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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:06 AM sophi  wrote:

>  Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.
>

Are all TDF Trustees on board-discuss then? Do you have statistics to
clarify this please?

Forcing divisive discussions to be held in public chills contributions from
people whose employers (not necessarily LibreOffice-related) prefer staff
to avoid public disputes and advantages those who have no such concerns.
That's why it is a smart policy to keep "family business inside the family"
and conduct Trustee business on a Trustee mailing list.

The best solution would be to scrap the tdf-internal list and have these
discussions on tdf-membership where everyone with responsibility for the
eventual outcome is subscribed but where the media cannot abuse their
contributions and future employers can't find it in searches.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Stephan!

OK, one more reply (against my better judgement!)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 7:52 PM Stephan Ficht <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> Am 30.10.22 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong
> > conclusions.
> Everyone can read there [1]:
> "A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a
> Conflict of Interest when it *can* result in improper conduct."
>
> My understanding of the word *can* is here: The possibility alone is
> sufficient.
>

I do not read it that way. In that sentence "tends" and "can" go together
and inform us the writer of that phrase felt that personal interest and CoI
were usually the same thing but not always, without giving us any tools to
understand when. The document promises to help us determine which personal
interests conflict with TDF's interests, and the only place a tool for that
exists is in Section 5.3. So the best approach is still to regard 5.3 as
definitive.



> > 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.
> Everyone can read there[1]:
> "The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of
> Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action."
>
> My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing
> Conflict of Interest, right?
>

I would not say so, no - the text says "if" not "that", and that conclusion
is not appropriate unless and until a CoI is determined by the Board.

I would suggest you "look down the telescope the other way" and ask what
the Board's actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the
existence of a CoI. Every director is well aware both of the policy and of
every other director's declared interests so it seems safe to use this as
an indicator. Section 5.3 indicates that if the Board has received notice
and neither taken action nor determined the personal interests rise to the
level of a CoI then there is no CoI.


> 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.
> Great if that works out.


It has to be worth trying. Endlessly weaponising CoI to exclude TDF's key
contributors is getting tiresome.



>  And to consider what is written there, rather than interpretation.


There are unfortunately no safe direct readings of this document so
interpretation is inevitable. Claiming any reading is plainly correct is
itself an interpretive act.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[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

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.

Regards

Simon
-- 
*S**imon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Andreas, all.

So sorry to have to keep repeating this, but the error it relates to is
still being repeated without regard to my earlier explanations.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:07 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> 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.
>

Independently of any investigation, the owner and director of Omnis Cloud
Sarl clearly has an interest in this topic as the company offers hosting of
NextCloud and OwnCloud for clients according to
https://omniscloud.eu/open-source-platforms/ and may be a partner of the
related companies according to https://omniscloud.eu/ - whether it creates
a conflict with his role at TDF is a matter for him to decide.


> 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.

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.

Regards

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[Simon Phipps]

Is the paper from Italo mentioned for discussion in Item 6 available for
trustees to review as well please?

Thanks

Simon

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:05 PM Stephan Ficht <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> 1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
>  Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
>  questions to the board and about TDF
>
> 2. Status Report: Strategy planning (Cor Nouws, 5 mins)
>
>  * status update and next steps
>  * based on the Milano strategy workshop
>  * materials: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129829
>
> 3. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian
>  Effenberger, 5 mins)
>
>  Status report and various ongoing discussions
>  * 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)
>
> 5. Discuss: OSI initiative on FLOSS in app stores (Thorsten, Simon, 10
>  mins)
>
>  * OSI is currently asking for input & experience from FLOSS
>projects
>  * agree on who does what til when
>
> 6. Vote, Discuss: Get some lobbying activity started in Brussels
>  (Thorsten, Italo, 5 mins)
>
>  * Italo made a proposal to the board
>  * motion: approve this year's travel expenses from the (still
>plentiful) marketing budget
>
> 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
> ?
>
> ### Private Part
>
> 8. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
>  Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.
>
> 9. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)
>  Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.
>
> 10. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten
> Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
>   Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.
>
>   * Second quarter for the new board is up, so let's hear reports
> from the various oversight groups.
>
> 11. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
>   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
>   sending the agenda
>
>
> --
> Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Telegram/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

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

[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

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[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


>
> 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.


>
> 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.

We need to be exceptionally careful not to imply directors or former
directors are committing a breach of trust. There has been far too much of
that kind of allegation and it appears to have almost all been based on
misunderstandings of the terms used.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:09 AM Thorsten Behrens 
wrote:

>
> There are good reasons to have a quick private discussion on the matter.
>

Not least the appaling, performative, chaotic behaviour and disrespect for
the chair and order of the meeting that we saw at the last meeting. It is
right for the Board to handle this in closed session to remove the audience
that was being played-to.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Regina,

It's still the ESC's role to resolve it, not the Board's.  All the work on
code is done by individuals, and open source projects don't get to instruct
individuals on what to do or when to do it - there is no SLA. If none of
those individuals are interested in prioritising any particular patch, the
correct next step is to raise it at the ESC, which exists expressly to
resolve differences between the individuals working on the code. TDF's
Board is not expected to intervene in the ESC's work beyond its recent
approval of ESC appointees. The request here is out-of-order.

While delays are frustrating - my own bug reports remain unfixed after a
decade - it is also very frustrating to see a contributor circumvent TDF's
well-tested processes, especially for political ends.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Merging Of Contributions

[Simon Phipps]

Given TDF separates administrative and technical responsibilities
between the Board and ESC respectively, I am unclear why this matter is
being raised here - has it already been raised at ESC without a resolution?
Can someone explain please?

Cheers

Simon

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 3:37 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Telegram/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] TDF to change composition of legal oversight group

[Simon Phipps]

Given the discussion of the matter is being held in secret, perhaps the
directors could arrange for a summary of the rationale for this
out-of-cycle change please?

Thanks,

Simon


On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:19 PM Cor Nouws 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This vote was brought in discussion on the directors@ few hours before
> posting here, without any discussion taking place there. So I think it's
> best if I go back to that list to learn something more first.
>
> Cheers,
> Cor
>
>
>
> Caolán McNamara wrote on 21/07/2022 15:22:
> > Hello,
> >
> > the special working group of the legal oversight group hereby makes
> > available the draft of an amendment to the Rules of Procedure [1] of
> > the Board of Directors.
> >
> > The amendment is to change the internal delegation of responsibilities
> > (“areas of oversight”) in § 3 only regarding “contracts, legal
> > compliance, GDPR, trademarks”.
> >
> > The former members of the legal oversight group regarding “contracts,
> > legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks” shall be replaced by the new
> > members Caolán McNamara, Emiliano Vavassori and Paolo Vecchi. (All
> > other oversight groups remain unchanged.)
> >
> > We hereby call for the following VOTE, which will start Friday,
> > 2022-07-29 00:00 UTC+2/CEST and will then run for 72h.
> >
> > This vote is proposed by all members of the special working group of
> > the legal oversight group: Caolán, Emiliano, Paolo. Members of the
> > board who are in conflict shall explicitly declare their abstention.
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules
> >
>
> --
> Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
> mobile  : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001
> skype   : cornouws
> blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com
> jabber  : cor4off...@jabber.org
>
>

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Franklin,.

Why is this better than working with the version Collabora (who actually
contribute to TDF's work) maintain? Why should TDF hire developers to
maintain code for the Taiwanese government?

Sincerely.

Simon


On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 5:47 AM 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
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Drafting job posting for "part-time web technology expert"

[Simon Phipps]

Thanks, Florian, nice work.

Cheers

Simon

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:24 PM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> sorry this took a bit longer than anticipated. I've merged all the
> proposals into
>
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/i3ByXJK7a7GNXaC
>
> and plan to publish this early next week. Please make only critical
> changes now, not minor edits anymore.
>
> @Mike Saunders: Can you, based on the above text, prepare a blog post
> draft for me to review by Monday morning?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Florian
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Emiliano,

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:03 AM Emiliano Vavassori <
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> Il 12/06/22 11:17, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
> > I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being
> > aware of the true history of the project (especially at a time when
> > there are voices trying to reframe history) is very important and
> > refusing to do so may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance
> > of untrue framing.
>
> I didn't say I found it useless, I said it wouldn't really still help
> with moving the general balance of the discussion towards a positive
> outcome, which was the main objections to Andreas' mails.
>

Please note that I have (intentionally) refrained from responding to
earlier messages. But no-one (including you) was addressing the repeated
negative framing of Andreas' many e-mails so I offered a contribution from
experience to balance it.

> By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with
> > other members through selecting positive elements of their
> > contributions.
>
> I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some
> discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and
> recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise,
> mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor.


I don't think it's primarily about the length of time contributing. I'd
suggest the problem is more that the decision-making style at TDF is a
friend-to-friend collaboration that, when there is a strong disagreement,
reverts to face-to-face discussion.

We have discovered over the long term that text-only discussions lead to
both misunderstandings and escalation that are (usually) resolved when
people meet in person. We have also discovered that text disagreements
discourage participation by people who are either conflict-averse or
concerned the argument is public and permanently recorded.  Attempts to do
what we always did in the past when there were disagreements - stop arguing
in e-mail and have a phone call, and have a face-to-face if that doesn't
work - have been blocked.

I am really pleased to see the Board has been gathered in-person this
weekend and sincerely hope you've all been able to devise ways to work
together. Doing everything by text-only for two years has been extremely
toxic.


> That's
> not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the
> Foundation since a lot of time.
>

Andreas was one of the founding generation of TDF so has been involved in
the project for a long time, yes. He contributed great work on
infrastructure and deserves credit for it. He was unhappy when TDF migrated
from Plone and I believe felt insulted by that step because his work was
lost, which we regretted. I do understand that frustration, and have
experienced it myself.

> How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming
> > the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless
> > of how they are answered?
>
> Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are
> even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones,
> possibly something to discuss is there.


Absolutely right. My original message however was to indicate that there is
a very old problem that has not been "let go" and which newcomers might not
recognise, and its repetition should probably not be heavily weighted as an
indicator of the validity of the concerns today.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Emilliano,

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 9:31 AM Emiliano Vavassori <
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> Il 11/06/22 20:02, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
> > I will remind you
> > that you started this negative approach about how TDF is acting
> > illegally when you and I were on the Board together last decade.
>
> I'm honestly struggling to see how your comments can be thought as
> positive.
>

They are to help newcomers like you become aware that the complaints being
made are not in fact new or related to the current situation but date back
to a dispute that is many years old and still unresolved due to
personal enmities. I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being aware
of the true history of the project (especially at a time when there are
voices trying to reframe history) is very important and refusing to do so
may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance of untrue framing.


>
> And how should users and members should voice their unsettlement,
> without risking to be stopped at every corner and called out for
> violations of CoC.
>

By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with other
members through selecting positive elements of their contributions. By
collaborating together even when uncomfortable. By respecting the honest
contributions of long-time contributors. This place is hardly a close venue.

How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming the
project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless of how
they are answered?

Sincerely,

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] A thank-you to our app-store publishers.

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for this great summary of the broad activity up to this point. You
and I have had our differences over the last 22 years in the project, but
you have been an inspiration for your rational but fierce advocacy of
software freedom, your willingness to have your mind changed (like you did
about contributor agreements!) and most of all for your willingness to take
significant personal risks in pursuit of your beliefs.

I'm looking forward to the Board's detailed plan to take on the important
role of navigating the bureaucracy of the various app stores and the
challenges of maintaining packages for them. I know you and Thorsten have
both worked hard at this - hopefully their plan will build on your
experiences.

