description. Finally
we've chosen the one which we expect to be most helpful with checking
the process as described and taking (a first) look at the wider
communication. The price of the offerings did not differ much.

HTH,
greetings,
Cor

PS. For me it is not needed to use 'I think the TDF members want to
know'. It is OK if you are interested.

Andreas Mantke wrote on 20/01/2023 20:23:

Hi all,

if I look at the price tag of this decision, I' curious if there had
been a complete task description done in writing before the decision.
And I also think the community and especially the TDF members want to
know if there had been a tender with the task description in front of
the decision.

Had there been done a market analysis / a comparison of cost before
the
decision? I'd like to note that TDF is a tax-exempt charity,
running on
donation money.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 20.01.23 um 19:00 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-12-22, is
now made public in accordance with our statutes.

Cor Nouws wrote on 17/12/2022 11:59:

Hello all,

Another topic on which we need to make progress urgently IMO. Not
only to check the handling, impartiality and objectivity of the CoC
case against Paolo, but also get (a first?) external advise on our
communication etc.

From the comments on the topic - thanks! - there is a clear
preference to go with the offering from Central Consultancy &
Training.

And since we're voting anyway, please cast your vote (+1/-1/0) for
this one too by **Monday, 17:00 UTC / 18:00 Berlin time**.

–-%<-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–

The board resolves:

* Accept the offering from Central Consultancy & Training to execute
'Review handling CoC complaint against board member' as decided on
October 17 2022

* As can be found here [redacted, internal link]

* The cost for TDF are approx. 14.000 €

The vote runs 54h from now.

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 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the
vote.
The vote is quorate.
A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.
Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstains, 2 disapprovals.
Also one deputy supports the motion.

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

2023-01-20 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Cor,

if there is a clear description of the task it shouldn't be an issue to
make that public at least to the TDF members.

And it would also be of interest which consultancy firms you have contacted.

Why have you only contacted those firms, although there are a lot of
providers of such offerings on the market?

What were the detailed criteria to choose only those firms?

Regards,
Andreas

Am 20.01.23 um 21:47 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

HTH,
greetings,
Cor

PS. For me it is not needed to use 'I think the TDF members want to
know'. It is OK if you are interested.

Andreas Mantke wrote on 20/01/2023 20:23:

Hi all,

Had there been done a market analysis / a comparison of cost before the
decision? I'd like to note that TDF is a tax-exempt charity, running on
donation money.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 20.01.23 um 19:00 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-12-22, is
now made public in accordance with our statutes.

Cor Nouws wrote on 17/12/2022 11:59:

Hello all,

From the comments on the topic - thanks! - there is a clear
preference to go with the offering from Central Consultancy &
Training.

And since we're voting anyway, please cast your vote (+1/-1/0) for
this one too by **Monday, 17:00 UTC / 18:00 Berlin time**.

–-%<-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–

The board resolves:

* Accept the offering from Central Consultancy & Training to execute
'Review handling CoC complaint against board member' as decided on
October 17 2022

* As can be found here [redacted, internal link]

* The cost for TDF are approx. 14.000 €

The vote runs 54h from now.

A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
The vote is quorate.
A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.
Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstains, 2 disapprovals.
Also one deputy supports the motion.

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2023-01-20 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

Had there been done a market analysis / a comparison of cost before the
decision? I'd like to note that TDF is a tax-exempt charity, running on
donation money.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 20.01.23 um 19:00 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-12-22, is
now made public in accordance with our statutes.

Cor Nouws wrote on 17/12/2022 11:59:

Hello all,

From the comments on the topic - thanks! - there is a clear
preference to go with the offering from Central Consultancy & Training.

And since we're voting anyway, please cast your vote (+1/-1/0) for
this one too by **Monday, 17:00 UTC / 18:00 Berlin time**.

–-%<-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–

The board resolves:

* Accept the offering from Central Consultancy & Training to execute
'Review handling CoC complaint against board member' as decided on
October 17 2022

* As can be found here [redacted, internal link]

* The cost for TDF are approx. 14.000 €

The vote runs 54h from now.

A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
The vote is quorate.
A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.
Result of vote: 5 approvals, 0 abstains, 2 disapprovals.
Also one deputy supports the motion.

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2022-12-05 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

I await answers to the questions below. And it looks like if I was not
the only one.

The action about the moderation of this list was in July this year extra
risky because it happened during the elections of the Membership
Committee and this list was the main communication medium for the
candidates.

Thus the action to moderate this list could also be seen as an intrusion
into the election process. Because the election of the TDF bodies is an
important and sensitive an intrusion into it by the election board is a
substantial mistake.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 01.12.22 um 06:50 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

Hi Thorsten, Daniel, hi all,

Thorsten could you please explain in detail the invitation to the
meeting on July, 8th? Who has been in the meeting, and by which medium
and during which time frame? Did you document the meeting? Who signed
that document? Was the document sent to All members of the board and
to the MC? Was the document published? Has the document been archived
at TDF archive?

The above is the minimum according to par. 9 of the statutes. If this
rules were not followed there is definitively no decision taken before
the moderation took place.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 1. Dezember 2022 00:52:34 MEZ schrieb 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

-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.


--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2022-12-05 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

because there are three directors with a CoI (as explained already) the
three votes of this directors a null.

Thus there are only two valid approvals and two abstain. Because at
least four members (those without a CoI) participated the majority of
votes is 3.

Because only two valid approvals were given, the proposal was disapproved.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 05.12.22 um 12:12 schrieb Cor Nouws:

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 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.

Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstains, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

One deputy supports the motion.


[NB: Rest assured, I would say, that we took notice of the discussion.]


Cor Nouws wrote on 02/12/2022 09:24:

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

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

2022-12-02 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 02.12.22 um 12:08 schrieb Cor Nouws:



+ 1 :)



this vote was done by the member of the sales team of a software company
and who have an declared interest to influence the direction of the
LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house
developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and
could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in the
future, on which the company, he works with in the sales team, might
bid. Thus the voter has a non arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic
of this vote. Because of this he has to abstain from this vote. His vote
is null.

Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote, had to
abstain from driving and influencing the discussion and decision of the
proposal. Hiscomments on this list and the attacks are very problematic.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2022-12-02 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 02.12.22 um 13:51 schrieb 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).


I have never heard about a software company which put their staff under
the control of external (likely competing) companies. The ESC is
appointed by the Board but full of staff from external companies (or
software developer). 17 of 22 members of the ESC are from external
companies (or software developer)
(https://www.documentfoundation.org/engineering-sc/).

But I'm curious about examples from the outside, where
companies/organizations follow such rules.

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

2022-11-30 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Thorsten, Daniel,  hi all,

Thorsten could you please explain in detail the invitation to the meeting on 
July, 8th? Who has been in the meeting, and by which medium and during which 
time frame? Did you document the meeting? Who signed that document? Was the 
document sent to All members of the board and to the MC? Was the document 
published? Has the document been archived at TDF archive?

The above is the minimum according to par. 9 of the statutes. If this rules 
were not followed there is definitively no decision taken before the moderation 
took place.  

Regards,
Andreas   

Am 1. Dezember 2022 00:52:34 MEZ schrieb 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
>

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1

2022-11-30 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, hi all,

Am 30.11.22 um 14:20 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 28/11/2022 17:19:


if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell
you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the
inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate
and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It


My reading of Sophie's mail:
>>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at
>>> people and not to the background of the document.

is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the
minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content.
(Note the difference with what she describes).


I quote your statements from the board-meeting at 14.11.2022:

 Begin quote --


  * really looks as if Paolo's behavior shows a lack of understanding
    * fundamental principle of TDF being a community
    * also the balance of cooperating companies
    * shared interests, statutes restricting influence
  * Paolo's comments show no understanding
  * one of the board's major responsibilities to maintain a modus
operandi that best serves TDF's goals
    * respecting, understanding and supporting synergy vital
  * Paolo’s personal and business situation ignored so far
    * failed to establish a business relation with Collabora and CIB
    * interested in other ways to get online solutions?
    * a one sided, negative, attitude towards ecosystem companies?
    * now telling TDF/Directors what they should do?
  * all this has lead to a bad proposal?
  * the board should look into this issue first

   End quote --

That's really a reflect on the content only?

You blunt attack another board member during a board meeting and the
chair of the meeting is not stopping you and give you advise about the
netiquette.

But everyone who subscribe not to your view get an advise from the chair
/ moderator.

What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years.




It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your
understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think
about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training
to improve your skills.


So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas?


See above. Your words speaks volumes.

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

[board-discuss] It's ENOUGH!: Continued Nuisance with private emails

2022-11-29 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

I stated already twice on this list that I find this form of cautionary
private emails pestering and not appropriate for an open Free Software
project. I didn't published the name of the sender because I thought, he
got the message and would change his behavior. But my assumption proofed
wrong. I got bothered again with this sort of emails with strong advise,
what I hadn't to talk about. Thus I decided that I have no choice and
had to make the sender public now: it was always Thorsten Behrens.

He is continuing ignoring that he has no permission to sent me emails in
private. He loops in also other people into his agenda. At least TDF's
employees only have a Hobson's choice how to react to that.

I personal perceive the whole actions of the sender intrusive.This is
intimidating. But that is only my personal perception as person
concerned. But the intention seemed clear to me, that he wants to shut
me up.

I'm looking forward to work with the community on an improved
environment at TDF, where an open and critical discussion will not be
censored or blocked.

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.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2022-11-28 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

it's sad to see that the board is not willing or able to report to the
TDF members (not even internal) on the Apple App Store numbers from the
last years. The board shows not even the will to give an interim message.

This shows the lack of respect face to face with the members.

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: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1

2022-11-28 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, hi all,

if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell
you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the
inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate
and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It
shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your
understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think
about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training
to improve your skills.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 27.11.22 um 23:40 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Sophie,

Thanks for expressing your concerns on the matter. Given the
situation, I can only understand that. Although I think it is not
needed to expect something weird or bad to happen.

Wrt my comments: see the minutes of the meeting at 2022-11-14:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html


It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier
this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable.

Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house
developers.

So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team
members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to
work?

Cheers,
Cor


sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50:

Hi Cor, all,
Le 27/11/2022 à 17:41, Cor Nouws a écrit :

Hi all,

I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my
spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for
hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however,
was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and
explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting.


I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at
people and not to the background of the document.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after
the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of
the board plus the legal review should still be problematic.


Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another
proposal of course with great support from others.


I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by
_others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_?
New Board members, community members?


I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing
us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.


With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will
wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the
one in place currently with the team involved at all stage?


Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions
(and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything
essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer.


I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions?

I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have
in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against
but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the
community, the team, the board and the lawyers.

We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of
people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the
team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a
daily basis).

Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document
(not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but
please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF
mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at
large. Thanks.
Sophie






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

2022-11-27 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, hi all,

Am 27.11.22 um 13:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

Hi Stephan, all,

Stephan Ficht wrote:
(...)

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.


it looks as if there are no members from the community which are able to
support your above statement in public or at least on a members list.
Because there had been invested a lot of resources from the board, the
community etc. it would be respectful, if they show there issues with
the proposal themselves. I'm not prepared for such arcane statements
'several of them'. It's important that everyone speaks for
herself/himself in public. If she/he is not able / willing to do this,
the concern is not important enough to be considered.

I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here.

And I'd like to hear what TDF's team think.

Don't be shy and show up yet.

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

2022-11-26 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor , hi all,

On 26.11.22 15:25, Cor Nouws wrote:

Hi,

Paolo Vecchi wrote on 25/11/2022 14:57:


All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as


I'm sure I did not. I mentioned items that make it questionable and
definitely not fit to help our community with developers.


it's really hard to understand, why were not able to give constructive
feedback to the work group (Kendy and Paolo) for about 9 long month or
more. The last version of document was finished by them weeks ago. The
check by the legal adviser has been done. A lot of resources from board
and the community has already spent on this task. Such a behavior is an
insult of the community, of your fellows and it is not appropriate to
the function and the duties of a director of a (charity) foundation.

It is really sad to see such an understanding of the duties of a
director in a TDF body.

I expect that you rethink about your duties and take part in the vote
about the in-house developer proposal asap! You explained that you are
in the board, because you represent the community (and not to dodge
decisions).

Regards,
Andreas


--
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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1

2022-11-26 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Kendy, hi all,

Am 25.11.22 um 18:17 schrieb Jan Holesovsky:

Hi all,

I have unsubscribed from this mailing list, but it was brought to my
attention that Paolo claims that I have signed off the latest version
of the Developers proposal.

That is not true. That version is not balanced, and Paolo’s
unwillingness to find balance there was one of the main reasons to my
resignation.

I looked into the latest version, of the proposal for the in-house
developer,  you and Paolo worked on together (version 3.0)
(https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj?dir=undefined=1138204)
and I couldn't find a valid reference for your claim. If I didn't
overlook one of the many comments in the document there was only an
incongruity about the addition of one sentence in the paragraph about
the concerns expressed by commercial contributors. Your and Paolo's
comments in all other paragraphs of the document showed that you agreed
on the text.

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

2022-11-25 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi,

Am 25.11.22 um 14:02 schrieb Michael Meeks:


On 23/11/2022 17:22, Andreas Mantke wrote:

You try to mislead the audience a bit here.


I see no evidence of that from Thorsten.


It's not a 'donor' but a business entity from the eco system.
And it is not a donation but a business deal.


I've been criticized for many things, but being criticized in
relation to Collabora's donations to TDF is a newish one =)

Please stop repeatedly mis-characterizing our donations.


I quote from another email on this list, which explains a bit the
meaning of 'donor'/'donation':

--- begin quote -

For those who like wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation

Per se donations are given without return consideration. In theory.

In German language 'donation/donor/donate' translate to
'Spende/Spender/spenden'.
It is quite similar to the English 'spend'. Both derive from the common
linguistic root.
At some point in the Anglo-Saxon environment 'spend' got more and more
the meaning in the spirit of 'spend money', 'cost'.

German language kept the meaning of 'generous', 'unconditional',
'voluntary', 'charitable', 'non-profit', etc. and 'without return
consideration'.

--- end quote 

If you get an asset from a charity and give back something (e.g. money)
in return, it's not a donation, but a business deal. And this applies to
this whole story here.

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

[board-discuss] Again Nuisance With Private Emails

2022-11-24 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

I want to make public that I got again bothered by email in private,
this time with the strong advise what I had not to discuss in public.
This time the author added Florian Effenberger in CC.

This email was send from the same person yesterday in the evening as
just one month ago. I reported this behavior already on this list
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01023.html).

I state again that I find this form of cautionary private emails
pestering and not appropriate for an open Free Software project.

I'm not prepared to accept a situation at TDF where an open and critical
discussion will be censored by one or a group of person.

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

2022-11-23 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Alex,

Am 22.11.22 um 22:41 schrieb Alexander Thurgood:

Hi Andreas,

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would the board have these
figures, unless the private company distributing the product agreed to
provide them, or was under some contractual obligation to do so?

sorry but it's a bit difficult to explain. There had been some
agreements about the process.


Just trying to understand exactly what it is you're trying to say, or
prove, as a point?

Personally speaking, I'm glad to be able to see how popular
LibreOffice via the app store actually is.


I'm glad about that too. The numbers from the Apple app store, Florian
published on Monday
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01072.html),
showed it nicely.

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

2022-11-23 Thread Andreas Mantke


Good evening Thorsten, hi all,

Am 22.11.22 um 21:22 schrieb 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 -

correct, he posted the link to the numbers on Monday.

you've received a quite detailed answer from Michael Meeks on the
members list.


There were no detailed numbers in the answer from Michael, but only an
explanation, that he'd like to write an article (or a blog post?) about
the numbers but that he is not able to do this because he is to busy
with other tasks.

Thus there were no detailed answer given, neither by the board nor by
Michael.



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.


You try to mislead the audience a bit here. It's not a 'donor' but a
business entity from the eco system. And it is not a donation but a
business deal.

A donation was given without any reward, but this was not the case here.

Thus I'm curious if and when the board is able and willing to give an
report about the numbers from the past to the TDF members.

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

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

2022-11-22 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

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. But I and the
TDF members got no answer from the board about this numbers although I
reminded the board multiple times.

Although I asked for at least an interim message the board was not able
to provide such a status report. It looks as if there are reasons why
the board is not willing or able to work on such a report and exchange
the data with the TDF members. Thus I make this way of interaction with
the TDF members public here.

I look forward if the board see reason to change its behavior and
provide the requested report immediately (or at least an interim message
with a detailed description of the current status of this task).

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: [board-discuss] Apple app store numbers

2022-11-21 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Florian, Board,

Am 21.11.22 um 08:57 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

Hello,

on behalf of the board, I'll share the first numbers for the Apple app
store. We'll in parallel look for the details on the Microsoft app
store, and will provide them soon as well.

For the future, the idea is to share them together with the monthly
accounting ledgers, but until we've established a process for that,
you can find all data in the following folder:

https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/cQMPfcr2dQWpqHA

(Members can access the same folder with a direct link of
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1177025, it's the same
content.)


thanks for sharing the numbers. The numbers from October increased about
nearly 50 percent compared to September. Interesting.

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))

2022-11-19 Thread Andreas Mantke


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))

2022-11-19 Thread Andreas Mantke


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))

2022-11-18 Thread Andreas Mantke


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

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

2022-11-16 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi directors, hi all,

Am 11.11.22 um 08:33 schrieb Stephan Ficht:

(...)

## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)



2. Status Report, Discuss: Merged developer proposal (tdf-board, kendy,
Paolo Vecchi, 5 mins)
 * update on merged proposal
 * further discussions, if needed
 * otherwise, re-evaluate our approach.


if I remember correctly this work item has been started at the beginning
of February this year, more than nine month ago.

I'd like to ask if there were progress to reach a final version and vote
on this item during the meeting.

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.

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.

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

2022-10-31 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Michael, all,

Am 31.10.22 um 12:07 schrieb Michael Stahl:

hi Andreas,

On 29.10.22 22:07, Andreas Mantke wrote:

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not
approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.


but why do you stop at this step?

if i count correctly, of the directors that approved various versions
of the CoI policy, a majority of them either have subsequently
restricted their actions due to potential CoI, or there is an
investigation for potentially having a CoI ongoing at the moment.


you refer to the decision that elaborate on the statutes of TDF and the
general regulations for foundations and entities. In contrast the
decision about the attic process was not forced by the statutes or the
general regulations but by an interest to block the further development
of LOOL inside the LibreOffice project. This decision was done by three
members with a (potential?) CoI on just this topic.

Thus you compare apples with oranges here.

And to add: if TDF wouldn't have a CoI policy the statutes and the
general regulations for foundations and entities would lead to the same
result. The attic policy looks general but was created only on purpose
of LOOL/Collabora Online. Thus three board members has an personal
(financial) interest, which conflicts with TDF's one. Because of their
special fiduciary duty this board members had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on the attic topic.

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

2022-10-31 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi,

Am 31.10.22 um 01:18 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/10/2022 22:07:


7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.


It is interesting that this topic pops up again...

and also very interesting that the reply is again a side track. Some
would also say trying to lay a smoke-screen

At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic,
the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic
policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development
on LOOL:
no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.


It is not about code sanity, but about blocking the development of LOOL
under the TDF umbrella and within LibreOffice resources. And if you look
at the Collabora staff website
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/) you'll find out, that the
sales team member of this ecosystem company, which sells the LibreOffice
Online fork 'Collabora Online, states here that he has no potential
personal interest in this topic.

This statement is a complete misunderstanding of the TDF policy and the
regulations for members of a board of a legal entity.


Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in
working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb,
I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".


It's a shame that a member of the board of a Free Software entity refer
to develop OSS software on a proprietary resource and close the the
doors of the entity.



Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.


It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?

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

2022-10-30 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all, hi Simon,

and also sorry for another post to correct misleading statements.

Am 30.10.22 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Phipps:

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:40 PM Andreas Mantke wrote:

sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.

The TDF policy
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf>
was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a
full review, and has several places where clearer language would be
welcome. The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum
of potential personal interests that affect an open source community.
In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the
wrong conclusions. I'll assume those are the reasons why you have
misunderstood it, rather than implying you have not read it.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the
Board has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware
that the Board has determined that any of the five people you keep
accusing of a breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their
personal interests with TDF's interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by
default that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a
declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the
organisation in a harmful way. I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow
that practice and leave accusations of breach of trust as a
rare exception.

it looks like you are not aware of the rules which applies to any
director of a foundation under German law like TDF. If a director has
especially a personal financial or business interest on a topic he could
not act on both sides of the same table. Because it is not possible to
throw away his personal interest she/he had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on TDF side. She/he _has_ a (at least) potential CoI
on that topic and thus is not allowed to act on the side of the foundation.

If she/he will not follow this rule it's a breach of the TDF statutes,
the TDF CoI policy and also of the general regulations.

It's not important how processes are done on organizations you served on
the board, but how things had to be handled within the TDF statutes and
the regulations, which apply for TDF' s place of business.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog

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

2022-10-30 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all, hi Simon,

Am 30.10.22 um 13:16 schrieb Simon Phipps:

(...)

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that
it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the
meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.


This is not so; all of these five directors are free to participate if
they believe they should and there is no breach of trust on their
part. *Having an interest to declare is not the same as having a
/conflict/ of interest* no matter how often the implication is made
that having an interest is disqualifying. If all of these directors
believe their employers' interests - which are clearly well understood
- can be held in balance with their personal elected role at TDF then
the onus is on an accuser to demonstrate why it is impossible for them
to balance their work life and private life in this case.


sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF. And if you would have
had a look into the document from the European Commision that was linked
by Paolo, you would know that you look onto this topic is not
appropriate for member states of the European Union.