Cheers

Simon


On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, 10:52 Michael Meeks, 
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Paolo Vecchi wrote on 31.05.22 at 21:03:
> > TDF to publish LibreOffice in the app stores, especially Apple and
> > Microsoft. TDF will work to prepare LibreOffice for the app stores
> > as soon as possible
>
> As this era ends, I'd like to say how pleased we are at
> Collabora to have been able to lead here - to have fronted the
> significant initial investment needed to get LibreOffice into the Mac
> sandbox, and app-store and to have got it done.
>
> We made it easier for a large number of users to get
> LibreOffice. Later on we charged for the convenience and re-invested
> that into improving the Mac version up-stream, and also are pleased to
> have donated a significant sum to TDF. We've also explored the
> market-demand-curve for convenience, updated the board from time to
> time & will of course complete that (as time permits) when the
> situation settles.
>
> I'd like to thank many for their great work here: Tor
> Lillqvist in particular, but also Tomaz Vajngerl, Lubos Lunak, Andras
> Timar & Miklos Vajna.
>
> It is also important to give credit and thanks to CIB &
> Allotropia for their work on getting a high quality LibreOffice into
> the Windows app-store to make it more accessible to people too.  I'm
> not sure that I have the exact list right here but I'd like to call
> out Marina Latini, Vasily Melenchuk, Samuel Mehrbrodt and Thorsten
> Behrens for making the goodness happen.
>
> Looking back at this app-store journey, we have a debt of
> gratitude particularly to Simon Phipps, Nicholas Christener, Uwe
> Altmann and Marina Latini for their hard work around building better
> ways to structure the app-store provision. There are many views on
> that - but it is unarguable that they put in a lot of hard work and
> love to try to improve LibreOffice which is much appreciated.
>
> I'd like also to give credit to the PortableApps team for
> making LibreOffice available in their app-store. They have done great
> work promoting us from early in the LibreOffice project:
> https://www.libreoffice.org/download/portable-versions/
>
> Paolo Vecchi wrote on 31.05.22 at 21:03:
> > TDF to publish LibreOffice in the app stores ...
>
> Which leads us to other app-stores. Traditionally packaging
> has been a great provider of diversity and excellence around
> contribution to LibreOffice - starting IIRC with Frederic Crozat's
> amazing work to make OpenOffice.org into the first Mandrake Linux
> packages waaay back in the day - which much of our Linux packaging is
> ultimately built on.
>
> Anyhow - it was wonderful to have lots of work from Stephan
> Bergman and Caolan McNamara at RedHat with help from Robert McQueen at
> Endless to get LibreOffice into: https://flathub.org/ "Flathub - An
> app store and build service for Linux". As always getting LibreOffice
> into a different kind of sand-box sounds trivial, and yet often takes
> quite some work.
>
> Then of course we have the team started by Bjoern Michaelsen
> who massaged LibreOffice into the nattily named "Snap Store" -
> https://snapcraft.io "the app store for Linux with an audience of
> millions." thanks for making that happen Bjoern! And thanks too to
> Olivier Tilloy, Heather Ellsworth, Rico Tzschichholz, Marcus Tomlinson
> for their patient tending and improvement of the snap app!
>
> I should mention William Gathoye for his great work making
> LibreOffice available in Chocolatey - though at some stage I start to
> get fuzzy as to what is, and is not an app-store. Going wider we've
> been blessed by many sympathizers mutually promoting LibreOffice and
> their brands in software catalogs left and right.
>
> Anyhow. Lots of good work, much of it already working and
> build-able on without immediate bit-rot I hope.
>
> If the TDF board want to have a bigger packaging team

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Andreas,

On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 6:49 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> But I'm tired to repeatedly try to explain things with the same result.
> Otherwise that could be judged as a constant negative message by a
> reader of this list.
>

Since I currently have no relevant affiliation to prevent me speaking up
and given this reference to my earlier admonition, I will remind you that
you started this negative approach about how TDF is acting illegally when
you and I were on the Board together last decade. You repeatedly intervened
at Board meetings with comments that the things the rest of the Board were
discussing or deciding were in breach of the rules or the law. When asked
to provide evidence to support your assertions, you never produced any, and
when asked to propose alternative actions, you never did. Your actions
seriously delayed the Board from taking necessary actions on behalf of the
Foundation as they sought a consensus you repeatedly blocked.

The Board at that time sought advice and found it had the discretion to
take all the actions against which you were warning. The negative framing
should have stopped then. Instead, despite leaving both the Board and the
Foundation, you have continued to snipe from the sidelines at every
opportunity, always critical and never building on the contributions of
others. Again, I recommend you withdraw.

Sincerely,

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] A thank-you to our app-store publishers.

[Simon Phipps]

Seriously, Andreas, can you give us a break from the constant negativity?
Michael changed the subject line so as not to hijack the thread and posted
a very welcome and on-topic message with thanks, as well as signalling the
end of a topic. His message was positive, inclusive of his critics and in
no way deserves your continued defamatory insinuations. Please withdraw.

Sincerely,

Simon


On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:53 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> always the same not appropriate behavior: capture a thread with a new
> subject.
>
> Am 10.06.22 um 11:51 schrieb Michael Meeks:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Paolo Vecchi wrote on 31.05.22 at 21:03:
> >> TDF to publish LibreOffice in the app stores, especially Apple and
> >> Microsoft. TDF will work to prepare LibreOffice for the app stores
> >> as soon as possible
> >
> > As this era ends, I'd like to say how pleased we are at
> > Collabora to have been able to lead here - to have fronted the
> > significant initial investment needed to get LibreOffice into the Mac
> > sandbox, and app-store and to have got it done.
> >
> > We made it easier for a large number of users to get
> > LibreOffice. Later on we charged for the convenience and re-invested
> > that into improving the Mac version up-stream, and also are pleased to
>
> this means that Collabora used money from the app store:
>
> a) to decide itself how and where to improve the source code for the Mac
> version (independent from TDF [board / community])
>
> b) to grow its staff and portray itself as the biggest service provider
> for the office suite.
>
> The whole email looks like a laudatory for lifework, but this is only
> framing. It should soften the real message and the frustration.
>
> > (...)
> >
> > If the TDF board want to have a bigger packaging team, so be
> > it. Hopefully it will not negatively impact those who previously did
> > the work.
> >
> > I am somewhat curious as to the budget impact here, and the
> > real scope of "app-store". In particularly how much time is this
> > expected to take away from areas such as CTL/RTL, CJK as well as other
> > things that we are hoping to address with targeted developers ?
> It looks like that there is no expectation that TDF in-house developers
> and staff will be able to work on source code beyond app-store needs.
> And the real message is: bad board decision, let the situation as it is
> now.
>
> And in the end it is a hidden complain about the removal of a source of
> income for companies.
>
> But the whole process with the app-store management was based on trust
> between TDF and the companies. And since the process about LOOL and the
> fork this trust was broken.
>
> It should be obvious now that such decisions could lead to 'unexpected'
> (for the doer) consequences in other areas.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> ## Free Software Advocate
> ## Plone add-on developer
> ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Re: In-house developers proposal v 2.1

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

Thanks for your calm reflections, Michael.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM Michael Weghorn  wrote:

>
> Looking at the diff between the 2 proposals: While there seem to be
> different approaches in some bigger questions (like management, tasks of
> developers), some seem to be more of a cosmetic nature.
> Without knowing how the process works exactly:
> While I don't really expect that there will be a consensus in all
> aspects, I'm wondering whether trying to minimize the diff between the
> proposals before doing a vote would be reasonable, so there's consensus
> in as many aspects as possible.
>

Just to amplify this, I have been trying to contribute to this activity but
having two (complicated) documents makes it hard to make contributions.
Kendy made a merged version and shared it with us all and it would be
really good if contributors could stick with improving that one and getting
it to a state where there's maximum consensus between the directors (and
hopefully the rest of us who are contributing but obviously Board agreement
needs to be the priority. It's really a waste of time to cherry-pick and
update a legacy document instead of the one multiple people have been
working on.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

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

[Simon Phipps]

Can you tell us who "attended" the "meeting" please as only 5 votes were
recorded so 2 must have been absent.

Thanks

Simon

On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 9:57 AM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Paolo Vecchi wrote on 31.05.22 at 21:03:
>
> > TDF to publish LibreOffice in the app stores, especially Apple and
> > Microsoft. TDF will work to prepare LibreOffice for the app stores as
> > soon as possible with the aim of having it published at the latest by
> > the 1st of July, the day after the trademark licences have come to an
> end.
> >
> > TDF will engage with the ecosystem for them to offer help with this.
> >
> > I ask conflicted members to declare their abstention explicitly.
> >
> > This vote runs 72 hours 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 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
>
> The vote is quorate.
>
> A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes.
>
> Result of vote: 3 approvals, 2 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
> Decision: The proposal has been accepted.
>
> One deputy explicitly declared to abstain.
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

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

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 7:51 AM Ilmari Lauhakangas <
ilmari.lauhakan...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

>
> Tendering and in-house development are not interchangeable, but they are
> interlinked. Keep in mind that the in-house devs would participate in
> running tenders.
>

Another valuable role for an in-house developer would be to manage a more
long-term relationship with specialist subcontractors, for example a
company with expertise in accessibility development. With a longer-term
expert subcontractor, TDF could then actually develop new capabilities
rather than simply fix bugs and stand still like AOO. By adding to our list
of approaches a managed but non-employee longer-term relationship with
outside firms that is not limited to a single task, TDF would be able to
both benefit from the flexibility of tendering and also gain the benefit of
long-term staffing.

It was an excellent idea to make the document editable, thanks Kendy, so I
have added some words to this effect. Feel free to improve them!

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] additional budget of 30.000 € for legal consultations

[Simon Phipps]

Would you be able to give us some more background to this please? While
it's good to have the decision public, without the context of the request
it is hard to understand the merits of this large unbudgeted expenditure.
If that remains sensitive, perhaps post to the list only Trustees can read.

As a more minor point, it would be good to also report the attendance in
this item too, so that this becomes a more complete record and we know who
was involved.

Thanks!

Simon
(TDF Trustee)

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:39 PM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-05-31, is now
> made public in accordance with our statutes.
>
> Florian Effenberger wrote on 27.05.22 at 10:15:
>
> > I hereby ask for a VOTE on an additional budget of 30.000 € for legal
> > consultations.
> >
> > The vote runs 72h from now.
>
> given the topic, for the avoidance of doubt, first the result within the
> 72h:
>
> The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders
> (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have
> 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.
>
> A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
>
> The vote is quorate.
>
> A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes.
>
> Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
> Decision: The proposal has been accepted.
>
> One deputy supports the motion as well.
> After the 72h, two more board members supported the motion.
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>

Re: [board-discuss] Objective: Postponing Hiring TDF-Developer To 2024 or Later?

[Simon Phipps]

at the wider community prefers to have actual
> > developers so, which voice should we follow?
> >
> > >
> > > Quoting from a previous email of mine in one of the threads [2]:
> > >
> > >> In my previous email, I wrote: "Assuming members in the involved
> > >> LibreOffice/TDF bodies found a way to work together constructively,
> > >> my current
> > >> impression is that this approach could be for the benefit of all."
> > >>
> > >> I admit that this will probably be very hard if members of the
> involved
> > >> LibreOffice/TDF bodies don't find a way to work together
> > >> constructively, but
> > >> rather "fight against each other". But I think that's a problem on a
> > >> completely
> > >> different level, and I don't see how TDF can properly serve it's
> > >> purpose then
> > >> anyway, regardless of the specific question around TDF-internal
> > >> developers
> > >> being discussed here...
> > >
> >
> > On some topics we work constructively together while in others it looks
> > like some changes are being violently pushed back by some.
> >
> > The rationale for opposing some changes is generally not expressed in
> > full but, reading a recent comment, some community members seem to be
> > forming a clear opinion about it.
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00357.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00209.html
> > >
> > Ciao
> >
> > Paolo
> >
> > --
> > Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
> > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> > Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> > Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Drafting job posting for "part-time web technology expert"

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

I have been chatting on Mastodon with a blind user who has feedback about
the choices made in the web design and the resulting ease of access of the
web pages using a screen reader (tl;dr: they think there are easy
improvements possible). It would be excellent if the new hire had
experience consulting with and designing for users with disabilities.
Perhaps this preference could be added to the "Skills" section of the job
description?

Cheers

Simon

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:49 AM Ilmari Lauhakangas <
ilmari.lauhakan...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> one of the approved [1] contracts is
>
>part-time web technology expert
>
> The board would like to work together in public with all of you on this
> job posting before it gets officially published. The current draft is
> therefore shared at
>
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/CSzrtsKJt4GKY7P
>
> The board is happy to get your feedback and proposals. We'd like to
> discuss this ideally in the board call on Monday, May 30, at 1800 Berlin
> time. Please send your feedback to the public
> board-discuss@documentfoundation.org mailing list.
>
> Looking forward to your feedback,
>
> Ilmari
>
> [1]
>
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00400.html
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Trustee, *The Document Foundation

[board-discuss] Mailing List Moderation

[Simon Phipps]

Dear Board,

I'm writing to ask you to implement some form of moderation on this mailing
list.

In the last week or so, we have seen participants abusing a [VOTE] thread
and then a director further abusing it to chide the Board Chair for
attempting to stop the abuse. We have seen over-frequent posting. We have
seen content-free hostility expressed to long-established contributors.
We've seen posts making no attempt to find positive content earlier in the
conversation to amplify. While there have been one or two positive
examples, this list has become a case study in a hostile online environment.

Specifically I would ask the Board chair and vice-chair to act to remedy
this situation so that this list becomes a safe place to contribute, and
one where it is safe to make imperfect contributions that can be
collaboratively evolved open-source-style towards better contributions.

Many thanks!

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Trustee, *The Document Foundation

Re: [board-discuss] Preliminary budget for 2022

[Simon Phipps]

Super, thanks for adding that header to the minutes - it helps enormously
with understanding who is involved in decisions! Would it be possible to
get this information with every secret item that is made public from now on
please?