It has not be proofed that a member of the board _has_ a CoI. It's
sufficient that he may have a CoI (potential). And if your company is
involved with the development and marketing/sale of Collabora Online you
have at least a potential CoI within LOOL and its future. And I'm being
very reluctant with speaking only of a potential CoI this time. Others
wouldn't formulate that reluctant.



So far I have not seen any attempt by anyone to demonstrate why all
these five directors are in breach of trust over the well-understood
interests. I suggest you do so before you repeat calls to exclude
elected directors from TDF's business.


Maybe you look into the European Commission document, linked by Paolo in
an earlier post, you'd get the complete knowledge on the topic within
countries of the European Union, like the one of TDF's home.

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

2022-10-29 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 28.10.22 um 17:05 schrieb Stephan Ficht:

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 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=20221031T18


## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

    * ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

    * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
  attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
?


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/)
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

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

[board-discuss] Nuisance With Private Emails

2022-10-23 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

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 find this form of cautionary private emails pestering and not
appropriate for an open Free Software project.

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

2022-10-22 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 22.10.22 um 19:36 schrieb Simon Phipps:

Hi!

On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 5:50 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:


If there is only the chance of a _possible_ CoI in front of a
discussion/decision/process the ones with such a possible CoI has to
leave the meeting (You could get that really clear from the above
European Commission document).


All the directors present in the meeting gave useful information
relating to their interests, which everyone present took into account.
They each personally judged that they did not cause an actual or
apparent conflict. There was no indication of any conflict with the
business of the meeting arising from those interests (for example,
Thorsten's "interest" was having published LibreOffice Vanilla on
behalf of the Foundation in the past). The business of the meeting
proceeded and consensus was reached. This is the normal way business
is conducted everywhere.

Taking the position you are describing would lead to
obviously unreasonable outcomes for a community such as ours.  For
example (and to get away from the usual suspects), as the owner of a
successful cloud hosting business that apparently deploys NextCloud
and OwnCloud for clients, using your logic Paolo Vecchi should have
removed himself from any and all conversations about LibreOffice
Online and take no part in any future discussion about them, as he
clearly has a related interest. I am not expecting that; are you?

We are a community-of-interest and we can expect many people to have
interests to declare in our work - and not just arising from
employment. The Board needs to know and understand each director's
interest, and directors need to make realistic and honest decisions
about when they are unable to participate due to an actual conflict.
It is a decision for each individual and we have to trust each other
that is being made.

It is inappropriate and harrassing for people to continually raise the
subject. Accusations of breach of trust (which means alleging either a
failure to disclose an interest or persisting in a decision process in
spite of an unresolved conflict of declared interests) are very
serious and should be the rare exception, not the constantly-repeated
refrain of every meeting as they are now. It really is time for this
to stop - it undermines trust and poisons discussion.

I work in this subject area fairly often and I wrote an informal
article a while ago on the subject that may help; see
https://minkiver.se/~/WebminkInDraft/Trusting-Charity-Directors


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.

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

2022-10-22 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, hi all,

Am 22.10.22 um 16:07 schrieb 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.


I'd expect you to read the document from the European Commission, linked
in the mail from Paolo Vecchi in this thread.

Then you'll find out that CoI is not about postmortem but it is a policy
in front of a discussion/decision/process. It is also sufficient that
are a _possible_ CoI on a topic.
Thus it is nonessential what was the outcome of the discussion/talk
(because this is postmortem).
If there is only the chance of a _possible_ CoI in front of a
discussion/decision/process the ones with such a possible CoI has to
leave the meeting (You could get that really clear from the above
European Commission document).

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

2022-10-21 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 21.10.22 um 15:18 schrieb Simon Phipps:

Hi!

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. This is the same
approach the European Commission takes to the presence of interested
parties in meetings


we are not at the Commission but at TDF!

The members declared an interest in the app store topic and thus has a
possible Conflict of _Interest_ (CoI)

And at TDF it is only necessary to have a _possible_ CoI.



I don't see that this members with a CoI left the meeting before
topic 3
was discussed and decided on.


That's because no-one had a conflict of interests in the matters
considered.

Sorry, but this statement is wrong (see above).



It looks to me as if this four directors offended the rules they have
decided to follow. It would then be interesting for the community to
hear why they have not left the meeting for topic 3.


No, you are wrong in four ways. First, there was no conflict between
any declared interest and the matters discussed. Second, even if there
had been, it would not be a reason for a person to remove themselves
from a meeting as this is only necessary when the conflict relates to
the information shared (for example the identity of suppliers). Third,
the meeting was open to all members so anyone concerned was free to
attend, as I did. And fourth, no directors are representing their
employers in these meetings, they are the elected representatives of
the trustees.

I think it would be best to reconsider this statements carefully. The
board members are staff / partner / owner of parties with an interest in
this topic too and thus should follow the rules they have voted on.

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

2022-10-21 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 20.10.22 um 19:04 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2022-10-17
Meeting Minutes

Date: 2022-10-17
Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Thorsten Behrens
Keeper of the minutes: Florian Effenberger

In the meeting:
   Board Members - Thorsten Behrens, Cor Nouws, Paolo Vecchi, Laszlo
Nemeth, Gabor Kelemen, Jan Holesovsky (from 16:06 UTC/18:06 Berlin
on), Emiliano Vavassori (from 16:09 UTC/18:09 Berlin on)
   Board Deputy Members - Gabriel Masei
   Membership Committee Members - Uwe Altmann
   Membership Committee Substitute Members -
   Community - Simon Phipps, "Harold", "Pk", "Member", "Fellow Jitster"
   Team - Florian Effenberger, Ilmari Lauhakangas, Sophie Gautier,
Guilhem Moulin, Olivier Hallot
(...)



Would any of the directors present need to declare an interest, for
any of the listed agenda items?
* Thorsten/Gabor: item 3, Windows Store (as former vendor of LibreOffice
  Vanilla there)
* Cor/Kendy: item 3, Apple Store (depending or where discussion goes)



(...)



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

   Status report and various ongoing discussions
   * current status & timeline
 * live in Apple app store since early September
 * Windows App Store 64 bit approved, 32 bit pending - plan is to go
   live this week
   * revenues from last month
 * Impressions: 227,900
 * Page Views: 18,230
 * Conversion Rate: 1.53%
 * Units Sold: 1,970
 * Estimated Proceeds: € 9.500
 * Proceeds per Paying User: € 5,59
   * upgrade cycles - how many updates will users get?
 * messaging: paying for convenience/"donation" (Thorsten, Paolo)
 * no lifetime updates, what's a reasonable time for updates?
 * avoid shipping .0 - we should start with .3 or .4 for the shop,
   template should be process we use for updater across versions
   (Thorsten)
 * should ask Cloph about workload, ai cloph to work out a proposal,
   which update regime with roughly one year of updates (regardless
   of purchasing time) could work
 * one year of updates seems reasonable
 * vouchers do not scale, creating internal, staggered releases
   on the stores might do (to group users together, so timings for
   EOL can be ~independent from purchasing dates)
 * Apple has severe limits on # of vouchers (Florian)


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.

I don't see that this members with a CoI left the meeting before topic 3
was discussed and decided on.

It looks to me as if this four directors offended the rules they have
decided to follow. It would then be interesting for the community to
hear why they have not left the meeting for topic 3.

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

2022-10-14 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 14.10.22 um 15:52 schrieb 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:
(...)

### Private Part

(...)

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

Reason for privacy: legal topics


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.
It is his right to ask for discussing his matter in public and the board
has to accept this application.

Putting a legal sticker on a topic is no justification to handle it in
private (especially not if there is no request from the person
concerned). There are valuable reasons why judicial proceedings are
generally done in public in democratic countries.

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

2022-09-17 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 17.09.22 um 12:42 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

Hi all,

Am 16.09.22 um 17:18 schrieb 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.


it would be of interest for the community who has made this decision.
Did all members of the board with a potential personal or professional
interest in COOL/LOOL abstain from that decision according to the TDF
CoI policy?

Because I think the board is _always_ following its CoI policy it
shouldn't be an issue to inform the community about the board members
who take the decision and about their vote.

If I remember correctly to be as transparent as possible is one of TDF
goals. It's a great goal and one of TDF's assets.


and I found the thread where it was proposed to be transparent about
board decisions and the voting:

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00409.html

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

2022-09-17 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 16.09.22 um 17:18 schrieb 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.


it would be of interest for the community who has made this decision.
Did all members of the board with a potential personal or professional
interest in COOL/LOOL abstain from that decision according to the TDF
CoI policy?

Because I think the board is _always_ following its CoI policy it
shouldn't be an issue to inform the community about the board members
who take the decision and about their vote.

If I remember correctly to be as transparent as possible is one of TDF
goals. It's a great goal and one of TDF's assets.

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

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

2022-09-16 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

if I remember correctly the challenging phase has just endet yesterday.

Has there been any complains about the election process (not counted votes)?

When could the community expect to get the announcement of the final
results of the MC elections 2022?

Are there any issues, which needs clarification, before the final
results will be published?

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

2022-09-14 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Heiko,

Am 14.09.22 um 06:56 schrieb Heiko Tietze:

On 13.09.22 17:07, Andreas Mantke wrote:

It shows that there is no will of cooperation...


Don't paint it black. We are all humans, there is a conference ahead,
and at least one has sick children at home.


It's not painting anything black. The situation speeks for itself and
shows a lot to the public.

There was this email one week before the vote starts:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00898.html

It has the sign [VOTE] in its subject (used to allert all board members
to act).

It was also the second time the vote about this topic has to be started
for some reasons.

The board has seven members at this time. Only to member were able to
follow this message and cast their vote.

The other five members of the board stayed calm for about eleven days.
Nobody of this five wrote a message to this list, that the proposal
needs some more discussion or asking to shift the vote for some days.

This five members stayed calm and seemed to do nothing.

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

2022-09-13 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 13.09.22 um 16:23 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Heiko,

Heiko Tietze wrote on 13/09/2022 15:55:


I wonder what it means when only two directors vote on a proposal. Is
the topic not relevant, do people abstain because of conflicts, is
there silent disagreement...

Fair question.
Abstain would have been mentioned. And IMO the topic is relevant. Very
relevant. We'll working on having a board meeting asap to discuss the
topic.


this is not only an issue, but a disaster. It shows that there is no
will of cooperation from five members of the board. They stayed quiet
and not even mentioned that they want to discuss this topic.

And then there popped up this email short after the vote time slot
started:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00940.html

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: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2022-09-05

2022-09-09 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Jan, hi all,

Am 08.09.22 um 23:45 schrieb Jan Holesovsky:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Čt 08. 09. 2022 v 21:01 +0200:


* Anything closer to be voted on? (Thorsten)
   * another round of editing document (Kendy)
   * closer to be voted on
   * it's in shared folder
   * another round of edits on his documents
   * Paolo made last edits on Friday, will look into it soon
   * glad to hear, re-added some comments to latest version (Paolo)
   * no massive rush right now, been in the making for a while
(Thorsten)
   AI: add to agenda of next board call
Folder with developers proposal (under Shared/Developers)
Latest version 2.6 - Comments in version 2.5-With-Comments
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049


looks like I learned another sort of management strategies:

management by continuous postponement

I am not sure what do you mean; we are working hard with Paolo on the
document to minimize areas that are mutually unacceptable, and I am
pleased to see that the amount of problematic points is decreasing with
every version.

I'm always interested in learning new and promising managing methods.
And this here seemed a one that I have not learned about.


If you compare the document in the current state with my or Paolo's
first version, you will see the huge amount of work we have both put
into this.


I believe this is true, but the links above in the meeting minutes are
not public (also not public for logged in users). Thus no user of this
list could proof your statement.

Thus it would be great, if you could make the current state of the
documents (maybe with the changes done) available for the interested
community.

This would help to follow the process and understand the pro and cons of
this management method.

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: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2022-09-05

2022-09-08 Thread Andreas Mantke


Am 08.09.22 um 20:24 schrieb Florian Effenberger:

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2022-09-05
Meeting Minutes



(...)
2. Status Report, Discuss: Merged developer proposal (tdf-board, Jan
Holesovsky, Paolo Vecchi, 10 mins)

   * should the merged proposal be ready
   * have a last round of discussion
   * if conclusive - vote & budget for it

   Otherwise, re-evaluate our approach.

   References:
   * Shared folder with the versions:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Developers

* Anything closer to be voted on? (Thorsten)
  * another round of editing document (Kendy)
  * closer to be voted on
  * it's in shared folder
  * another round of edits on his documents
  * Paolo made last edits on Friday, will look into it soon
  * glad to hear, re-added some comments to latest version (Paolo)
  * no massive rush right now, been in the making for a while (Thorsten)
  AI: add to agenda of next board call
Folder with developers proposal (under Shared/Developers)
Latest version 2.6 - Comments in version 2.5-With-Comments
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049


looks like I learned another sort of management strategies:

management by continuous postponement

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

2022-09-06 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Paolo, hi all,

Am 06.09.22 um 13:39 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

On 05/09/2022 17:50, Andreas Mantke wrote:

(...)


This new patch was merged as signed by me. I wasn't asked if I was fine
with the new patch and I never signed this new patch (and are not fine
with it).


thanks for your summary of the events which, by reading emails and
comments in gerrit, seems accurate.



I see this as a violation and ask TDF to de-merge the patch.


Not being a developer I can't judge if there is a violation of any
rules (BTW are there any standard rules?), maybe others can check the
sequence of events and tell us if that's the best way to manage these
situations.

It's really not fair to turn ones commit into the opposite and sign this
new patch with the original author (of the opposite). How would you
describe such a behavior in the 'analog' live?


I haven't been involved directly in development for the past 20+ years
but following the logic of the patch that has been pushed through,
which doesn't fix Andreas issue, this kind of makes sense to me:

SlideShow.prototype.exitSlideShowInApp = function()
{
    if (window.webkit !== undefined &&
    window.webkit.messageHandlers !== undefined &&
    window.webkit.messageHandlers.lok !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lok.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
    // FIXME remove this in a follow-up commit
    if (window.webkit !== undefined &&
    window.webkit.messageHandlers !== undefined &&
    window.webkit.messageHandlers.cool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.cool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
    // FIXME notify the community about the standardisation to lok and
remove in 6 months
    if (window.webkit !== undefined &&
    window.webkit.messageHandlers !== undefined &&
    window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
}

I thought that the developer that pushed through and merged the
current patch could have thought about it to fix the original requests
but if it helps then please do merge it in.


I think about submitting a new patch and let's see if this will not be
turned into the opposite again.


In addition: in my opinion there is much space for improving the
interaction with volunteer developers inside the LibreOffice community.
But maybe this only my opinion and everyone else is fine with the
current process.


Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and the delay in answering back
due to the fact that you couldn't login into gerrit might have led
some to believe that you didn't want to interact with the issue and
the proposed changes.


I don't judge about this. I find the work with Gerrit sometimes not very
intuitive.


I'm sure everyone involved will look objectively at what happened and
will help in improving communication and processes.


I think it is in the interest of the board to foster a good
communication behavior inside the LibreOffice developer (volunteer and
paid) group. And I hope it also a goal that every developer (independent
from his role and skills) will be treated sympathetically, thus she/he
felt very welcome inside the community.

In addition I think it is also in the best interest of TDF/LibreOffice
community to establish such behavior/environment between volunteers of
different areas of contribution too. In my view there is no superior
group of volunteers. All talents and a different sort of contributions
are needed to drive LibreOffice and it community forward and make the
project successful.

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

2022-09-06 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

although I'm a bit discomposed about the process of today and the last
days I try to be as objective as possible.

Am 03.09.22 um 15:27 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

Hi all,

Am 03.09.22 um 11:24 schrieb 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.


already done. As required the commit got another (better) commit message.

Sorry for the delay on Gerrit but I wasn't able to login. Thanks to
Guilhem, who fixed that for me, it works again now.


As you already know I submitted on August, 26 a patch to LibreOffice
core which fixes a name change. This name change was done about five
month before and changes the naming from 'lool' to 'cool'. This name
change breaked the connection from the LibreOffice Online repository and
its downstream consumers. It also changed the naming from a vendor
neutral to the naming of a commercial OSS company.

The patch was tested by Jenkins without any issues. Then a developer
with review permissions gave a +2 and marked the patch ready for
integration.

Because nobody with ther permission to merge the patch took care of the
patch and submitted it to the core repo I asked about the procedure with
volunteer patches some days later here (and on the developer list too).

I got the message then that the commit message is not okay, because it
didn't reflect the code change. I amended the commit message as requested.

Then after some more comments on Gerrit one developer edited my patch.
This patch reverted my changes and added totally different lines of code
to the patch set. The commit message wasn't changed. This totally new
patch set was reviewed by the author of the new patch set, marked ready
for integration and merged.

This developer didn't asked me, if I'm fine with the new patch.

Nevertheless the merged patch is marked as signed by me. 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.

In addition the new patch breaks the connection to two downstream
consumer projects and to the LibreOffice online repository too.

This new patch was merged as signed by me. I wasn't asked if I was fine
with the new patch and I never signed this new patch (and are not fine
with it).

I see this as a violation and ask TDF to de-merge the patch.

In addition: in my opinion there is much space for improving the
interaction with volunteer developers inside the LibreOffice community.
But maybe this only my opinion and everyone else is fine with the
current process.

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

2022-09-03 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 03.09.22 um 11:24 schrieb 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.


already done. As required the commit got another (better) commit message.

Sorry for the delay on Gerrit but I wasn't able to login. Thanks to
Guilhem, who fixed that for me, it works again now.

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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-02 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi,

Am 02.09.22 um 18:47 schrieb Andras Timar:

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 5:38 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

Hi all,

Am 01.09.22 um 23:16 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> Hi all,
>
> On 01/09/2022 22:47, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> I would expect the ESC should intervene and cut out the
>> politics.
>
> I believe that politics have nothing to do with what happened.
>
> Your grep shows that there aren't that many "lool" that could be
> renamed "cool" by mistake so I guess it's unlikely for it to happen
> again.
>
> I've noticed the very positive and prompt review of this incident by
> Thorsten so it's nice to see that solutions that work for all can be
> found quickly when the will is there ;-)
>
I try a bit to give an overview on the latest changes of the file in
discussion:

The naming in the source code contains 'lool' in it until it was
changed
five month ago to 'cool'. Thus the original naming was:

window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');

The change from 'lool' to 'cool' created a break for at least two
known
downstream consumer projects.

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.

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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-02 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

Am 01.09.22 um 23:16 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi all,

On 01/09/2022 22:47, Michael Meeks wrote:

I would expect the ESC should intervene and cut out the
politics.


I believe that politics have nothing to do with what happened.

Your grep shows that there aren't that many "lool" that could be
renamed "cool" by mistake so I guess it's unlikely for it to happen
again.

I've noticed the very positive and prompt review of this incident by
Thorsten so it's nice to see that solutions that work for all can be
found quickly when the will is there ;-)


I try a bit to give an overview on the latest changes of the file in
discussion:

The naming in the source code contains 'lool' in it until it was changed
five month ago to 'cool'. Thus the original naming was:

window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');

The change from 'lool' to 'cool' created a break for at least two known
downstream consumer projects.

In my view it is not usual for an OSS project to support within its main
branch downstream consumer projects which make a breaking change in
their own external hosted code.

If we'd do that the next downstream consumer project probably asks
LibreOffice and its voluteers to support a further (naming) break (e.g.
naming it 'silly').

Thus the first solution would be to get the old naming back ('lool') and
fix the break for at least two downstream consumer projects. This was
done with the submitted patch.

Then there were a complain that this would break one downstream consumer
project and I as a volunteer should provide a fix also for that project.
There are two reasons why I think this couldn't be a solution. It's not
a task for a volunteer to fix issues introduced within the external
hosted source code of that project. And if TDF and its community would
do the fix this way another consumer project with a breaking change
could ask for the same.

But if you grep to the LibreOffice source code within core you'll find
out that there are outside this file no other namings of variables ,
functions etc. with 'lool' or 'cool' inside. Thus the naming in the file
could be viewed as used by fault. I share Michael's view in this case. I
grepped also for 'lok' with a much bigger output. Thus as Michael and
also Miklos proposed the renaming with 'lok' instead of 'cool' could be
a solution. But in the end this would break not only one or two
downstream consumer projects but all three known.

If I look at the Python world there are always deprecation warnings long
time before a breaking change. I'd like to avoid the need of such a
time-frame. We currently know that at least three projects are affected
from the naming change. Thus I propose to provide in addition a code
patch and make a pull request to every of this three downstream consumer
projects.

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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Paolo,

Am 01.09.22 um 19:32 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

On 01/09/2022 18:48, Andreas Mantke wrote:

I remember variable changing going on when LOOL has been forked into
COOL, and the removal of "This file is part of the LibreOffice project
:-(, but I thought that it was affecting only their own repository,
not LibreOffice core so I'm surprised we have references within LO
code to a product that isn't hosted at TDF.

I thought the same, but ... This was the first such thing I stumbled
upon.


I guess we'll have to understand if that is something that should be
monitored or not.

Changes like that might affect others that are working on other
platforms linked to LibreOffice core and to me it's not clear if there
is or there should be a policy for that.


I think there should be clear rules that there should not be any
barriers or something similar in the LibreOffice vanilla code.

But once I saw the changes from 'lool' to 'cool' in the source code I
wonder why the ESC didn't discussed and stopped it.



Not sure if any other project can/should do that and if that affects
others eg. does that variable change create issues to those that are
still using LOOL or something similar?