Cheers

Simon

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:04 AM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello Andreas, Hello Simon,
>
> Andreas Mantke wrote on 01.04.22 at 09:52:
>
> > I'm not Simon, but I'm curious why your answer contains no information
> > about the participants of this private part of the meeting. Maybe this
> > is not a top secret thing and you could add this information here.
>
> here's the list of participants:
>
> Session chair: Thorsten Behrens
> Keeper of the minutes: Florian Effenberger
>
> In the meeting:
>  Board Members - Thorsten, Cor, Laszlo, Kendy, Paolo, Emiliano
>  Board Deputy Members - Ayhan, Gabor, Gabriel
>  Team - Florian
>
> Representation: Gabor for Caolan
>
> The Board of Directors at time of the call consists of 7 seat holders
> without deputies. In order to be quorate, the call needs to have 1/2 of
> the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of
> Directors members are attending or represented in the call.
>
> The board waives all formal statutory requirements, or requirements in
> the foundations articles, or other requirements regarding form and
> invitation, time limits, and for the topics discussed in this meeting.
>
> The meeting is quorate and invitation happened in time. From now on,
> motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of those
> remaining present. The majority threshold is currently 4.
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Preliminary budget for 2022

[Simon Phipps]

Can you tell is the voting details please?

Thanks

Simon

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, 18:36 Florian Effenberger, <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> find below a summary of the preliminary budget that the Board of
> Directors agreed on 2022-03-28. It is now made public in accordance with
> our statutes.
>
> Recurring: 901.444,52 €
>
>Salaries and compensations 694.840,88 €
>Accounting and legal advice 32.603,64 €
>Running cost & discretionary spending 25.000,00 €
>Trainings 5.000,00 €
>Infrastructure 74.000,00 €
>LibOCon & FOSDEM 30.000,00 €
>Community projects 20.000,00 €
>Marketing budget 20.000,00 €
>
>
> Pending projects (as of January 1):
> cf. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2021
>
>Various tenders 414.053,54 €
> Streamline tendering process
> Text layout
> Cleanup & further improve ODF conformance
> Rolling Release: Finish MAR-based autoupdater for Windows
> C++ accessibility tests
> MC request: Improvements on the Membership Committee tooling
> Improve the accessibility checker for PDF/UA
> Support for Editing and Creation of SmartArt
> Convert Impress slideshow to drawinglayer primitives
> Writer tables: support cell margins (next to cell padding)
>
>Campus programme for student ambassadors 12.000,00 €
>MC request: TDF welcome kit for the members 2.000,00 €
>statutory auditor/chartered accountant 5.000,00 €
>
>
> New projects:
> cf. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2022
>
>Various tenders 400.000 €
> [ESC] Bitmaps in vcl: Merge RGB and A layer into one
> [ESC] Stabilize cross-page table layouting
> [ESC] Text runs of RTL scripts (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian) from
> imported PDF are reversed, PDFIProcessor::mirrorString not behaving
> [ESC] Font subsetter for font embedding
> [ESC] Bitmaps in vcl: Use a native format/depth
> [ESC] ODT export nondeterminism
> [ESC] Remove/Replace usages of XOR-Paint
> [ESC] Table Styles improvements
> [ESC] Fix accessibility issues
> [ESC] Unify Writer and Draw Images
> [ESC] Decouple master slide and layouts
> [ESC] Multi-color gradient
> [ESC] Look-ahead styleref field for Writer
> [ESC] GraphicFilter clean-up
> [ESC] UNO API changes subscription/feedback channel
> [ESC] Regular scan-build reports like we do with CppCheck
> [ESC] Normalized spell checking
> [ESC] Missing ODF Features: Concentric gradient fill of custom-shapes
> [ESC] Bridge the gap between drawinglayer and VCL
> [ESC] XLSX Aggressive Competitors tracker: gridlines for 3d line charts
>
>Various contracts and tenders 100.600 €
> Contract Weblate to sort out issues pointed out by the l10n community
> Hire 1 x New QA analyst
> part-time web technology expert
> Update & translate LibreLogo manual, complete LibreLogo unit tests
> Decidim startup
>
>[MC] Carbon compensation 3.750,00 €
>2-4% budget to FLOSS software as devprojects or support (incl. 2021
> leftover) 27.265 €
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] award text layout tender to Collabora

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:32 PM Cor Nouws 
wrote:

>
> Andreas Mantke wrote on 08/03/2022 18:34:
>
> > two questions:
> > a) who has participated in the voting?
> > b) who has participated in the decision about the budget item and its
> > amount?
> >
> > I think this information is important according to the CoI rules of TDF.
>
> As BoD we are always focused on working conform the rules, including
> CoI, and in a respectful way. You know that in the board we are pretty
> keen on that.
> Sharing details on how we complied to a subset of the rules, for in this
> case tenders, is odd IMO. And also adding extra layers of administration
> etc. of which I'm not a great fan.
>

While I agree with the principle you're stating here Cor, I have to agree
with Andreas that the Trustees need to see who moved the motion, who
participated in the discussion and who voted.These are normal parts of the
minuting of Board meetings and since the vote in question appears to have
been taken by secret e-mail this information is absent from the minutes we
have seen so far. It thus seems entirely reasonable to request these
details, even if the full rationale is not made public (which would also be
preferable). If it remains sensitive, advise the Trustees on the mailing
list created for that purpose. Continuing to withhold them will make people
think there's something to hide, and I am sure that's not the case.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Advisory Board Membership of Rubitech-Astra

[Simon Phipps]

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 9:29 AM Thorsten Behrens 
wrote:

>
> Andreas Mantke wrote:
> > In my view TDF should reconsider the membership of Rubitech-Astra after
> > breach of international law by Russia and the attack against the Ukraine.
> >
> The board has just decided to suspend the AB membership.
>

Thanks to the Board for this prompt action. Lothar's proposal for further
steps was a good one. Will TDF be following his proposal?

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Advisory Board Membership of Rubitech-Astra

[Simon Phipps]

I support the request Andreas had make and ask the Board to act as soon as
possible.

S.


On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, 13:30 Andreas Mantke,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> according to the TDF website
> (https://www.documentfoundation.org/governance/advisory-board/) LLC
> Rubitech-Astra is currently member of the TDF Advisoriy Board. I looked
> onto this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RusBITech. There
> is stated that their software is used for the Russian government and army.
>
> In my view TDF should reconsider the membership of Rubitech-Astra after
> breach of international law by Russia and the attack against the Ukraine.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> ## Free Software Advocate
> ## Plone add-on developer
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] Decidim startup proposal

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Emiliano!  Thanks for the reply.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 12:04 AM Emiliano Vavassori <
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

>  It would have been a waste of efforts
> to change the platform at this point and mostly unhelpful/unfruitful to
> change it without a clear understanding of its shortcomings, with the
> regards of our use cases; a knowledge we can achieve only having some
> processes mapped in the platform.
>

Yes, it's good to start with something to gain the experience needed to
make a good permanent choice, I agree.  As long as we do actually take an
evaluation step before committing long-term to this tool (rather than
become victims of the sunk-cost fallacy
<https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/>) that's a fine
approach.


> The Decidim community itself is using the same platform to discuss and
> shape the framework redesigns: https://meta.decidim.org/
>

Thanks for that. Decidim is something of a special case - knowing that
community I would totally expect them to use Decidim to design Decidim!  So
I still think it would be worth asking around to see if there is another
open source community using Decidim/Consul/LiquidFeedback in their
governance who can share their experiences. I can do that if you want or
there are others here who participate in the Open Source Foundations
mailing list who could do so.

If this holds true at the minimum, it will leave a very small space for
> Trustees to be included in the working group, so we either:
>   1) ask the Trustees, and have to manage in the end to choose who is
> included or excluded and on which (more or less) arbitrary basis do this
> choice (not the most fair/inclusive outcome, honestly), or
>   2) ask directly to selected people to participate to the working
> group, which is leaner than 1) but indeed arbitrary and not inclusive.
>

Right, I recognise the issues you describe. All the same it seems to me
arbitrary inclusion is better than none at all! There are clearly some of
us who are interested in donating effort but until the "members" list has
been asked there's no way to know exactly how many.


> I am more of the opinion that, once the working group has reached a
> quasi-working setup, involving the community back is the right thing to
> do, to run some simulations, possibly in parallel to the real BoD
> decisions, to have some time to collect volunteers' and members'
> feedback/improvements on the implemented processes, before the BoD
> finally approves the use of the platform.
>

Widening the circle once the design consultation has been delivered seems
smart, good proposal.  The participative approach has its own potential
problems so a diverse oversight group is important. I'd suggest focussing
on involving Trustees in the actual deployment working group rather than
just as test subjects, if the feeling that an insider group is in control
of TDF is to be overcome.

Again, thanks for your work here and I remain happy to help.

Cheers!

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Decidim startup proposal

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Emiliano!

Many thanks for your work on this document, which is very useful. I do
think a tool for Trustees to discuss Foundation matters is very important
and I largely agree with your analysis. I also agree with your evaluation
that Decidim is a very raw tool that needs a lot of shaping - which is a
necessary aspect given it is intended to facilitate the full
democratic process for cities, states and nations.

In a spirit of general support for your proposal, I do have some questions
and as we don't have a collaboration tool yet I have to ask them here!

   - You mention that Decidim is not the only potential tool, and assert
   that analysing the internal processes is more important than evaluating
   which tool to use. I definitely agree that a specification should come
   first. I wonder if you can tell us briefly why you already picked Decidim
   over the other well-known tools (specifically Consul and LiquidFeedback)?
   - With only a few hundred Trustees our use case would be very small
   compared with most of the tool's applications (although I am aware that
   these tools have parts that are used by consultation groups). Are there any
   useful examples of Decidim (or Consul) being used for the tasks we are
   considering? I am not asserting a problem, just wondering if there's an
   example inspiring you.
   - Given the goal here is to widen participation beyond the current
   insiders, have you considered including some Trustees in the working group
   as well?

Thanks again for your time and effort on this,

Simon

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:18 PM Emiliano Vavassori <
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

> Dear members and community,
>
> With the present email I'd like to share a (slightly redacted) version
> of the proposal I made to the Board of Directors for the ongoing effort
> of implementing a platform for participatory democracy, Decidim.
>
> You may find all the details in the document at:
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4BQ6S82PJqMb2YQ
>
> I am available, of course, to clarify any doubts the provided proposal
> will raise.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Emiliano Vavassori
> syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

[board-discuss] Bounty Programme/Fund

[Simon Phipps]

I've spawned a new thread as this is a different topic.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:01 PM Mike Saunders <
mike.saund...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> On 15.02.22 15:14, Cor Nouws wrote:
> >
> > Also: at the moment, there is no mechanism in place run bounties by e.g.
> > bundling of donations of users. Would we have that, then it could be a
> > way to allow donations to steer (a tiny bit of) development.
>
> Let me just add something here from a marketing / social media / Reddit
> etc. perspective. We see a huge amount of requests for new features and
> fixes, and our response is usually: "You can get involved and help out"
> (with a link to whatcanidoforlibreoffice.org), or "Consider funding a
> certified developer" (with a link to the relevant website page).
>
> A common reply to that is: "Well, I have no technical abilities to help
> out, and the certified developer page is long and it's not clear how
> much things cost" etc.
>
> So some kind of bounty system may help to create a more direct link
> between users (especially donors) and developers. But then Ilmari has
> written about issues with FOSS bounty platforms before:
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2021-January/086741.html
>
> So I don't know what the solution is, but as someone who's monitoring
> our social media channels, Reddit and other things every day, I see a
> huge number of feature requests. Many end up on Bugzilla as enhancement
> requests too, of course.
>

Back in the day, one proposal for handling this was to have a seperate
tendering programme for community-initiated feature requests, funded with
the income from putting LibreOffice in the Mac & Windows App stores.

The features to be implemented would be community-sourced, converted from
request to proper proposal by a staff member (possibly also funded from the
app revenue), validated by ESC and then voted by users The user voting
would require sufficient "karma", e.g. from answering on user forums or by
virtue of being a Trustee, or possibly by donating to the fund. We had
hoped to prefer "new" contributors in the tendering process, and also make
it agile enough to not require a specialist sales-person to participate.

That's the undetailed synopsis; I think I have a longer description
somewhere in a haunted folder if the new Board is interested.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs

[Simon Phipps]

Hi all!

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:45 PM sophi  wrote:

>
> Their is even no written proposal at the moment, but only a discussion
> on the pros and cons and what it could bring to the project. But it
> seems impossible to discuss because the ecosystem companies won't allow it.
>

And yet it seems here we are discussing it!  It's fun to do things that
aren't allowed :-)

The OP did indeed not make a written proposal, but there still* a *Board
Motion to hire two developers despite this. Personally (and I don't work
for any "ecosystem company" or TDF or belong to a local group) I don't feel
either the OP's proposal or any other response commenting on it here
represents me.

I volunteered here because I think LibreOffice is massively important to
the free/open source software movement, as well as to the freedom of
citizens globally, including especially non-English-speaking and
differently-able people. I want to see TDF spend its money in the service
of that global movement to the maximum extent it has allowed itself to in
its bylaws. I especially believe TDF needs to act to allow individuals to
avoid the need to use centralised services for making, reading and sharing
documents of all kinds.

Right now TDF is not doing so, despite being given millions of euros by
end-users. My concern is thus not with the desire to spend donated money on
donor problems - we should do more of it, and better, and not let any
corporate interest stop us. My concern is with accepting as agreed the
proposal that TDF should hire developers and afterwards address what they
would do, how and under whose supervision. I can see *significant* risks
from doing so and I do not want in any way to endorse that premature
proposal.