Does that create issues for you?


It creates issues on slideshow touch gestures in the mobile app. The
Android and the IoS apps are also part of the online repository.


So that is a change in LibreOffice core that breaks your attempt of
creating a LOOL derived implementation?

Wondering if it affects also others like OSSII or similar similar
projects based on LibreOffice Technology.


It will, if they follow the naming convention of LibreOffice and didn't
rename everything to 'cool' or including 'cool' instead of 'lool'.

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: [board-discuss] First Questions To All MC Candidates

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hello Shinji,

Am 31.08.22 um 23:00 schrieb Shinji Enoki:

Hello Andreas, all,

Thank you for your questions.



- What are the criteria to measure the value of a contribution?

- Which are the criteria for a non trivial or obviously insignificant
contribution?

- Would your rating differ from areas of contribution?


I will write my understanding including this premise. I'd appreciate
it if you could point me out if I'm wrong.

We chose adopted a bottom-up approach contributors supporting and
meritocracy, in the governance model of The Document Foundation.

The reason why MC check contributions in membership applications is to
make TDF's governance system work. Contribution activities are
required to become a member, so it necessary to check it.

While § 10 is obviously referenced, we often refer to previously
discussed cases. This is not a standard, but it can be helpful.

As far as I can see, MC seems to be trying to maintain fairness by
having MC members with various positions and contributions come
together and discuss. That approach isn't perfect, but it seems to
work reasonably well. Of course, it's for fairness, doesn't improve
transparency.

For fairness and transparency in membership applications, a little
more detail criteria might work. However, there are many different
patterns of contributions, and it is not easy to create criteria that
work well.

Still, there may be a way to create MC documents with criteria that
are a little more detailed than § 10.


thanks for your answer and explaining the problems you  and the whole MC
has to deal with.

Best,
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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Paolo, all,

Am 01.09.22 um 18:09 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

On 01/09/2022 17:36, Andreas Mantke wrote:

It is this patch (only a small one with two lines of code):

https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/138884


I see a comment "The correct naming for LibreOffice is lool"

and a request to change a variable ending with cool into lool in
LibreOffice core.

I remember variable changing going on when LOOL has been forked into
COOL, and the removal of "This file is part of the LibreOffice project
:-(, but I thought that it was affecting only their own repository,
not LibreOffice core so I'm surprised we have references within LO
code to a product that isn't hosted at TDF.

I thought the same, but ... This was the first such thing I stumbled upon.


Not sure if any other project can/should do that and if that affects
others eg. does that variable change create issues to those that are
still using LOOL or something similar?

Does that create issues for you?


It creates issues on slideshow touch gestures in the mobile app. The
Android and the IoS apps are also part of the online repository.

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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Guilhem,

Am 01.09.22 um 17:27 schrieb Guilhem Moulin:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 19:48:57 +0200, Andreas Mantke wrote:

I wonder what is the usual time slot it needs to merge a reviewed and
ready patch into the LibreOffice repository.

https://dashboard.documentfoundation.org/app/kibana#/dashboard/Gerrit-Timing and
https://dashboard.documentfoundation.org/app/kibana#/dashboard/Gerrit-Backlog
have average and median timing metrics per repo and developer, and one
can tweak the filter to add the desired conditions.  For more complex queries
you can use the elasticsearch API, but if there is interest in adding more
visuals to the dashboard we can also do that of course.

thanks for your explanation and the links.

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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Paolo, all,

Am 01.09.22 um 17:29 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

On 01/09/2022 17:13, Andreas Mantke wrote:

Hi Paolo,

Am 01.09.22 um 16:47 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

On 01/09/2022 16:34, Andreas Mantke wrote:

I wonder if it is useful to open a second (or more than that)
communication channel for this with Gerrit for code review (with an
email messaging) in place. I thought that Gerrit has been set up to
make
the communication about patches more easy and help (volunteer)
developers. But maybe that's not intended with that project resource.


I'm not a developer so I probably cannot help directly but I'm
interested to know what issues you are experiencing.

I kind of understand you have submitted a patch to fix an issue and
you are waiting for it to be merged.

yes.


Is the waiting caused by the patch itself that has something wrong,
the tooling or simply someone has been busy and it hasn't been
reviewed yet?

The patch was reviewed by Jenkins and marked by a developer with +2 and
is marked ready to be merged.


OK so if it's ready to be merged what is stopping it from happening?


I don't know. There is no message on Gerrit or somewhere else about an
issue which hinders merging.



Sorry for probably asking silly questions but having more details
might help me and others understand how to avoid that issue.


I think there are no silly questions.  Hope my answer helps to better
understand the situation.


Sorry but it kind of made it more difficult to understand for me.

You seem to say that it's all fine and ready to go but then something
is still not right.

Is there an issue with merging patches in general or with merging
patches related to specific components?

Can you share a link to it so that maybe someone looks at it and spots
the issue?


It is this patch (only a small one with two lines of code):

https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/138884

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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Paolo,

Am 01.09.22 um 16:47 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

On 01/09/2022 16:34, Andreas Mantke wrote:

I wonder if it is useful to open a second (or more than that)
communication channel for this with Gerrit for code review (with an
email messaging) in place. I thought that Gerrit has been set up to make
the communication about patches more easy and help (volunteer)
developers. But maybe that's not intended with that project resource.


I'm not a developer so I probably cannot help directly but I'm
interested to know what issues you are experiencing.

I kind of understand you have submitted a patch to fix an issue and
you are waiting for it to be merged.

yes.


Is the waiting caused by the patch itself that has something wrong,
the tooling or simply someone has been busy and it hasn't been
reviewed yet?

The patch was reviewed by Jenkins and marked by a developer with +2 and
is marked ready to be merged.


Sorry for probably asking silly questions but having more details
might help me and others understand how to avoid that issue.


I think there are no silly questions.  Hope my answer helps to better
understand 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: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-09-01 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Thorsten, hi all,

Am 31.08.22 um 21:28 schrieb 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


I wonder if it is useful to open a second (or more than that)
communication channel for this with Gerrit for code review (with an
email messaging) in place. I thought that Gerrit has been set up to make
the communication about patches more easy and help (volunteer)
developers. But maybe that's not intended with that project resource.

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

[board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

2022-08-31 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hello all,

I wonder what is the usual time slot it needs to merge a reviewed and
ready patch into the LibreOffice repository.

It would be great, if the board could share it's opinion. It's important
for new and other volunteer contributors to get some estimation on this.

Thanks in advance for your answer.

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

2022-08-31 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Daniel,

thanks for your reply. I'll add issues to the project thus you (and
other volunteers) could look for suitable tasks.

Best,
Andreas

Am 30.08.22 um 23:25 schrieb Daniel A. Rodriguez:


Oh, I had not understood it that way. If so, count me in.


El 30/8/22 a las 13:01, Andreas Mantke escribió:

Hi Daniel,

I think there is wide field of tasks available, not only tasks for
hacking on source code. And also doing smaller task will help to drive
the project forward.

Best,
Andreas

Am 29.08.22 um 21:59 schrieb Daniel A. Rodriguez:

I wish I could but, unfortunately, that task is out of my scope.

However, it's important to highlight that there's an ongoing work.

El 29 de agosto de 2022 3:02:33 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke
 escribió:

    Hi Daniel, hi all,

    Am 29.08.22 um 14:51 schrieb drodrig...@libreoffice.org:

    El 29.08.2022 07:44, Mike Saunders escribió:

    Hi all, We still have this page on the site:
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/
    ...which has been the same for a very long time. We could
    update it to say that we're considering the future of LOOL
    (linking to this mailing list post), and see if people are
    interested in contributing. What do people think? Mike

    From my POV, yes. At least to show that there are people
    interested in the existence of such a version.

    You could join the work on that project currently on Github:
https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online

    I plan to move the work to the LibreOffice project ressources back
    later. Currently I don't want to work under the sword of
Damocles on TDF
    ressources and had to move forth and back again.

    And there is no shortage of tasks from different kind. Thus every
    helping hand is very welcome! ;-)

    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



--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog



--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana:
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org



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

2022-08-30 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Daniel,

I think there is wide field of tasks available, not only tasks for
hacking on source code. And also doing smaller task will help to drive
the project forward.

Best,
Andreas

Am 29.08.22 um 21:59 schrieb Daniel A. Rodriguez:

I wish I could but, unfortunately, that task is out of my scope.

However, it's important to highlight that there's an ongoing work.

El 29 de agosto de 2022 3:02:33 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke
 escribió:

Hi Daniel, hi all,

Am 29.08.22 um 14:51 schrieb drodrig...@libreoffice.org:

El 29.08.2022 07:44, Mike Saunders escribió:

Hi all, We still have this page on the site:
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/
...which has been the same for a very long time. We could
update it to say that we're considering the future of LOOL
(linking to this mailing list post), and see if people are
interested in contributing. What do people think? Mike

From my POV, yes. At least to show that there are people
interested in the existence of such a version.

You could join the work on that project currently on Github:
https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online

I plan to move the work to the LibreOffice project ressources back
later. Currently I don't want to work under the sword of Damocles on TDF
ressources and had to move forth and back again.

And there is no shortage of tasks from different kind. Thus every
helping hand is very welcome! ;-)

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



--
## 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: [board-discuss] First Questions To All MC Candidates

2022-08-30 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Gustavo, hi all,

Am 30.08.22 um 05:27 schrieb Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco:

Hello Andreas, members, community!

 Sorry for my delay. Last week we had, here in Brazil, the second
edition of the Latin American Conference. Happy to say that we had an
amazing event!
 In the next few days we will share more information: numbers, photos,
results...

 Answers below. Thanks for the questions.


- What are the criteria to measure the value of a contribution?


 This is always an important topic.

 I believe we are an open and inclusive project and TDF is the formal
reflection of that. I also believe that a "contribution" is an
individual way to our very well written "Goals of the Foundation" (§2
of the statutes). So, in a big picture, I see value in a contribution
when I see the engagement of a member to contribute to reach some of
these objectives. Basically, what we can read in §10/a of the statutes.

To guide the MC decisions, we also have in §10/b a non-exhaustive list
of types of contributions and, more important, I think: the
alternative to confirm the contributions with other members.

- Which are the criteria for a non trivial or obviously insignificant
contribution?


For me, in a non trivial contribution we can see the intention to
reach our goals in §2. For example, "My contribution is translating
LibreOffice to my language and its available in weblate, my user is
xyz" or "I have worked to present LibreOffice as the best alternative
for my local government during the last months and members X and Z can
confirm''. On the other hand, in an insignificant contribution, you
can't see clearly our goals as, for example, in "I want to be a member
because I use Calc to handle my personal accounting"...

For sure that is a gray area between both cases. Again, the reference
of other members is a key to confirm or not the membership and, also,
the approach of the MC to clarify the doubts about the application.


- Would your rating differ from areas of contribution?


No, my decisions are made more from a wide perspective, as I said in
the previous questions, than from areas of contribution.

But let me point this question in another perspective. What I differ
is *my* expertise in different areas to decide about a membership.

In other words: it's almost impossible to know what happens in all
areas of our project and our organization. All areas are important
but, for some of them, a MC member couldn't have the right skills to
check if the contribution is valid or not. That's the importance of a
plural MC. Sharing responsibilities inside the MC is important to
identify from technical contributions (translation, development,
infra...) to non-technical contributions (with language barriers,
cultural differences, complex politics cenarios,...)


thanks for your detailed answer to my questions!

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

2022-08-29 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Daniel, hi all,

Am 29.08.22 um 14:51 schrieb drodrig...@libreoffice.org:

El 29.08.2022 07:44, Mike Saunders escribió:

Hi all,

We still have this page on the site:

https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/

...which has been the same for a very long time. We could update it to
say that we're considering the future of LOOL (linking to this mailing
list post), and see if people are interested in contributing. What do
people think?

Mike



From my POV, yes. At least to show that there are people interested in
the existence of such a version.


You could join the work on that project currently on Github:
https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online

I plan to move the work to the LibreOffice project ressources back
later. Currently I don't want to work under the sword of Damocles on TDF
ressources and had to move forth and back again.

And there is no shortage of tasks from different kind. Thus every
helping hand is very welcome! ;-)

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: [board-discuss] First Questions To All MC Candidates

2022-08-28 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Miklos, hi all,

Am 25.08.22 um 08:45 schrieb Miklos Vajna:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 05:40:05PM +0200, Andreas Mantke wrote:

- What are the criteria to measure the value of a contribution?

- Which are the criteria for a non trivial or obviously insignificant
contribution?

- Would your rating differ from areas of contribution?

My approach would be the same as the way we worked during the 2016 -
2018 term, follow the criteria outlined in § 10 of the statues. Make
sure that "doers" stay / become members and the opposite for others.


thanks for your answer!

I'd have expected a more detailed reply with a vision where to invest
more energy to improve the number and contribution of community members
and how to 'convert' users to contributors. What is your take on the
role of the TDF bodies, especially the MC and the board in such a process?

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: [board-discuss] First Questions To All MC Candidates

2022-08-28 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Marina, hi all,

Am 27.08.22 um 13:54 schrieb Marina Latini:

On 24.08.2022 17:40, Andreas Mantke wrote:

Hello MC Candidates,


Hello Andreas, hi all,

thanks for sending those questions.



Here my first questions to all candidates:

- What are the criteria to measure the value of a contribution?

- Which are the criteria for a non trivial or obviously insignificant
contribution?

- Would your rating differ from areas of contribution?


Let me try to share my view on this topic.

First of all, there are several ways to contribute to our projects
and, as a common ground, our statutes provides also some guidance on
the areas and on the ways to evaluate if a contribution is meaningful.

I think that the Board of Trustees is the heart of TDF, it's the body
that will empower the governance (both Membership Committee and Board
of Directors) and, at the same time, it's also the body that will have
the right to vote and elect the members of TDF's governance.

It's not a secret that I consider really important to have a Board of
Trustees that can represent all the different voices we have at TDF.
For this reason I believe that it's crucial to keep a good balance in
it while working at the evaluation of new applications or renewals.

With this I don't mean that in some cases the Membership Committee
should be stricter or more flexible just for a "quota" reason.
In the past term, my first in the Membership Committee, we had cases
where it was really trivial to take a decision, in others the
evaluation took quite some time, required extra investigations and
even extra inquiries, reaching out to the people mentioned as contacts
for verification for understanding the kind of contributions.

What I also noticed is that in some local communities there's a lot of
activity and commitment and that unfortunately there's no visibility
at "international level". This is also what I described in my
candidacy as the problem to "bridge the gap between the local and
international communities".
Last year with the community survey and this year with some sessions
with the local communities I think that as MC we made good steps in
this direction, but the path to walk through is still a long one from
my point of view.
One of the questions we are asking to every member that asks to renew
the membership or to every new applicant is their commitment to
contribute to our projects. Commitment and engagement are good metrics
to be considered in the evaluations, together with the quality of the
contributions.
I also think that as Membership Committee we should improve and
proactively look at our local communities, searching for new
ideas/needs/feedback and new potential contributors that are eligible
to became members.

Our foundation stands on the idea that contributors are entitled to
take decisions. I would like to go a step further trying also to
ensure that all the contributors will be aware of how our foundation
works and that if they are interested they can also actively join the
governance of our project. This is something that needs to be done in
parallel with the constant improvements for lowering the entry
contributing barrier for empowering all the users that are still not
actively contributing but that could be interested in doing so.

I also strongly believe that "contributors are not falling from the
sky". I think that the direction to look into is to increase and
strengthen the cooperation between the existing members of the Board
of Trustees, the Board of Directors, the Membership Committee, the TDF
team, the Engineering Steering Committee, the Advisory Board and the
Certification Committee.
This group of people is extremely small if compared with the number of
users consuming what is available thanks to LibreOffice or the
Document Liberation Project. For this reason we should take care of
all the resources we have available, share the workload and maximise
the outcome.
We are plenty of users out there, now it's time to let them evolve to
the "contributor phase" and to listen to and engage with all the local
communities that are already doing an amazing work.

I hope that this clarifies even more what I would like to focus on in
this term if the Board of Trustees will decide to re-elect me.


thanks for your elaborated answer to my questions.

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

[board-discuss] First Questions To All MC Candidates

2022-08-24 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hello MC Candidates,

because the MC has a very important role in TDF I think it is important
for the TDF members (voters) to ask the candidates. I'll start with a
first question to initiate the conversation. I'm curious about the
answers of all candidates and hope of a great exchange with the candidates.

Here my first questions to all candidates:

- What are the criteria to measure the value of a contribution?

- Which are the criteria for a non trivial or obviously insignificant
contribution?

- Would your rating differ from areas of contribution?

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: [board-discuss] Self nomination for Membership Committee: Ahmad Haris

2022-08-24 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Ahmad,

would you be so kind and add information about your corporate
affiliation, your email address? And there is a statement missing, that
you will provide information about every change in this data asap.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 24.08.22 um 10:58 schrieb ahmad haris:

Dear Members & Board of Directors of The Document Foundation,

I'm Ahmad Haris, a FOSS Activist who was born and lives in Indonesia.
I started learning OOo in 2007 as a user, then from 2008 until 2010 I
had the chance to help the local government of Aceh Province to use
Open Source Software including OOo.

I am also active at BlankOn Linux which is a local linux distribution,
the famous one in Indonesia. And become Release Manager for 5 years
until 2017. Other than BlankOn, I am also active at openSUSE Indonesia
Community.

2017 is my starting point to contributing to LibreOffice locally.
Preparing a new community (LibreOffice Indonesia) and preparing
LibreOffice Conference Indonesia - 2018 as a starting point to
contribute globally. The mission of the local community is to
encourage people to use LibreOffice and contribute back. So we
organize several local events for Translation and QA workshops.

During the pandemic as MC, I try to keep in touch with the local
community so we can still do something even if it's limited, such as
helping users with answering their questions in telegram groups.

When the pandemic seems to have ended in Indonesia, we become more
energetic to create offline events such as LibreOffice Workshop and
Meetup.

One of my personal goals with LibreOffice is helping several local
communities to actively use LibreOffice with their local (traditional)
character.

Why I'm nominating myself as MC:
I'm interested in encouraging local people to contribute to upstream
projects in many ways that they are able to do, even if they have
problems in language.
I'm still thinking I have a duty to do that until someone in the new
generation takes over me.

Also working with TDF makes my experience better.

-- 75 word statement --
My goal for next term is to reactivate local communities to contribute
in several ways, such as translation, design, QA or workshop. To make
it happen, working together with local communities around the world
and TDF will make it more possible than working alone. With me
becoming MC can help local communities more understand the situation
in TDF and vice versa. On the other hand, regeneration of contributors
will be the most challenging task to do.



--
## 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: [board-discuss] Moderation And Elections

2022-08-19 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Cor, hi all,

I'd not bet on it.

It's your (the board) duty to create a clean process without any
obstruction and equality of choice for everyone. If you fail, you have
to take the full responsibility and draw the obvious conclusion.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 19.08.22 um 17:10 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 19/08/2022 16:13:


...
The time it takes to moderate a candidacy email through the moderation
queue is the proof that this is an obstruction of the election process.


As we know, the nomination phase ends on Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00.
So if five days before that moment there is a delay in moderation, I
don't think you can seriously argue that there is any obstruction of
the election process.

Having said that: it definitely is good to make sure that delay is not
the norm, and that we do not miss any last minute nominations. Thanks
for reminding us.

Greetings,
Cor


Quote from the announcement,
Subject: [board-discuss] [ANN] Announcing the election for the next
TDF Membership Committee
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:02:11 +0200
From: Thorsten Behrens 
To: TDF Board Discussion 


" 2. Wednesday, 2022-08-24, 24:00: end of the nomination phase (one
week before the election starts, as per § 12 II)

3. Thursday, 2022-09-01, 00:00: official start of the elections (at
least 45 days after announcement of the election, as per § 12 II) "





--
## 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

[board-discuss] Moderation And Elections

2022-08-19 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

if you look at the latest self nomination email for the MC, you'll find
out that it took about 5 hours to get it through the moderation queue.

The announce email
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00828.html)
state that every candidate has to send his candidacy to this list
(board-discuss) in time. If there is a moderation in place (like
currently) it is not possible for any member of TDF to see the current
list of candidates, think in time about a candidacy (because its not
obvious, how many and which other candidates are already running) or
could get a feedback, if her/his candidacy email has been send
successfully to this list.

The time it takes to moderate a candidacy email through the moderation
queue is the proof that this is an obstruction of the election process.
If it will not be disabled immediately every candidate who has not been
elected could challenge the result.

But because the moderation is already in place since July, 8 2022 there
is a good chance that the whole election process for the MC needs a restart.

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

2022-08-03 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi Paolo, all,

Am 02.08.22 um 11:34 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:

Hi Andreas,

thanks for keeping us up to date.

On 30/07/2022 18:56, Andreas Mantke wrote:

Here are the 'numbers' for July, 2022:

- 1 volunteer
- work done: small css fix and a typo fix in a markdown file.


Any progress on your version of LOOL?


Yes. I updated it with the available patches, worked on some further
updates and am currently running a Docker build from source with the
available script on openSUSE from the current status.

I created already one docker file about two weeks ago from the status at
that time.



Is there a repository where the community can check the progress and
start contributing to?


Yes.

https://github.com/freeonlineoffice/online

Contributions and help welcome ;-)

You can ping me (drop an email), if you want to join me.