So sure, let's have a pros and cons discussion.  I have already chipped in
positively elsewhere and look forward to being able to amplify other
positive ideas, But first let's take the political and premature motion off
the table so that no-one feels their contribution is either supporting or
opposing it.  It has led to an essential discussion becoming yet another
divisive fight and that's got to stop.

Cheers!

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Thorsten!

Thanks for your positive contribution which I agree with completely
(although I do have a comment, see below).

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:09 PM Thorsten Behrens 
wrote:

> Hi *,
>
> with the lively discussion ensuing here, it is perhaps worth sharing
> my position ahead of the board call tomorrow:
>
> Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house
> developers
> > to address our donors specific needs
> >
> I think it is worth considering, whether TDF should employ dedicated
> developers. I'm not in general against it.
>
> It is putting the cart in front of the horse though, to start with:
>
> * we want TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice
>
> and then follow with
>
> * therefore we must employ two developers
>
> I believe it is more productive to start thinking about what we want
> to achieve, in order to fulfill our mission. It is therefore
> encouraging to read some good thoughts about that (RTL/CTL, a11y, and
> other under-developed areas with little ecosystem contributions).
>
> The board can then ponder what is the best way to achieve those goals,
> relative to other demands. It is possible, but by no means certain,
> that actually hiring specialised staff is indeed the most economic way
> forward (e.g. for an area like a11y).
>

For Accessibility, my preference would be to tender for a specialist
organisation to either triage accessibility bugs or implement capabilities
for a fixed period followed by a performance review and re-tendering
(possibly for a longer period). By doing that we would avoid having to also
develop in-house engineering management and product accessibility
expertise. This is beyond the current tendering practice in that we would
ask the successful applicant to also direct and design their work.


>
> It should be noted though, also to manage expectations, that mastering
> even a small area in LibreOffice takes many years to learn. So hiring
> for a role has long-term implications then on which kind of tasks,
> features or bugfixes can be done in-house.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Thorsten
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Sophi!

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:32 PM sophi  wrote:

> Hi Kendy,
> Le 09/02/2022 à 15:57, Jan Holesovsky a écrit :
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > Paolo Vecchi píše v St 09. 02. 2022 v 15:09 +0100:
> >
> >> The community and our valuable members of the ecosystem have been
> >> asking us to invest more in development
> >
> > It is important to understand that "community" means "contributors"; as
> > opposed to "users".  "Users" are not part of the "community", until
> > they start contributing; via code, QA, translations, marketing under
> > the TDF umbrella, etc.
> >
> > With that in mind - can you please point us to those requests?
>
> Sorry to be so insistent about RTL/CJK, but to illustrate what it means,
> see this bug:
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104597#c40
> it is months on the ESC minutes and it's very impacting for Arabic
> versions. This is one on the top of my head, but there are more of them
> on fonts, etc.
> If you look at the names commenting this issue, you'll see several
> contributors here.
>

Do you have any insight into why the community has not chosen to fix the
issue please?

Thanks

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Andreas!

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:59 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

>
> but it wouldn't improve the situation, if - like today - the experienced
> fisherman / fishermen take every new talented fisher immediately from
> the free software developer (volunteer) market.
>
> Thus there is now chance for a divers market with a lot of small and
> local businesses around the LibreOffice project. Thus the (business)
> user of LibreOffice will not get the opportunity to choose between
> different service provider.
>
> If this situation will not change immediately the LibreOffice
> certification program will not give a competitive edge.
>

Do you believe TDF could spend donated funds on the salaries of developers
who write LibreOffice, Andreas? As I recall when we were on the Board you
asserted this would be an improper use of TDF's funding under its bylaws?


For those unaware: TDF has previously extensively considered the proposal
to employ LibreOffice developers, which is, as Daniel has commented,
superficially very appealing. However, wanting something is not the same as
it being possible to have something! The reasons we do not currently have
internal developers include (among others):

   1. The question of whether TDF can spend money developing software. It
   has been asserted that it cannot.
   2. The question of who would decide what was written, and how, and how
   developers would be properly managed.
   3. Related to this, the moral imperative that TDF should not compete
   with its trustees.

While I do not necessarily agree with the thinking behind these issues, any
proposal before the Board would need a thoughtful and balanced proposal for
resolving each of them. Perhaps one of the folk supporting the Board agenda
item would like to write a paper that does that?

Cheers

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Looking forward, not backwards (was: Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Michael!

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:34 AM Michael Weghorn 
wrote:

>
> I think tendering works best for items where the scope is clear
> beforehand, while here it would be much easier to say:
> "Here is a ranked list of a11y issues, spend X days on fixing as many as
> you can.", which to my knowledge doesn't really fit the tender model
> particularly well.
>
> Maybe others have better ideas on potential a11y topics to tender or
> there are better ways to handle this, that's just the story behind the
> above-mentioned proposal... (which is the one clearly related to a11y in
> the list of proposals that ESC was voting on, [2]).
>

You are right that TDF's current tendering approach is designed for
well-understood tasks that the ESC members know is needed but do not want
to do. I too was always disappointed how few of the accessibility tasks on
the list fell into that category while I was on the Board. It seemed that
things needed sufficient specialist experience that writing a satisfactory
tender was sometimes the first task that needed doing!

Thus (and as you imply) the best approach might be for TDF to have an
accessibility specialist define the work and then execute on it, instead of
having the ESC do so directly. While this doesn't fit today's tendering
process well, maybe we need to retain an accessibility expert, give them a
budget and have them specify tasks (with ESC agreement) and then either
perform them, lead a team performing them or select a contractor to perform
them.

Cheers,

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Marco!

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Marco Marinello 
wrote:

> Hi Simon,
> Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
>
> I especially liked something in your first idea:
>
> TDF should publicly endorse
>> this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
>> development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
>> of the day – always LibreOffice Online
>
>
> I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the
> context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be
> designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more
> likely to see TDF's mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow
> community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should
> do and then looking for those others!
>
> beware that the four bullet points I mentioned in the first email are not
> intended to be split.
>

Thanks for the comment - I do understand, it is irritating when people
cherry-pick a larger comment. Neverless, it's for a reason here. The other
three bullets were specifically about LibreOffice Online and I agree with
Thorsten and others that it's best to separate the attic-isation process
from the specific use case, so I have focussed on your first bullet which I
believe could form the basis for a general case.

Cheers!

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Marco!  Thanks for contributing.

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:52 AM Marco Marinello 
wrote:

>
> regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
> "actization" of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.
>

My apologies for the delay Marco, I had meant to comment on your proposal
but got distracted!


> I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
> clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF.


I suggest being very cautious with making "strong rules" in a volunteer
community. While superficially they seem good at the time, our experience
at TDF has been that strong rules made under challenging condition turn out
to be problematic when conditions have changed, and can then be used
disruptively. The more rules there are, the more games can be played with
them.

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
> this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
> development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
> of the day – always LibreOffice Online


I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the
context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be
designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more
likely to see TDF's mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow
community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should
do and then looking for those others!

Cheers,

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Andreas! Hi Sophie!

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 14.01.22 um 19:14 schrieb Simon Phipps:
>
> > If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a
> > huge opportunity and responsibility to put all this behind them and
> > lead positively. It must shun divisiveness and seek ways to rekindle
> > solidarity by emphasizing equality and promoting freedom. This will
> > not be done treating the motivations of some participants as suspect!
> > In fact almost everyone is pursuing an "interest", almost by
> > definition in a collaborative community!
> >
> Sure, without following an interest you wouldn't participate and invest
> your live time in that community.
>
> But at least if you are a member of a charity's body you need to be open
> and transparent about such interests and rethink, if following them
> foster the objectives of the organization. If following your interest
> (commercial or non-commercial) is in opposite to that, a member of the
> body has to put his interest last. If she / he is not able to follow
> such rule, she / he shouldn't reconsider his membership, because
> otherwise she / he most probably will get very soon into the situation
> to violate her / his duty as a member of the body.
>
> In short: if you wear to hats (TDF / personal interest) you as a member
> of a body has to wear the TDF hat in the first place.
>

I absolutely agree with you, Andreas. I especially agree with your
observation above that vested interests can be of various kinds, not just
commercial. I believe that's an area that needs attention, as most people
at TDF have a link with a community, political campaign, job, career
reputation or company (and so on) that could make them act in a way that
prioritises their interest over the charity.

I thought what Sophi said was relevant here:

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:26 PM sophi  wrote:

We need to have a balance between commercial and charitable activities. In
> my very own opinion, we have moved away from this balance and we could
> have reshaped it during the pandemic.


I completely agree that things are out of balance, and I very much agree
that we should look to restore a balance of interests, but I don't think
the contrast is between "commercial and charitable". It is rather between
the interests of individuals and the interests of the charity as a whole.
We keep focussing on commercial interests, but in doing so we neglect other
motivations for taking a position on the functioning of TDF. To move on we
will need to recognise that TDF is a charity formed as home for a
convergence of interests and that a focus too much on the harms or benefits
of any one sort of interest is the origin of our problems.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Sophie,

I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to
amplify it.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:14 AM sophi  wrote:

>
> On my point of view, it was not about achieving market dominance but
> about solidarity. And TDF has failed here, again on my point of view.
>

Yes, I have to agree with you. Freedom, equality and solidarity used to be
the norm at TDF. Over the last couple of years that has largely ended at
the Foundation level (fortunately our community still has many parts where
this is not true). This has led to progress grinding to a halt
through mistrust. For example, both TDC and LOOL were ended just at the
point where the external conditions suggested they were going to flourish.
Little has been achieved in their place as you observe, and as the tired
bickering in this thread illustrates.

Egalitarianism was replaced by turning inwards to fight unproductively
among those privileged to be allowed information - and in the process to
slander those involved before. As a result of this the Foundation has
turned even more closed, with Board inflighting leaving the Trustees in the
dark while the arguments went on. There has consequently been no spirit of
solidarity to harness to do good outside the project. As you say, that is
tragic, and I really appreciate your observation of it.

If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a huge
opportunity and responsibility to put all this behind them and lead
positively. It must shun divisiveness and seek ways to rekindle solidarity
by emphasizing equality and promoting freedom. This will not be done
treating the motivations of some participants as suspect! In fact almost
everyone is pursuing an "interest", almost by definition in a collaborative
community!

As Maslow <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs>
observed, before higher-level behaviours can be cultivated, basic needs
must be met - especially belonging and esteem. The Foundation needs to be
more inclusive of all its trustees in its processes rather than just
consulting them for votes once every two years. It needs to be realistic
about the pragmatics of large-scale software engineering and how it's paid
for and rein-in those trying to frame "commercial" as tainted. It has to
seek ways to encourage both community and commercial activities inside its
"umbrella" rather than treating some as clean and some as unclean.

I very much hope the new Board will engage positively and unanimously on
these things. I'm not finding the current conversation encouraging but I
have hopes the new team will take a firm hold and change things for the
better.

Best regards

Simon
--
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Approval of amended Rules of Procedure which include CoI Policy

[Simon Phipps]

Who participated in the vote please? Detached from the minutes its not
obvious.

Thanks

Simon



On Tue, 23 Nov 2021, 06:50 Emiliano Vavassori, <
emiliano.vavass...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the following decision, which was taken in private on 2021-10-15, is now
> made public in accordance with our statutes.
>
> 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 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
>
> The vote is quorate.
>
> A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes.
>
> > I hereby call for the following combined VOTE (i.e. a single agreement
> counts towards the approval of both points; the two points cannot be voted
> individually, nor it is possible to agree on one point and disagree on the
> other one):
> >
> > * approve the proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure [1], that
> includes the Conflict of Interest Policy [2], both as published in my email
> from 4th October 2021 on board-discuss@documentfoundation.org, to become
> effective immediately after publication;
> >
> > and
> >
> > * publish the amended Rules of Procedure to the members and the general
> public on 1st November, 2021
> >
> > As usual, the vote will run for the next 72 hours, starting from the
> moment this mail vote is sent.
> >
> > [1]:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00219.html
>
> > [2]:
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>
> Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstains, 1 disapproval.
> One deputy supports the motion.
> Decision: The proposal has been accepted.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Emiliano Vavassori, Member of the Board of Directors
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2021-10-22

[Simon Phipps]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:24 PM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> On 28/10/2021 15:11, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> While we're talking terminology, I have to point out that the word
> "external" is not appropriate here.
>
>
> You used the term "guests" so I believed you were referring to external
> consultants of which there were none.
>

Ah, I see your confusion!  No, MC Members and Trustees as well as staff
would also be "guests" if invited to a Board executive session - one might
even consider Board Deputies who are not representing a director (so have
no executive role) to be guests at such a session, although that's not been
the norm so far.

No matter, it remains important to list who was attending while the board
is in executive session so there's less scope for this sort of confusion.
Disclosure is usually best!