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

2022-07-30 Thread Andreas Mantke


Hi all,

although the July, 2022 is not finished yet, a short update on the
amount of volunteer contributors to the fork of LibreOffice Online:

Am 07.07.22 um 20:54 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

(...)
So lets have a look on the commits of the last four month of the fork
(without the localization work, copied from Weblate):

* March 2022:

- 4 volunteers, one of them was already for long time active in the
LibreOffice design team
- work done: two lines in a readme, some lines of JS, CSS and icons


* April 2022:

- 4 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member,
another one is a current member of the board with an JS one liner
- work done: unify ui naming menubar js file, docker image build script,
CSS and the one line in a JS file


* May 2022:

- 2 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member
- work done: CSS


* June 2022:

- 2 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member
- work done: CSS and an icon


Noticeable: except the long time LibreOffice design contributor the
volunteers committed only a very few patches and were only in one month
active (without one of them, who submitted another patch in a second
month, a further icon).


Here are the 'numbers' for July, 2022:

- 1 volunteer
- work done: small css fix and a typo fix in a markdown file.

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

[board-discuss] List Moderation - Apply Double Standards?

2022-07-15 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

I took some time to observe the situation on this list.

The list was set under moderation, because some of the board members
felt, the discussion here was not friendly enough.

The proposal for the moderation was supported on this list by another
TDF director first (on this list).

Then a voting on a topic was done and one member explained the reasons
for his vote. He explained the reasons factually.

But in response to this mail the director which supported the proposal
for moderation accused the one who told the objective reasons for his
vote. And in addition he asked to ban those mails from the other director.

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.

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).

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

2022-07-08 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

Am 07.07.22 um 23:05 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
> (...)
>> 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.

it seemed there is a lack of understanding on communication.

This comment could be seen in different ways:

a) it's a toxic praise

b) it's an unwanted review

c) it's treating the author like a pupil and rate the text with a school
note.

But in all cases the message send to the receiver is not positive.

Thus I'd recommend to stop such comments (in public or private).

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

2022-07-07 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Paolo, all,

although I have not too much spare time for a research I try to answer
your questions.


Am 06.07.22 um 22:46 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On 06/07/2022 20:08, Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Am 04.07.22 um 03:11 schrieb 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
>>>>
>> 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.
>
> It's odd you say that as IIRC Mr Meeks said that since they move the
> project to Microsoft GitHub they had more contributors.
>
> Are you by any chance able to substantiate your statement?

I made a short research on the commits of about the last four month (the
board decision has also only a three month period in mind).

So lets have a look on the commits of the last four month of the fork
(without the localization work, copied from Weblate):

* March 2022:

- 4 volunteers, one of them was already for long time active in the
LibreOffice design team
- work done: two lines in a readme, some lines of JS, CSS and icons


* April 2022:

- 4 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member,
another one is a current member of the board with an JS one liner
- work done: unify ui naming menubar js file, docker image build script,
CSS and the one line in a JS file


* May 2022:

- 2 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member
- work done: CSS


* June 2022:

- 2 volunteers, one of them is the long time active design team member
- work done: CSS and an icon


Noticeable: except the long time LibreOffice design contributor the
volunteers committed only a very few patches and were only in one month
active (without one of them, who submitted another patch in a second
month, a further icon).


>
>> It seemed there is a big interest to set high barriers in that area and
>> to block initiative.
>
> Even the number of voters in favour of that decision are fewer than
> those required to pass the barrier ;-)
Yep.
>
> As stated in my answer to the "decision", it just needs to be re-run
> with a text that would allow the community a chance to do something.
>
> Are you anyway continuing to prepare a version of LOOL that could be
> presented a candidate to start creating a community around it?
>
I'm working on that too, but that need some more time. I'm happy, if
someone wants to join me and create e.g. a docker build from the source.


>>
>> And what I've learned within the communication during the last week(s).
>> There is no open communication and part of the game is to lead you by
>> the nose.
>
> Could you elaborate on that?
>
> I'm not sure I fully grasp the meaning of the above sentences.

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 just some hours later on July,
4th, 3.11am the results of the decision were published on this list.
I had also the impression that I'm in a extra supervision here (and with
private emails).

>
>> And as we are saying in Germany: Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopfe her.
>  
> That's the same saying we use in Italy but it's not clear what you
> mean with it or to what/whom you are referring to.
>
Hope the above helped a bit.

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

2022-07-06 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

Am 04.07.22 um 03:11 schrieb 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
>>
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.

It seemed there is a big interest to set high barriers in that area and
to block initiative.

And what I've learned within the communication during the last week(s).
There is no open communication and part of the game is to lead you by
the nose.

And as we are saying in Germany: Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopfe her.

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

2022-07-03 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Paolo, all,

Am 03.07.22 um 13:50 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> Hi all,
>
> On 03/07/2022 00:21, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> (...)

> is important to look at the past to try to correct eventual mistakes
> and avoid repeating them.
>
>> 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.
> I believe that's what Andreas has been trying to do.
>
> Sometimes it is also important to understand what led to a specific
> situation to evaluate the measures that should be implemented to
> correctly deal with issues and proposals.
>
its the responsibility of the current board to review past decisions, at
least if the board gets a hint, that there has been a not declared /
overlooked CoI of one participant.

There is no space for closing eyes and proceed further.

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

2022-07-02 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Paolo, all,

Am 01.07.22 um 13:54 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> (...)
>
> Regarding the freeze in my opinion should have never happened but at
> the time we didn't have a clear CoI Policy so a single vote from a
> what now would be considered a conflicted member of the board made
> that happen:
>
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2020/msg00648.html
>
>
in my opinion the CoI policy is only a concretion of the statutes. They
are not a reinvention of the statutes or something that goes above the
statutes. And thus the members of the board had to abstain from a
decision on a topic where they have a CoI. And if a member with a CoI
participated in such decision and voted her/his vote is not valid. This
vote has to be excluded from the result at a minimum.

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.

And a short addition to the whole topic on forking away LOOL to COOL:
The foundation has to take care of the sustainability of its assets.
Beside a capital stock there are two big assets: the brands LibreOffice
and The Document Foundation.
The fork of LOOL to COOL didn't strength the brand LibreOffice, instead
this diluted and weakened the brand. It had an negative impact on the
value of the brand.
Maybe it's the same effect, if you add dilutive additions to the product
name of the software (with the perception of second class software).

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

2022-06-25 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Laszlo, all,

Am 24.06.22 um 20:57 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org:
> (...)

> Forking is possible for everyone, but only with renaming. So it was
> very unfair to write about that renaming is some evil thing, while
> that was likely a mandatory trade mark issue for Collabora
> Productivity, too.

if you look at the LibreOffice source code you'll find out that there is
no renaming of e.g. the start scripts of LibreOffice and its modules.
Like in the times of OOo you could run the program with 'soffice',
'swriter' etc.

Also as far as I know no former modules / directories got new naming
after the born of LibreOffice. Thus it is not common in OSS development
to rename source code files or directories after a fork.

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

2022-06-25 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Sophie, all,

Am 25.06.22 um 01:44 schrieb sophi:
> Hi Andreas, all
> Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
>> visuals, I added two ones.
>>
>> https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/
>
> Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate and welcome
> the efforts :) Maybe what we should do is to have an online meeting
> between you, Franklin, Daniel, Paolo and of course who in the
> community is interested to follow-up.
>
> The new online version is a really good news for me (thanks a lot
> Franklin and Andreas for that), and I guess for a large part of the
> non European community (as well as for students, SMEs and so on).
> There is a clear interest in the community to have this online version.
+1
>
> This is for me rejoining part of the Foundation roots.
>
> But we also have to think about the ecosystem and the value they have
> built upon this version and for us. I'm also concerned about this. We
> should not ignore it.
>
> I'm really happy that TDF come back in this dynamic, however I think a
> serious discussion have to take place between the ecosystem and TDF,
> not to stop TDF in acting like it was in the past, but to find a fair
> place to live for everybody.
> I'm sure this place exists if all parties are ready to make an effort
> to reach a common goal.

I think such common ground could be reached, if not one side try to
dominate the other one. 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. And then there is the issue that the LibreOffice
(commercial) ecosystem is not divers enough. This leads to a situation
comparable with the situation in OOo community during the years before
the start of LibreOffice.

I want to state here that I have no issue with creating and selling
(commercial) derivatives from OSS projects, but I think there should be
the common ground of an upstream project, where all participants could
add their commits. And the hosting/administration of this upstream
project should be done by the LibreOffice community and TDF and not by
any vendor.

I think good citizens of a OSS community like to work together on a
common ground owned and administrated by the community.

And as far as I know the MPL and LGPL allows to make (commercial)
derivatives from this source with different flowers and for different
needs of customers (and if a customer agreed modifications on the source
code were committed back to the upstream project).

>
> I ask, if I may, everybody taking part to the discussion to have a
> deep thought to the international community we, at TDF, are committed
> to represent.
>
+1

I hope my statement above is a starting point to get back to the root
spirit of TDF and the LibreOffice community.

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

2022-06-24 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
visuals, I added two ones.

https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/

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

2022-06-24 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi all,

Am 24.06.22 um 20:57 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On 2022-06-24 17:51, Andreas Mantke wrote:
> (..)
>>
>> I also have no idea why it's not possible to work on a common ground of
>> LOOL (LibreOffice Online) and why it is/was instead necessary to fork
>> the code away from the LibreOffice community and rename it.
>> If I look over the fence into another OSS community there is no such
>> behavior. Maybe because the license is GPL and there is a contributor
>> assignment for the foundation in place (or there is more common spirit
>> in the project and the professional contributors are more divers).
>
> I'm sorry about the change, too. I don't know the details, maybe LOOL was
> never a core LibreOffice development, but it seems, there was no
> choice for
> Collabora Productivity, only forking. Likely the reason is known for the
> former TDF board, and Michael Meeks wrote about it, too, see "Why is
> Collabora Online its own project?" in
> https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/.

the faq and the linked info graphic showed the perception of the company
of itself and its view on the LibreOffice community and project.

>
> Forking is possible for everyone, but only with renaming. So it was
> very unfair to write about that renaming is some evil thing, while
> that was likely a mandatory trade mark issue for Collabora
> Productivity, too.

It's not necessary to change the naming of the upstream project or
create a second competing project, if you want to use the code from the
upstream project to develop a (commercial) derivative.

The MPL license is as far as I know open for such derivative work.

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

2022-06-24 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Laszlo, all,

I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any
potential CoI in the whole topic.

I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their
opinion on this topic.

I also have no idea why it's not possible to work on a common ground of
LOOL (LibreOffice Online) and why it is/was instead necessary to fork
the code away from the LibreOffice community and rename it.
If I look over the fence into another OSS community there is no such
behavior. Maybe because the license is GPL and there is a contributor
assignment for the foundation in place (or there is more common spirit
in the project and the professional contributors are more divers).