Cheers

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2021-10-22

[Simon Phipps]

Many thanks Paolo.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:32 PM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> there were no external participants at the meeting.
>

I appreciate the confirmation. My request to see the attendees of this part
of the meeting explicitly listed in the minutes stands however - it's
something we have done in the past and it remains important.

While we're talking terminology, I have to point out that the word
"external" is not appropriate here. MC members and Trustees are not
"external", they are in roles defined by our bylaws and statutes and are as
much a part of TDF as the directors.When the Board goes into an executive
session to conduct necessarily secret business they would usually leave
unless they have been invited to stay to contribute to the business that is
remaining secret from other Trustees and MC members. That doesn't make us
all "outsiders" no matter how often we are treated as such. Sometimes I
think the Board is more afraid of scrutiny by the Trustees and Members than
it is of the evolving market that could push LibreOffice into gradual
irrelevance.

Listing who is present is one small but important part of keeping the
various parts of the Foundation united, alongside timely disclosures of
previously secret discussions (and not just the outcomes), meaningful
ongoing disclosures of the interests of directors and officers including
indirect and "keiretsu-style" interests, and TDF-wide collaboration over
open processes. Disclosure must not be equated with exclusion; almost
everyone has an interest to declare (those of us without one are rare
animals) so disclosure has to be the dominant mode. I'll keep calling for
early disclosure to and inclusion of MC and Trustees at least until it
becomes the norm!

Cheers

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2021-10-22

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Stephen

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 9:36 AM Stephan Ficht <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> Am 27.10.21 um 14:17 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > who was present in the secret part of the meeting?
>
> The general public has to leave after the public part has ended. This is
> always checked before the private part starts.
>

Thanks, I am well aware of both the principle and the practice and can
probably guess who remained reasonably accurately.

What I am asking is that the Minutes make note of who remains in the
meeting at this point, since people come and go and sometimes there may
also be guests invited by the Board to this part (which is almost a
separate meeting). Since secret decision-making (which is rarely fully
minuted even when disclosed) occurs in the name of the Trustees in this
part of the meeting it's important there's at least a public record of who
gets to participate and influence the secret decisions.

Cheers

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2021-10-22

[Simon Phipps]

Hi! Please can you clarify who was present in the secret part of the
meeting?

Thanks

Simon

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, 12:21 Stephan Ficht, <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> The Document Foundation
> Board of Directors Meeting 2021-10-22
> Meeting Minutes
>
> Date: 2021-10-22
> Location: Jitsi
>
> Session chair: Lothar Becker
> Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht
>
> In the meeting:
>Board - Emiliano Vavassori, Lothar Becker, Thorsten Behrens, Cor
> Nouws, Michael Meeks
>Board Deputies - Nicolas Christener, Paolo Vecchi
>Membership Committee -
>Membership Committee Deputies -
>Team - Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, Guilhem Moulin
>Community - Jan Holesovsky
>
> Chairman of the Board is in the meeting. One of the Chairman or Deputy
> Chairman is required to be present or represented for having a quorate
> call.
>
> The Board of Directors at time of the call consists of 7 seat holders
> without deputies. In order to be quorate, the call needs to have 1/2 of
> the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of
> Directors members are attending the call.
>
> The board waives all formal statutory requirements, or requirements in
> the foundations articles, or other requirements regarding form and
> invitation, time limits, and for the topics discussed in this meeting.
>
> The meeting is quorate and invitation happened in time. From now on,
> motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of those
> remaining present. The majority threshold is currently 4.
>
> The meeting commences 13:03 Berlin time.
>
> Public Part
>
> 1. Q: Answering questions from the community (all, 10 minutes)
>Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions
> to the board and about TDF
>+ need one official meeting (Lothar)
> + haven't it yet (Florian)
> + usually during conf
> + two weeks to invite
> + Friday, December 17 - for budget planning
> + every one fine? (Lothar)
>  + agreed
>
> Public meeting ends at 13:05 Berlin time.
>
> Private Part
>
> 2. Discuss & further steps: Conflict of interest policy for the board as
> part of the Rules of Procedures (legal subgroup, all 45min)
>Rationale: Discussing and understanding a version of the policy,
> defining where to ask legal advice and how to do that
>Reason why in private: preliminary wordings of a legal text for rules
> of procedure, before legal advice
>
> 3. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (owner of the item, all 5min)
>Rationale: if there is popping up an item after sending the agenda
>– no item popped up –
>
> Private meeting ends at 14:02 Berlin time.
>
> Lothar Becker (Session chair)
> Stephan Ficht (Keeper of the minutes)
>
> --
> Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, October 22nd at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Simon Phipps]

Thanks for the agenda, Stephen.

It seems very odd indeed to discuss the Conflict of Interest policy in
secret after a Director has opened the topic for public consideration[1]
and when the source document is public[2], especially after a Trustee has
called for more and not less transparency[3]. Please can a director explain
why the Board has made this decision? The policy does not itself disclose
any private or commercially sensitive information, and deciding to seek
legal advice does not in and of itself demand secrecy; neither would a fear
of controversy or scrutiny.

Cheers

Simon


[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05086.html
[2]
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Membership_Committee_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_final.pdf
[3]
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05093.html

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:06 PM Stephan Ficht <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Dear Community,
>
> find below the agenda for our
>
> -> TDF board meeting with a public part and followed by a private part
> -> on Friday, October 22nd at 1300 Berlin time
>
> For time zone conversion, see e.g.
>
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20211022T13=37=136=241=589
>
> -> at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
> We meet on Jitsi, and please, if possible use Chrome browser and do not
> use video and until not speaking up please mute.
>
>
> -> AGENDA:
>
> Public Part
>
> 1. Q: Answering questions from the community (all, 10 minutes)
>Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions
> to the board and about TDF
>
> Private Part
>
> 2. Discuss & further steps: Conflict of interest policy for the board as
> part of the Rules of Procedures (legal subgroup, all 45min)
> Rationale: Discussing and understanding a version of the policy that
> is currently in discussion, defining how to ask legal advice on it
> Reason why in private: preliminary wordings of an edited legal text
> for rules of procedure, before legal advice on that edited version
>
> 3. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (owner of the item, all 5min)
> Rationale: if there is popping up an item after sending the agenda
> (it may also be partially in public, if no confidential item will be
> touched)
>
>  - No more topic in private so far -
>
> --
> Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Uwe!

TDF has a mailing list, legal@df, that is the point-of-first-contact for
any inbound legal matters (it's referenced on various web pages). It
comprises select staff, the Board's formal Legal Committee, and a few
former directors - all Trustees but I am not entirely sure who. We
confidentially consider licensing enquiries, DMCA letters, commercial
contract terms and other matters which would be costly for TDF to get
formal first review from a fee-charging entity. We use our collective
memory of TDF's history, our business experience and our community
experience to evaluate and (mostly help Florian) route to the correct
handler. By using a larger informal group operating by consensus we are
able to be responsive without creating undue risk. We have no authority -
any actions need to be taken by the board or its empowered delegates. We
save TDF a bunch of money on legal triage.

The list existed before I joined the Board six years ago (possibly even
when I was on the first MC) and I have been on it for a long time, with the
Board's consent. I am often the first responder to issues. I am not aware
of any documentation for it - it's just one of those things that gets
things done in a timely manner rather than consigning them forever to
discussion.

HTH,

Simon

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 10:17 AM Uwe Altmann  wrote:

> Hi Simom
>
> Am 06.10.21 um 14:46 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > I will note none of the text has been supplied to or discussed by the
> legal
> > committee (where I am a volunteer).
>
> Could you (or soemone else) please explain or point me to a location where
> I can find more on that legal committe? I tried a search at
> https://www.documentfoundation.org/ which didn't find anything.
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> Uwe Altmann
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Emiliano, and thanks for your reply! I'm grateful for the effort you are
putting in to this activity.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 10:37 AM Emiliano Vavassori <
emiliano.vavass...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:.

>
> Someone, inside the Board, asked to extend the proposed policy by
> default to any member, but I must say I am very reluctant in doing so
> without any direct involvement of other TDF bodies (incl. the Membership
> Committee and the Board of Trustees, for example).


The MC has already reviewed the version that applies to them (quite a
different use case may I say, since they have such a narrow set of
responsibilities even though they are important). TDF's Board of Trustees
*is* the Members! That's who I am asking the Board to have review this
document, with a relatively short deadline so as not to be disruptive.
Trust me, I know how hard it is to get TDF's Board to make a decision!

I definitely am not proposing a public review at this stage. Let's not
confuse the Trustees/Members. The Trustees are ultimately the people the
Board and MC is accountable to and a policy aimed at controlling what their
elected representatives can and can't do is certainly of interest to them.

Cheers

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Emiliano!  Many thanks for the reply.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Emiliano Vavassori <
emiliano.vavass...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> As I read §1.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors, it
> is mandatory to make available a proposal of the amendments to said
> Rules to the public at lease one week in advance a final vote from the
> Board, and that's what my message was sent for. The draft proposed aims
> to modify the Rules of Procedure to include a Conflict of Interest policy.
>

I think you are right, yes, which is why I sought clarification whether
this was the Board providing formal notice of an intent to make such a
modification. From your reply I see that is not the case, and we should
consequently expect the Board to provide such notice when a final version
is expected to be brought to the vote.

For the record, I fully support having a Conflict of Interest policy at
TDF. When I was on the Board we always operated as if there was one
already, based on consensus consideration of the bylaws, and I recall
Directors respected that consensus. Having a formally accepted position is
an improvement if it reflects the bylaws and is fair to all forms of
interest parties may have.

Given this is such an important topic, I request that the Board hold a
public process (or at minimum open to Members) to review the text they
intend to vote on and provide Members with enough time to consider the text
and a means to seek clarifications, rather than performing a *fait
accomplis* with a minimal public review period -- something I know you and
some colleagues care about a great deal.


> This proposal of amendments is my own, but, as already clarified by
> others, is supported by other directors.
>

I will note none of the text has been supplied to or discussed by the legal
committee (where I am a volunteer).


> The official Board approval (or an eventual rejection) is determined
> then when this proposal will be voted by the Board itself.
>

Naturally - hopefully a text that can be unanimously approved will arise
so that there is no taint of partisanship. Do you or your fellow directors
have insight when that is planned? I don't recall seeing it mentioned in
previous minutes but I may have overlooked it.


> I hope this clarifies your doubts.


Very useful - thanks again for your reply

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Member, *The Document Foundation
*Desk:*  +44 238 098 7027  *Mobile/Signal:* +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Simon Phipps]

With respect, Paolo, that does not answer the question either.

S.

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:07 PM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> I believe that in the email is clearly stated that the proposal follows
> Art. 1.2 of the rules of procedure which has my full support as well as the
> support of other Directors.
>
> The official Board vote will start next week.
>
> Ciao
>
> Paolo
>
> On 05/10/2021 13:11, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, Emiliano, is this an official Board communication or a
> personal message from you?
>
> S.
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:55 PM Emiliano Vavassori <
> emiliano.vavass...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear fellow community,
>>
>> I'd like to make available, with the present message, the draft of an
>> amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors, aimed at
>> including a Conflict of Interest Policy. This process is stated in § 1.2
>> of said Rules of Procedure [1].
>>
>> The Membership Committee has recently adopted a Conflict of Interest
>> Policy [2]. Other directors and myself want a Conflict of Interest
>> Policy also for the Board of Directors, as a guide to correct behavior;
>> we also think that having a policy would simplify internal processes and
>> the onboarding of the new members, both in the Board of Directors and in
>> the Membership Committee.
>>
>> As per said §1.2 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose the following
>> amendment. The Preamble will be changed to read:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Preamble
>>
>> In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
>> agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any
>> regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes,
>> decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.
>>
>> Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of
>> Interest Policy:
>>
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>>
>> Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the
>> Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest
>> Policy always shall prevail.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Background information:
>>
>> The Board of Directors discussed, in the previous month, to implement a
>> Conflict of Interest Policy (from now on, CoI Policy) in reply to the
>> kind suggestion of the Membership Committee.
>>
>> The MC itself adopted a CoI Policy (see [2]), that was then forwarded to
>> the Board of Directors as a proposal. It has been reviewed by our legal
>> consultant, so was the Membership Committee’s version, and optimized to
>> adhere to the specific provisions of the Statutes for the Board of
>> Directors. The Board of Directors will vote on the definitive adoption
>> of the proposed CoI Policy in a week.
>>
>> The proposed CoI Policy condenses predicaments contained in various
>> sections of the TDF Statutes and common behaviors when dealing with
>> possibly overlapping loyalties (e.g. recusing themselves from voting on
>> a specific topic); this document is, in the end, a simpler guide to
>> quickly identify and react upon possible conflict of interest by the
>> members of the Board of Directors.
>>
>> The intent is to better manage overlapping loyalties and not to actively
>> exclude a potentially conflicted person from any decisions at all taken
>> in the Board, but, if a conflict exists, only on specific topics related
>> to said conflict.
>>
>> Please find the proposed text for the Board of Directors’ Conflict of
>> Interest Policy in the link above (or in [3]).
>>
>> We are, as always, available to clarify any issues and questions that
>> may arise in the meantime.
>>
>> Cheers, regards,
>>
>> [1]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules
>>
>> [2]:
>>
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Membership_Committee_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_final.pdf
>>
>> [3]:
>>
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Emiliano Vavassori, Member of the Board of Directors
>> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
>> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe e-mail to:
>> board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
>> Pr

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Simon Phipps]

With respect, Franklin, that doesn't answer the question. Is this an
official Board communication that Emiliano has sent?

Cheers

Simon

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:19 PM Franklin Weng <
frank...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> Definitely not only from Emiliano.
>
>
> Franklin
>
>
> Simon Phipps 於 2021/10/5 下午7:11 寫道:
>
> Just to be clear, Emiliano, is this an official Board communication or a
> personal message from you?
>
> S.
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:55 PM Emiliano Vavassori <
> emiliano.vavass...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear fellow community,
>>
>> I'd like to make available, with the present message, the draft of an
>> amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors, aimed at
>> including a Conflict of Interest Policy. This process is stated in § 1.2
>> of said Rules of Procedure [1].
>>
>> The Membership Committee has recently adopted a Conflict of Interest
>> Policy [2]. Other directors and myself want a Conflict of Interest
>> Policy also for the Board of Directors, as a guide to correct behavior;
>> we also think that having a policy would simplify internal processes and
>> the onboarding of the new members, both in the Board of Directors and in
>> the Membership Committee.
>>
>> As per said §1.2 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose the following
>> amendment. The Preamble will be changed to read:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Preamble
>>
>> In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
>> agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any
>> regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes,
>> decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.
>>
>> Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of
>> Interest Policy:
>>
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>>
>> Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the
>> Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest
>> Policy always shall prevail.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Background information:
>>
>> The Board of Directors discussed, in the previous month, to implement a
>> Conflict of Interest Policy (from now on, CoI Policy) in reply to the
>> kind suggestion of the Membership Committee.
>>
>> The MC itself adopted a CoI Policy (see [2]), that was then forwarded to
>> the Board of Directors as a proposal. It has been reviewed by our legal
>> consultant, so was the Membership Committee’s version, and optimized to
>> adhere to the specific provisions of the Statutes for the Board of
>> Directors. The Board of Directors will vote on the definitive adoption
>> of the proposed CoI Policy in a week.
>>
>> The proposed CoI Policy condenses predicaments contained in various
>> sections of the TDF Statutes and common behaviors when dealing with
>> possibly overlapping loyalties (e.g. recusing themselves from voting on
>> a specific topic); this document is, in the end, a simpler guide to
>> quickly identify and react upon possible conflict of interest by the
>> members of the Board of Directors.
>>
>> The intent is to better manage overlapping loyalties and not to actively
>> exclude a potentially conflicted person from any decisions at all taken
>> in the Board, but, if a conflict exists, only on specific topics related
>> to said conflict.
>>
>> Please find the proposed text for the Board of Directors’ Conflict of
>> Interest Policy in the link above (or in [3]).
>>
>> We are, as always, available to clarify any issues and questions that
>> may arise in the meantime.
>>
>> Cheers, regards,
>>
>> [1]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules
>>
>> [2]:
>>
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Membership_Committee_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_final.pdf
>>
>> [3]:
>>
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Emiliano Vavassori, Member of the Board of Directors
>> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
>> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe e-mail to:
>> board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
>> Problems?
>> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiqu

Re: [board-discuss] Conflict of Interest Policy

[Simon Phipps]

Just to be clear, Emiliano, is this an official Board communication or a
personal message from you?

S.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:55 PM Emiliano Vavassori <
emiliano.vavass...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Dear fellow community,
>
> I'd like to make available, with the present message, the draft of an
> amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors, aimed at
> including a Conflict of Interest Policy. This process is stated in § 1.2
> of said Rules of Procedure [1].
>
> The Membership Committee has recently adopted a Conflict of Interest
> Policy [2]. Other directors and myself want a Conflict of Interest
> Policy also for the Board of Directors, as a guide to correct behavior;
> we also think that having a policy would simplify internal processes and
> the onboarding of the new members, both in the Board of Directors and in
> the Membership Committee.
>
> As per said §1.2 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose the following
> amendment. The Preamble will be changed to read:
>
> ---
>
> Preamble
>
> In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
> agrees on the following rules of procedure. Notwithstanding any
> regulations in the statutes, this document defines board processes,
> decision making, as well as sharing and delegation of board tasks.
>
> Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of
> Interest Policy:
>
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>
> Should elements of the Rules of Procedure be in collision with the
> Conflict of Interest Policy, the rules of the Conflict of Interest
> Policy always shall prevail.
>
> ---
>
> Background information:
>
> The Board of Directors discussed, in the previous month, to implement a
> Conflict of Interest Policy (from now on, CoI Policy) in reply to the
> kind suggestion of the Membership Committee.
>
> The MC itself adopted a CoI Policy (see [2]), that was then forwarded to
> the Board of Directors as a proposal. It has been reviewed by our legal
> consultant, so was the Membership Committee’s version, and optimized to
> adhere to the specific provisions of the Statutes for the Board of
> Directors. The Board of Directors will vote on the definitive adoption
> of the proposed CoI Policy in a week.
>
> The proposed CoI Policy condenses predicaments contained in various
> sections of the TDF Statutes and common behaviors when dealing with
> possibly overlapping loyalties (e.g. recusing themselves from voting on
> a specific topic); this document is, in the end, a simpler guide to
> quickly identify and react upon possible conflict of interest by the
> members of the Board of Directors.
>
> The intent is to better manage overlapping loyalties and not to actively
> exclude a potentially conflicted person from any decisions at all taken
> in the Board, but, if a conflict exists, only on specific topics related
> to said conflict.
>
> Please find the proposed text for the Board of Directors’ Conflict of
> Interest Policy in the link above (or in [3]).
>
> We are, as always, available to clarify any issues and questions that
> may arise in the meantime.
>
> Cheers, regards,
>
> [1]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules
>
> [2]:
>
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Membership_Committee_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_final.pdf
>
> [3]:
>
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_1.pdf
>
> --
> Emiliano Vavassori, Member of the Board of Directors
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] TDF Advisory Board Members

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:16 PM Michael Meeks 
wrote:

>
> On 23/03/2021 18:56, Andreas Mantke wrote:
> > Am 23.03.21 um 19:11 schrieb Italo Vignoli:
> >> OSI statement: https://opensource.org/OSI_Response
> >
> > great and consequent statement.
>
> Perhaps more measured than:
>
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/
>
> Which is gathering steam, and focuses on the beliefs that are
> acceptable in various communities.
>

Note however I am not asking TDF's Board to endorse a public statement by
others, or to engage in discussion of the valid ethical and moral issues
raised in those statements. As a former director I have been in multiple
TDF meetings where this has happened and know it is divisive and
unproductive in this community.

Instead, I am asking the Board to suspend FSF's membership of TDF's
Advisory Board until such time as they regain the authority that led to
them being freely offered the role in the first place and which they have
squandered by their recent actions. I suggest the Board simply vote on this
action directly, in the light of all the available public information.

Cheers

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] TDF Advisory Board Members

[Simon Phipps]

I'll be more direct than Andreas in this matter. Given the FSF Board has
demonstrated[1] that it is aware that reappointing RMS would be regarded as
bad judgement by everyone at LibrePlanet, and given other organisations[2]
are choosing to disconnect FSF from their governance, TDF's Board should
also consider removal of FSF from their advisory board, at least
temporarily until it has achieved representative governance.

S.


[1] https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128?s=20
[2] https://www.outreachy.org/blog/2021-03-23/fsf-participation-barred/

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 10:08 AM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I read about the change in the board of the FSF, a member of the TDF
> Advisory Board:
>
>
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/richard-m-stallman-returns-to-the-free-software-foundation-board-of-directors/
>
> There are a lot of contributors in the Free Software business, which are
> seeing this change toxic for this business.
>
> What's the position of TDF board on this topic? And how to proceed with
> the Advisory Board membership?
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

[Simon Phipps]

Daniel, the issue is much more complex than that. Happy to explain on a
call if you are interested in what honestly happened before you were
elected.

S.


On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:59 PM Daniel A. Rodriguez <
drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Don't think the kindness being an issue here. Especially if you consider
> that the fork arises as a result of not being able to mold TDF to taste,
> let's be honest with that.
>

Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] LibreOffice Online freeze-related topics

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:53 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> Guilhem has a solid point here, if anyone leaves our project why should
> us go behind them?
>

The people involved have not left our community or the LibreOffice project
(yet). They continue to be our colleagues, friends and indeed contributors
of all kinds, including upstreaming LO improvements that arise from COOL.
Please be kind.

There's a dispute in progress that eventually could be resolved if only the
words being used about it were conciliatory. Provocations don't generally
resolve disputes.  While it makes sense to "freeze" (interpreting that
sensibly for each part of the matter) it does not make sense to behave as
if we are removing every trace and building a competing project (yet).

Cheers,

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] LibreOffice Online - repository and translations

[Simon Phipps]

Please will those voting against the proposal explain their reasoning and
the alternative outcome they are supporting?

Thanks

Simon

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:03 AM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> last Friday, the board discussed about LibreOffice Online. [1] During
> the call and in the discussions following, the request for a vote has
> been expressed, which I am hereby posting to this list.
>
> I start this here as a VOTE thread. For any discussions, please reply in
> the separate DISCUSS thread, which I will initiate as well.
>
> The vote that has been proposed is the following:
>
> 1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for the
> time being
>
> 1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to
> instead mirror the Collabora repo, for the time being, and make sure we
> catch pull requests there, e.g. via the mentoring alias on TDF side
>
> 2. to freeze (not delete) the translations for online in Weblate, for
> the time being
>
> The decision will then also be announced and shared with the various
> community mailing lists, to keep all the projects in the loop.
>
> Florian
>
> [1] Find the minutes at
> https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/enpAg8Q93rwP_69yePZQnKFT
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2020-10-23

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Quentin,

Over the last 20 years I have spent quite a bit of energy on the matter of
accessibility in openoffice.org so let's consider your request in that
light.

*Background*

Accessibility is undeniably important, and LibreOffice already includes the
results of large amounts of work by a variety of people to make it
accessible to people with a variety of different needs. This work has been
done by different people with different affiliations over the years. It has
required skills, equipment and experience that are all specialised. It
would not be correct to assert that LibreOffice has neglected the needs of
those requiring specific accessibility accommodations. However, the need is
huge and there are always more needs that could be addressed, especially
maintaining the work that has already been done.

LibreOffice is not written or maintained by TDF, despite all the materials
that might give you that impression. It is written by diverse individuals
with diverse motivations, many of them associated with employment. Almost
all of the significant additions to LibreOffice are made by developers
working for companies with a commercial interest in LibreOffice-derived
service, support and products. TDF's Board cannot give any of them
instructions to address any particular development need. The most they can
do is make a budget allocation to have work done, and when that happens it
needs to be openly tendered. Those tenders remain a controversial topic for
the Board as you will see from the minutes.

*Your Request*

To the matter of NVAccess. To have the accessibility capabilities your
organisation maintains integrated into LibreOffice is not within the direct
power of TDF's Board. They could however approve a detailed, costed work
proposal and then open a tender to have it satisfied by developers with the
appropriate skills. From looking at https://www.nvaccess.org/ it seems the
people most likely to be able to create that proposal are actually staff
and volunteers for the charity you represent.

May I thus suggest that your energy would be better spent trying to create
that costed and detailed proposal for the Board to approve? If you need
help with the format or structure needed, it is likely a member of the
Engineering Steering Committee (which is actually the council of core
developers) would assist you, or failing that I am sure Florian would
direct you to resources if you asked him. I am no longer a Board member,
but I would expect your proposal to be received positively. This approach
will lead to an outcome; asking the Board to discuss accessibility in
general terms will not :-)

I hope that helps.

Best regards,

Simon


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:30 AM Quentin Christensen 
wrote:

> Thanks Florian,
>
> Given the increasing use of open source software such as Libre Office in
> government and corporate use, it is disappointing it isn't more of a
> priority.  Not being accessible does explicitly exclude LIbre Office from
> most government use for instance.  I understand the difficulties with not
> having any paid developers you can direct to do particular work, but it
> does make the product specifically impossible to use for large segments of
> potential users.
>
> I wonder how other FLOSS projects handle this?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Quentin.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:59 PM Florian Effenberger <
> flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> Quentin Christensen wrote:
>> > Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything
>> > come out of it?
>>
>> there was no separate discussion about accessibility. It is one of the
>> topics the board has in their ranking, to determine the
>> importance/priority of the topic - but we didn't discuss it in detail.
>>
>> Florian
>>
>
>
> --
> Quentin Christensen
> Training and Support Manager
>
> Web: www.nvaccess.org
> Training: https://www.nvaccess.org/shop/
> Certification: https://certification.nvaccess.org/
> User group: https://nvda.groups.io/g/nvda
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
> Twitter: @NVAccess <https://twitter.com/NVAccess>
>


-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027

Re: [board-discuss] Re: TDF-Business-Entity

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Michael,

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:11 AM Michael Meeks 
wrote:

>
> Personally I think there may be merit in a UK option still - if Simon is
> interested in engaging.
>

I'd be happy to be involved in such an entity, sure. The problem last time
was that, having taken all the steps necessary to get started with a
project that would have actually occupied my working time to the exclusion
of other income, the project was placed on indefinite hold at the last
moment, and in a way that showed no respect.