Regards,
Andreas

Am 24.06.22 um 17:27 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
>>
>> Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
>> especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to
>> make it viable.
>>
>> It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
>> been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation.
>>
>> In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide
>> enough time for a community to form around it?
>>
>> It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed
>> and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and
>> sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the
>> longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository.
>
> We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the
> recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online
> (LibreOffice Technology (TM)).
>
> A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because
> they didn't notice on the
> TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. Thanks to the
> helpfulness of employees of
> Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date
> LibreOffice in their intranet, and
> started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the
> biggest contributors
> of LibreOffice Desktop).
>
> Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the
> recommended versions (by TDF, too:
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)?
>
> Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of
> Collabora Productivity,
> but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora
> in the spirit of the
> free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL,
> and this is the only maintained
> version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively.
>
> More information: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/ (by the
> way, Collabora's description
> mentions other maintained versions, like OSSII and Zimbra Docs).
>
>>
>> If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain
>> that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL.
>>
>> It would be great to know if others have other
>> takes/options/alternatives on this subject.
>
> I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer
> CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and
> every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in
> https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/.
>
> As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the
> healthy long-term LibreOffice development, I would like to see more
> contribution with Collabora Productivity. In my opinion, as LOOL was,
> CODE is still the key for the survival of LibreOffice. In the spirit
> of a successful free software contribution, respecting the decision of
> Collabora Productivity, TDF must help CODE development, as much as
> possible, for the sake of LibreOffice! As a first step, we shouldn't
> hijack future CODE users and as described above, future (and recent)
> LibreOffice users and contributors with false hopes and misleading
> information.
>
> Best regards,
> László
>
>>
>> Ciao
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>> On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL
>>> source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my
>>> newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another
>>> hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to
>>> finish my work during this week.
>>>
>>> If someone wants to join me, feel free t

Re: [board-discuss] Re: LOOL is about to be archived

2022-06-24 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Paolo, all,

no objections. I'd Prüfer that too. But we should make developer life mouch 
more easy and also implement tools like the workflows available on github.

Regards,
Andreas

Am 24. Juni 2022 12:37:54 MESZ schrieb Paolo Vecchi 
:
>Hi Andreas,
>
>it's great to see this types of cooperation offers.
>
>I might be biased but I would prefer to see the project on TDF's 
>infrastructure and covered by the appropriate agreements so that we can ensure 
>we invest on a project that will clearly provide long term benefits for the 
>wider community.
>
>Ciao
>
>Paolo
>
>On 24/06/2022 12:23, Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> Hi Paolo, Franklin, all,
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Andreas
>> 
>> Am 24. Juni 2022 11:29:16 MESZ schrieb Paolo Vecchi 
>> :
>> 
>> Hi Franklin,
>> 
>> thanks for the great proposal.
>> 
>> As the LOOL archival discussion is planned for Monday I'll ask the
>> board to modify the agenda to start discussing your' and Andreas'
>> proposal.
>> 
>> There is a lot that needs to be evaluated with the community to
>> see if and in which way we can make LOOL available for the
>> community again.
>> 
>> Ciao
>> 
>> Paolo
>> 
>> On 24/06/2022 06:37, Franklin Weng wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here I have a proposal: to have LOOL respository sync to another
>>> LOOL-derived suite:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/OSSII/oxool-community
>>> <https://github.com/OSSII/oxool-community>
>>> 
>>> OxOOL is developed by OSSII in Taiwan, derived from LOOL.  It has
>>> commercial version, which is several versions advanced to
>>> community version, while the community version is also open
>>> sourced.  Currently National Development Council Taiwan, the main
>>> dominant unit of ODF policy in Taiwanese government, uses (forks)
>>> this community version into "NDCODFweb":
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/NDCODF/ndcodfweb
>>> <https://github.com/NDCODF/ndcodfweb>
>>> 
>>> which is also mainly supported by OSSII.
>>> 
>>> Besides NDCODFWeb and some other Taiwanese government units,
>>> OxOOL is also used in different companies and products.  For
>>> example, it is integrated into ASUS cloud Omnistor Office
>>> (https://www.asuscloud.com/omnistor-office/), OpenFind SecuShare
>>> Pro (https://www.openfind.com.tw/taiwan/secusharepro.html). It is
>>> migrated into Pou Chen Group (https://www.pouchen.com) and some
>>> other big anonymous companies.  Also, it is deployed in UNAU
>>> (https://www.unau.edu.ar/la-universidad/ ).
>>> 
>>> OxOOL v4 will be released in a month and can be a good and useful
>>> base to LOOL, also good to the LibreOffice community.
>>> 
>>> I'm not a representative of OSSII, but the GM of OSSII told me
>>> that they are happy to share the community version.
>>> 
>>> In this proposal there are two ways to relive LOOL:
>>> 
>>> 1. To sync current LOOL with patches from OxOOL community v4,
>>> which may technically take more time and efforts.
>>> 
>>> 2. Start a new repository from OxOOL community v4, which I'll say
>>> that it is actually a "fast forward" from current status since
>>> OxOOL is also derived from LOOL, though a bit far before. It will
>>> be technically easier than 1., just that maybe some community
>>> people may feel uneasy or unhappy with this way.
>>> 
>>> Both ways are okay for me, as long as LOOL can be relived. 
>>> However no matter which way, IMO TDF needs to employ in-house
>>> developers (independent from *any* ecosystem member) for
>>> rerunning LOOL.  The second option, which is my prefer option, is
>>> a lot easier technically and in-house developers would just need
>>> to (cowork with community members and OSSII to) maintain LOOL
>>> repository.
>>> 
>>> Features in OxOOL commercial version are mostly (customized)
>>> requests from customers and hence may not necessarily need to be
>>> backported (to community v

Re: [board-discuss] Re: LOOL is about to be archived

2022-06-24 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Paolo, Franklin, all,

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.

Regards,
Andreas  

Am 24. Juni 2022 11:29:16 MESZ schrieb Paolo Vecchi 
:
>Hi Franklin,
>
>thanks for the great proposal.
>
>As the LOOL archival discussion is planned for Monday I'll ask the board to 
>modify the agenda to start discussing your' and Andreas' proposal.
>
>There is a lot that needs to be evaluated with the community to see if and in 
>which way we can make LOOL available for the community again.
>
>Ciao
>
>Paolo
>
>On 24/06/2022 06:37, Franklin Weng wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> Here I have a proposal: to have LOOL respository sync to another 
>> LOOL-derived suite:
>> 
>> https://github.com/OSSII/oxool-community 
>> 
>> 
>> OxOOL is developed by OSSII in Taiwan, derived from LOOL.  It has commercial 
>> version, which is several versions advanced to community version, while the 
>> community version is also open sourced.  Currently National Development 
>> Council Taiwan, the main dominant unit of ODF policy in Taiwanese 
>> government, uses (forks) this community version into "NDCODFweb":
>> 
>> https://github.com/NDCODF/ndcodfweb 
>> 
>> which is also mainly supported by OSSII.
>> 
>> Besides NDCODFWeb and some other Taiwanese government units, OxOOL is also 
>> used in different companies and products.  For example, it is integrated 
>> into ASUS cloud Omnistor Office 
>> (https://www.asuscloud.com/omnistor-office/), OpenFind SecuShare Pro 
>> (https://www.openfind.com.tw/taiwan/secusharepro.html). It is migrated into 
>> Pou Chen Group (https://www.pouchen.com) and some other big anonymous 
>> companies.  Also, it is deployed in UNAU 
>> (https://www.unau.edu.ar/la-universidad/ ).
>> 
>> OxOOL v4 will be released in a month and can be a good and useful base to 
>> LOOL, also good to the LibreOffice community.
>> 
>> I'm not a representative of OSSII, but the GM of OSSII told me that they are 
>> happy to share the community version.
>> 
>> In this proposal there are two ways to relive LOOL:
>> 
>> 1. To sync current LOOL with patches from OxOOL community v4, which may 
>> technically take more time and efforts.
>> 
>> 2. Start a new repository from OxOOL community v4, which I'll say that it is 
>> actually a "fast forward" from current status since OxOOL is also derived 
>> from LOOL, though a bit far before. It will be technically easier than 1., 
>> just that maybe some community people may feel uneasy or unhappy with this 
>> way.
>> 
>> Both ways are okay for me, as long as LOOL can be relived. However no matter 
>> which way, IMO TDF needs to employ in-house developers (independent from 
>> *any* ecosystem member) for rerunning LOOL.  The second option, which is my 
>> prefer option, is a lot easier technically and in-house developers would 
>> just need to (cowork with community members and OSSII to) maintain LOOL 
>> repository.
>> 
>> Features in OxOOL commercial version are mostly (customized) requests from 
>> customers and hence may not necessarily need to be backported (to community 
>> version), but the GM of OSSII also promised that OxOOL Commercial version 
>> functions (which they think good / necessary to be back ported) and bugfixes 
>> will be back ported to LOOL (and OxOOL community version too).
>> 
>> Of course, after reliving LOOL all developers are welcomed to contribute to 
>> LOOL.
>> 
>> Details can be discussed with OSSII.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Franklin
>> 
>> 
>> Paolo Vecchi 於 2022/6/21 20:15 寫道:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with proposals 
>>> in regards to LibreOffice On-Line.
>>> 
>>> As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the major 
>>> code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not contribute back to 
>>> TDF's repository.
>>> 
>>> At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing actionable 
>>> seems to have been proposed by the community since then.
>>> 
>>> Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL [0] 
>>> and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed for doing 
>>> so [1].
>>> 
>>> The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive obsolete projects, 
>>> states that the Board will need to vote on the archival process to confirm 
>>> ESC's choice.
>>> 
>>> It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the 
>>> community would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small 
>>> window of opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it heard.
>>> 
>>> If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so that it 
>>> could be brought back into an usable form for the community then the board 
>>> might have to vote for having LOOL archived.
>>> 
>>> Ciao
>>> 
>>> Paolo
>>> 
>>>

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

2022-06-23 Thread Andreas Mantke

Hi Paolo, all,

my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to
put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free
software company made some name changes in the source code of their fork
to make it more difficult for the LibreOffice community.
That is a behavior I'd not expect from a good citizen of a free software
community. And if I look over the fence into another open source
community they work more collaboratively and don't raise such barrier.
But the difference may be that there is not only one big player in the
room and more diversity in the development community (and among the free
software companies).

I'm curious if other want join me in my efforts and like to share some
ideas how to proceed LOOL further.
In my opinion the online version with collaboration features is a
necessary development line for the future of LibreOffice and its
community. If TDF drop this line it will decline the importance of
LibreOffice and its community further (with appropriate consequences
e.g. in donations).

Regards,
Andreas
 
Am 23.06.22 um 17:09 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
>
> Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
> especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to
> make it viable.
>
> It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
> been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation.
>
> In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide
> enough time for a community to form around it?
>
> It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed
> and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and
> sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the
> longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository.
>
> If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain
> that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL.
>
> It would be great to know if others have other
> takes/options/alternatives on this subject.
>
> (...)
>> -- 
>> ## Free Software Advocate
>> ## Plone add-on developer
>> ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
>>
>>

--
## 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

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 290 matches

Mail list logo