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Franklin.

Daniel appeared to be responding negatively to Michael's question rather
than asking any of his own. I see no reason why Board members need to argue
between themselves on this thread when you've plenty of scope for that on
your secret lists.

Best regards,

Simon

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:09 PM Franklin Weng  wrote:

> Did you mean that Daniel has no rights to speak out his question?  If so,
> In what rules say only candidates can reply questions to MC candidates?
>
> If no, then why did you ask such a question?
>
> F
> Simon Phipps 於 2020/9/4 下午9:47 寫道:
>
> I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your nomination?
>
> S.
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
> drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
>> > Hi Andreas,
>> >
>> > On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> >> b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question
>> >> to
>> >> the candidates!
>> >>
>> >> That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
>> >> the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
>> >> members / contributors a voice and a say.
>> >
>> >   Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up
>> with.
>> > Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
>> > can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to
>> > know
>> > from each candidate:
>> >
>> >   What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
>> >
>> > * many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
>> >   Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
>> >   number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
>> >   translation, documentation etc.
>> >
>> >   + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
>>
>> Don't need to be 'a lot'
>>
>> >   + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
>> > more marginal contributions for membership cf.
>> >
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing
>>
>> What's the 'more marginal contributions' meaning?
>>
>> >   + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
>> >
>> > * If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
>> >   you encouraged to apply for membership ?
>> >
>> > * How many applications have you voted against ?
>> >
>> > * Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
>> >   between membership and non-membership that encourages
>> >   a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
>> >   achieve full membership ?
>> >
>> > * When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
>> >   code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
>> >   decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
>> >   MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
>> >   should other MC members validate that ?
>> >
>> > * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
>> >   be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
>>
>> Any relation to MC Open Letter?
>>
>> > * How do you believe we can improve the existing election
>> >   system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
>> >   + I'm interested in where we have the situation that
>> > being too popular can stop you being able to
>> > engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
>> > Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
>> > in the last Board election.
>>
>> 'Too popular'? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> DAR
>>
>> --
> Franklin Weng
> 中華民國軟體自由協會常務理事
> 文件基金會（LibreOffice 法人代表）認證 LibreOffice 導入專家、訓練專家
> 文件基金會（LibreOffice 法人代表）董事會副主席、認證委員會委員
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..

[Simon Phipps]

I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your nomination?

S.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:
> >> b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question
> >> to
> >> the candidates!
> >>
> >> That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
> >> the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
> >> members / contributors a voice and a say.
> >
> >   Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up
> with.
> > Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
> > can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to
> > know
> > from each candidate:
> >
> >   What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
> >
> > * many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
> >   Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
> >   number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
> >   translation, documentation etc.
> >
> >   + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
>
> Don't need to be 'a lot'
>
> >   + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
> > more marginal contributions for membership cf.
> >
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing
>
> What's the 'more marginal contributions' meaning?
>
> >   + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
> >
> > * If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
> >   you encouraged to apply for membership ?
> >
> > * How many applications have you voted against ?
> >
> > * Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
> >   between membership and non-membership that encourages
> >   a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
> >   achieve full membership ?
> >
> > * When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
> >   code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
> >   decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
> >   MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
> >   should other MC members validate that ?
> >
> > * To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
> >   be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
>
> Any relation to MC Open Letter?
>
> > * How do you believe we can improve the existing election
> >   system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
> >   + I'm interested in where we have the situation that
> > being too popular can stop you being able to
> > engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
> > Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
> > in the last Board election.
>
> 'Too popular'? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> DAR
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] ODF 1.3 ideas

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Edmund,

No, the  OASIS ODF technical committee (which standardised ODF - it's not
TDF) has now frozen the functional content of ODF 1.3. You would be welcome
to join OASIS and contribute to the ODF 1.4 specification though, work will
commence on that once ODF 1.3 completes the process.

Best regards,

Simon

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:31 PM Edmund Laugasson 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Is there any chance to get into ODF v1.3 the following ideas:
>
>- zooming presentation for Impress (like newest MS PowerPoint and
>Prezi have)
>- zooming sreadsheet for Calc (like TreeSheets)
>
> *References*
> Prezi - https://prezi.com/
> TreeSheets - http://strlen.com/treesheets/
> Zooming features in MS PowerPoint
>
>-
>
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/use-zoom-for-powerpoint-to-bring-your-presentation-to-life-9d6c58cd-2125-4d29-86b1-0097c7dc47d7
>-
>
> https://medium.com/@chrisconnick/how-to-make-a-prezi-in-powerpoint-as-told-by-a-prezi-expert-bdc3c91a3f09
>
> -
> Thank you!
> Edmund Laugasson
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Initiative to improve communication channels

[Simon Phipps]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:19 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> El 2020-07-17 13:20, Simon Phipps escribió:
> > There is also CONSUL, which was developed as open source by Madrid City
> > Council, transferred to an independent Foundation and is now used
> > worldwide. Italo Vignoli is a member of their Board of Directors. See
> > https://consulproject.org/en/
> >
> > All the same, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to bring
> > thousands of voters into a decision making process where they have no
> > responsibilities to moderate their exercise of rights. It will just
> > become factional and partisan based on external agendas.
>
> I believe that it is crucially important to allow as many voices as
> possible to be heard, and the consequent monitoring process is greatly
> facilitated by the implementation of a tool such as Decidim so, together
> BoD & Community can decide about the issues that matter to us.
>

Please don't confuse "making voices heard", which is generally good, with
"offering them a vote", which is generally problematic if they do not carry
any responsibilities upon which their votes might rely and especially if
they are willing to vote for ideas they don't fully understand on the basis
only of personality or identity. Decisions made in that way have bad
outcomes.

S.
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Meshed Insights Ltd*

Re: [board-discuss] Initiative to improve communication channels

[Simon Phipps]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:03 PM Kev M  wrote:

>
> There are other participatory democracy software out there that exist but
> I don't know many that are Open Source.
>

There is also CONSUL, which was developed as open source by Madrid City
Council, transferred to an independent Foundation and is now used
worldwide. Italo Vignoli is a member of their Board of Directors. See
https://consulproject.org/en/

All the same, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to bring
thousands of voters into a decision making process where they have no
responsibilities to moderate their exercise of rights. It will just become
factional and partisan based on external agendas.

S.
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Meshed Insights Ltd*

Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice Personal & TDF's statutes & purpose

[Simon Phipps]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 18:47 Kev M,  wrote:

>
> To point to links and mailing lists that anyone under the age of 40
> probably does not use regularly
>

This kind of discriminatory language is not called for, does not help and I
am asking for it not to be repeated please.

Thanks,

Simon

>

Re: [board-discuss] LOOL user experience

[Simon Phipps]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:56 PM Andras Timar  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:29 PM Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Andras Timar  wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. It's a myth. Yes, it can be hard, when firewalls, load
>>> balancers, 5 users etc. are involved. It's the case when one needs
>>> professional support. But for the hobbyist, how hard is it to install CODE
>>> with a few clicks in Univention, or to follow my "5 minute" guides?
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you have done a great job for suitably-skilled people wanting a
>> quick evaluation, but the truth is that approach only takes you to the
>> point where the questions start. I have tried to get a LiOn system running
>> at home and have not succeeded in getting anything I can leave running for
>> my family, unlike the Asterisk-based phone system we are using (on a Pi) or
>> the NextCloud appliance we have installed (Pi-based).
>>
>>
> If there were binaries for Pi, probably installation would be easy. In
> fact, I think that Pi support would be a nice community project and would
> not hurt any commercial interest.
>

There is already an armht/arm64 LibreOffice, both the one the Raspbian
folks distribute and a more up-to-date version in Debian (thanks Rene!).

There is also a work-in-progress Debian package,
https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice-online (again
thanks to Rene).

But I'm told it's just too hard to unpick all the Javascript packages to
make it Debian-installable.

So, if you can help get that sorted maybe we can have some easy LiOn Pi
after all! The ideal would be something that runs from the GUI as a
NextCloud plug-in that, given the location and credentials of a freshly
installed Pi, would squirt LiOn into it and configure both ends to use it.

Cheers!

Simon



-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] LOOL user experience

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Andras Timar  wrote:

> I disagree. It's a myth. Yes, it can be hard, when firewalls, load
> balancers, 5 users etc. are involved. It's the case when one needs
> professional support. But for the hobbyist, how hard is it to install CODE
> with a few clicks in Univention, or to follow my "5 minute" guides?
>

I'm sure you have done a great job for suitably-skilled people wanting a
quick evaluation, but the truth is that approach only takes you to the
point where the questions start. I have tried to get a LiOn system running
at home and have not succeeded in getting anything I can leave running for
my family, unlike the Asterisk-based phone system we are using (on a Pi) or
the NextCloud appliance we have installed (Pi-based).

This is the LiOn problem TDF needs to fix first to get a TDF-centric user-
and skill-base established.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] LOOL user experience

[Simon Phipps]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:37 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <
drodrig...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> El 2020-05-22 10:33, Heiko Tietze escribió:
> > On 22.05.20 16:09, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >> A survey form would be the best way to go a about it
> >
> > Happy to support this but no idea how to start. Ordinary users cannot
> > answer "What's the best solution for you to get LOOL?" neither "Which
> > kind of authentication do you prefer? [OpenFoo, LibreBar, PublicQux]".
> > And isn't the setup kind of a stack that needs to be installed with
> > (Next)Cloud, LOOL backend, and (COOL)-UI?
> >
> > So what I'd need for a survey is a couple of simple questions that
> > everybody can answer. My preferred type of question is multiple-choice
> > with additional "Other" option.
>
>
> In this case our end user should understood, IMO, be Certified
> professionals, members or IT responsible people.
>
> So, maybe this thread can drop such questions as a result.
>

That is not acceptable. We should be serving the public,  not a technical
elitre.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] LOOL user experience

[Simon Phipps]

A survey form would be the best way to go about it.

Also note that - regardless of package availability - as conceived
Libreoffice Online is beyond the scope of most individuals as it requires
access to cloud infrastructure, familiarity with certificates and a
willingness to manage web security. That's why I have proposed LiOn Pi,
which is targeted at individuals.

S.

{Terse? Mobile!}

On Fri, 22 May 2020, 14:36 Thorsten Behrens, 
wrote:

> Hi Daniel, all,
>
> Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
> > I believe we should know what people expects when downloading a
> > docker img, if it fits the needing or what do they have to deal
> > with.
> >
> Depends on who's the target audience of that question, I guess.
>
> Possibly the design, or the website list are better places to discuss
> this?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Thorsten
>

Re: [board-discuss] Update to today's call agenda

[Simon Phipps]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:40 AM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> * Wrt. item #4 (vote proposal), this item will be turned into a
> discussion item. The rationale for this is that more input from the
> community is sought, before the item can be turned into a vote. We will
> in parallel get input from the infra team on this topic.
>

Thanks for this change, which seems appropriate.

With a view towards making LibreOffice Online (LiOn for short!) available
to as many members of our community as possible without
inadvertently harming TDF's own members in th eprocess, I propose TDF first
make it available for Raspberry Pi. I have written a brief paper explaining
the idea, which I have placed in the Members folder here:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/mboT66dRtdEMMyq

Best regards

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Public agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, May 22nd at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Simon Phipps]

My original message asked for the background materials so everyone can
start the conversation from the same point. You responded to that
direct question without mentioning any. Do they exist?

Thanks

Simon

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:32 PM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Sorry Simon but I've re-read the email I sent out and I don't where it
> says what you imply, quite the opposite.
>
> "See" you on Friday.
>
> Paolo
>
>
> On 20/05/2020 17:25, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> So you're saying there is no written background context for this proposal.
> Has it been discussed by the Board previously? Coming into the discussion
> cold is unlikely to be good.
>
> S.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:21 PM Paolo Vecchi <
> paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> thanks for asking.
>>
>> As you may have been made aware the Board has been very busy discussing
>> many topics and working to propose many new developments, like item 4, that
>> I'm sure will make the community very happy.
>>
>> All items will be the subject to a public discussion so you are very
>> welcome to participate.
>>
>> Ciao
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>> On 20/05/2020 16:17, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Hi Florian,
>>
>> Item 4 on the agenda is a significant change to past decisions on the
>> subject by the Board. Is there any background information such as a paper
>> describing the rationale and impact of the change please?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:31 AM Florian Effenberger <
>> flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear community,
>>>
>>> find below the public agenda for our
>>>
>>> -> TDF board meeting with a public part, and if needed followed by a
>>> private part (- no topics in the private part so far -)
>>> -> on Friday, May 22nd at 1300 Berlin time
>>>
>>> For time zone conversion, see e.g.
>>>
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20200522T13=37=136=241=589
>>>
>>> -> at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
>>>
>>> as we gain good experience last time after improvements of the TDF
>>> instance from the team, if possible use Chrome browser and do not use
>>> video and until not speaking up please mute.
>>>
>>> -> AGENDA:
>>>
>>> Public Part
>>>
>>> 1. Q: Answering Questions from the community (All, max. 10 minutes)
>>>
>>> Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions
>>> to the new board and about TDF.
>>>
>>> 2. Discuss: Ecosystem & Sustainability (Michael, All 15min)
>>>
>>> Rationale: Discussion, relevance and dependencies for TDF
>>>
>>> 3. Discuss: Quick check of fitting prerequisites and procedure of the
>>> vote for the next agenda item (Lothar, Board members, All 5 minutes)
>>>
>>> Rationale: Clarifying about voting of the next agenda item
>>>
>>> 4. Voting on proposal of Paolo:  (Paolo, Board members 15 minutes)
>>>
>>> Voting proposal via Mail from Paolo Vecchi at 16.05., 13.15 UTC+2:
>>> "...
>>>
>>> Enable the infrastructure team to deliver the following packages
>>> with TDF and LibreOffice branding:
>>>  - docker images
>>>  - ownCloud connector (from which we have already got confirmation
>>> of acceptance) for LOOL
>>>  - once that is in place I will ask NextCloud for the opportunity to
>>> do the same
>>>  - Univention marketplace packages for LOOL
>>>  - all packages and connectors will be maintained and updated on a
>>> monthly basis unless urgent patches/bug fixes are required sooner
>>>  - the latest stable version of LOOL code will be used to build the
>>> images
>>>  - the infrastructure oversight team will ensure that all issues
>>> that may impede the execution of this plan are identified and solved
>>> promptly
>>>  - the infrastructure oversight team should evaluate, and report
>>> back to the BoD, if TDF should use its own Gerrit server for LOOL or
>>> Collabora's see ticket
>>> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132349
>>>  - LibreOffice branded documentation/help files should be created to
>>> make it as easy as possible to install docker images/Univention packages
>>>  

Re: [board-discuss] Public agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, May 22nd at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Simon Phipps]

So you're saying there is no written background context for this proposal.
Has it been discussed by the Board previously? Coming into the discussion
cold is unlikely to be good.

S.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:21 PM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> thanks for asking.
>
> As you may have been made aware the Board has been very busy discussing
> many topics and working to propose many new developments, like item 4, that
> I'm sure will make the community very happy.
>
> All items will be the subject to a public discussion so you are very
> welcome to participate.
>
> Ciao
>
> Paolo
>
> On 20/05/2020 16:17, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> Item 4 on the agenda is a significant change to past decisions on the
> subject by the Board. Is there any background information such as a paper
> describing the rationale and impact of the change please?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Simon
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:31 AM Florian Effenberger <
> flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear community,
>>
>> find below the public agenda for our
>>
>> -> TDF board meeting with a public part, and if needed followed by a
>> private part (- no topics in the private part so far -)
>> -> on Friday, May 22nd at 1300 Berlin time
>>
>> For time zone conversion, see e.g.
>>
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20200522T13=37=136=241=589
>>
>> -> at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
>>
>> as we gain good experience last time after improvements of the TDF
>> instance from the team, if possible use Chrome browser and do not use
>> video and until not speaking up please mute.
>>
>> -> AGENDA:
>>
>> Public Part
>>
>> 1. Q: Answering Questions from the community (All, max. 10 minutes)
>>
>> Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions
>> to the new board and about TDF.
>>
>> 2. Discuss: Ecosystem & Sustainability (Michael, All 15min)
>>
>> Rationale: Discussion, relevance and dependencies for TDF
>>
>> 3. Discuss: Quick check of fitting prerequisites and procedure of the
>> vote for the next agenda item (Lothar, Board members, All 5 minutes)
>>
>> Rationale: Clarifying about voting of the next agenda item
>>
>> 4. Voting on proposal of Paolo:  (Paolo, Board members 15 minutes)
>>
>> Voting proposal via Mail from Paolo Vecchi at 16.05., 13.15 UTC+2:
>> "...
>>
>> Enable the infrastructure team to deliver the following packages
>> with TDF and LibreOffice branding:
>>  - docker images
>>  - ownCloud connector (from which we have already got confirmation
>> of acceptance) for LOOL
>>  - once that is in place I will ask NextCloud for the opportunity to
>> do the same
>>  - Univention marketplace packages for LOOL
>>  - all packages and connectors will be maintained and updated on a
>> monthly basis unless urgent patches/bug fixes are required sooner
>>  - the latest stable version of LOOL code will be used to build the
>> images
>>  - the infrastructure oversight team will ensure that all issues
>> that may impede the execution of this plan are identified and solved
>> promptly
>>  - the infrastructure oversight team should evaluate, and report
>> back to the BoD, if TDF should use its own Gerrit server for LOOL or
>> Collabora's see ticket
>> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132349
>>  - LibreOffice branded documentation/help files should be created to
>> make it as easy as possible to install docker images/Univention packages
>>  - TDF's LOOL packages will be free and supported only by the
>> community. No paid/support options will be made available by TDF
>>  - In the download page it will be made clear that if LOOL is used
>> in enterprise environment support options are available through the
>> members of TDF's ecosystem
>>At a later stage eventual limitations in terms of concurrent
>> users/documents will be discussed.
>>..."
>>
>>Rationale: explanation of voting item(s), getting a valid voting
>> result on Paolos proposal as described above
>>
>> 5. Discuss: Status of redmine tickets of the board (Thorsten, All 10min)
>>
>> Rationale: Clarifying which tickets/list, what todos, who is caring,
>> until when
>>
>>   Private Part
>>
>>   - No topic in private so far -
>>
>> Florian
>>
>
>
> --
> Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Public agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, May 22nd at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Florian,

Item 4 on the agenda is a significant change to past decisions on the
subject by the Board. Is there any background information such as a paper
describing the rationale and impact of the change please?

Thanks!

Simon

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:31 AM Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Dear community,
>
> find below the public agenda for our
>
> -> TDF board meeting with a public part, and if needed followed by a
> private part (- no topics in the private part so far -)
> -> on Friday, May 22nd at 1300 Berlin time
>
> For time zone conversion, see e.g.
>
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20200522T13=37=136=241=589
>
> -> at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
>
> as we gain good experience last time after improvements of the TDF
> instance from the team, if possible use Chrome browser and do not use
> video and until not speaking up please mute.
>
> -> AGENDA:
>
> Public Part
>
> 1. Q: Answering Questions from the community (All, max. 10 minutes)
>
> Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions
> to the new board and about TDF.
>
> 2. Discuss: Ecosystem & Sustainability (Michael, All 15min)
>
> Rationale: Discussion, relevance and dependencies for TDF
>
> 3. Discuss: Quick check of fitting prerequisites and procedure of the
> vote for the next agenda item (Lothar, Board members, All 5 minutes)
>
> Rationale: Clarifying about voting of the next agenda item
>
> 4. Voting on proposal of Paolo:  (Paolo, Board members 15 minutes)
>
> Voting proposal via Mail from Paolo Vecchi at 16.05., 13.15 UTC+2: "...
>
> Enable the infrastructure team to deliver the following packages
> with TDF and LibreOffice branding:
>  - docker images
>  - ownCloud connector (from which we have already got confirmation
> of acceptance) for LOOL
>  - once that is in place I will ask NextCloud for the opportunity to
> do the same
>  - Univention marketplace packages for LOOL
>  - all packages and connectors will be maintained and updated on a
> monthly basis unless urgent patches/bug fixes are required sooner
>  - the latest stable version of LOOL code will be used to build the
> images
>  - the infrastructure oversight team will ensure that all issues
> that may impede the execution of this plan are identified and solved
> promptly
>  - the infrastructure oversight team should evaluate, and report
> back to the BoD, if TDF should use its own Gerrit server for LOOL or
> Collabora's see ticket
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132349
>  - LibreOffice branded documentation/help files should be created to
> make it as easy as possible to install docker images/Univention packages
>  - TDF's LOOL packages will be free and supported only by the
> community. No paid/support options will be made available by TDF
>  - In the download page it will be made clear that if LOOL is used
> in enterprise environment support options are available through the
> members of TDF's ecosystem
>At a later stage eventual limitations in terms of concurrent
> users/documents will be discussed.
>..."
>
>Rationale: explanation of voting item(s), getting a valid voting
> result on Paolos proposal as described above
>
> 5. Discuss: Status of redmine tickets of the board (Thorsten, All 10min)
>
> Rationale: Clarifying which tickets/list, what todos, who is caring,
> until when
>
>   Private Part
>
>   - No topic in private so far -
>
> Florian
>

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Dennis Roczek 
wrote:

> Hi Simon,
> Am 02.03.2020 um 11:02 schrieb Simon Phipps:
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall  wrote:
>
>> I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the proposal
>> appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a
>> trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, Canonical's
>> founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could
>> survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.
>>
>
> That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication you
> make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as TDF's agent
> in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the overall LibreOffice
> trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other entities in the ecosystem like
> CIB, Collabora and the retailers of various clothing. The license is
> exclusive *only* *in the app stores*, and that is because TDF will also
> be acting against knock-off apps selling the brand in ways that reflect
> poorly on LibreOffice. Again, the attempt to equate this to Canonical is
> very unhelpful, although your parting shot is illuminating.
>
> But on the other hand you are also saying, that it is getting harder and
> harder to install software (on properterian systems) without the app stores
> and more over you do not have any choise on Windows S or iOS, which is
> correct. From the vendors view it is even logical (earning money, keeping
> the system secure, etc. etc.).
>
> So basical TDC is getting a monopoly on many system, hence the Cannoical
> example is really perfect.
>
> I hope you understand that many in the community do not fear that these
> "decisions" were made in good faith or might be correct at the moment, but
> can lead to "bigger problems" in future (saying 10 or 20 years?).
>

I still disagree. TDC is getting temporary agency to act on TDF's behalf
doing something TDF's board recognises it is very poor at executing. TDF
could pass that agency to another entity at short notice any time. In fact,
if things became any more constrained I would not feel comfortable hiring
staff to work on them.

Further, TDC is incorporating as a legal entity that has to act formally in
the service of its community and has no shareholders so the motivation to
create a post-trading surplus is absent. This is all nothing like Canonical
where Mark was trying to prove he could create a profitable business in
parallel with Ubuntu.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall  wrote:

> I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the proposal
> appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a
> trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, Canonical's
> founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could
> survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.
>

That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication you
make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as TDF's agent
in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the overall LibreOffice
trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other entities in the ecosystem like
CIB, Collabora and the retailers of various clothing. The license is
exclusive *only* *in the app stores*, and that is because TDF will also be
acting against knock-off apps selling the brand in ways that reflect poorly
on LibreOffice. Again, the attempt to equate this to Canonical is very
unhelpful, although your parting shot is illuminating.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Brett!

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Brett Cornwall  wrote:

>
> Other Free Software projects have had for-profit entities created
> underneath the stewardship of a non-profit; Mozilla Corporation and
> Canonical are two living examples. Sacrifices to user empowerment are often
> made at Mozilla Corporation (e.g. Pocket integration, advertising
> partnerships to silently install code on browsers, etc. - The list grows
> longer by the month as new scandals appear). Canonical has made similar
> sacrifices (e.g. Ubuntu One proprietary service integration,
> cease-and-desists towards fixubuntu.com).
>
>
> 1. How would TDF intend to protect users against the inevitable
> temptations to prioritize money/brand over users/computing ethics? "We can
> always pull the plug" is not a compelling argument as that's only used for
> the direst of circumstances, not the slow poisoning of the well that
> Mozilla have experienced.
>

This is overstating TDC's vision, so the comparisons are massively
unhelpful. It is being created to put the LibreOffice package TDF makes
into the Windows and Mac appstores on TDF's behalf, and collect a small
payment for the convenience. It will make clear the origin of the software
as far as it is allowed to by those stores. It will spend the money paying
developers in the community (both larger and smaller) to improve
LibreOffice, through the usual TDF ESC processes. So no significant mission
is leaving TDF. This is all in the CIC36 community support statement, which
is this hadn't blown up now for some reason I was planning to post next
week once the steering group agreed it. Your concerns relate to a company
creating a product and operating independently of the community, which is
not what's proposed here.


>
> 2. How will TDF assure communities that the creation of a for-profit
> entity to manage branding that the above examples will not occur?
>

TDC is not managing TDF's branding. It just has a narrow, well-bounded
license to act on TDF's behalf in app stores. Full stop.


>
> 3. What assurances does TDF offer that assuage fears that the lifeblood of
> LibreOffice will pivot from one of community involvement to one of company
> culture (with community involvement as a PR spin)?
>

Because we're not creating that sort of corporate vehicle.

Cheers,

Simon
(proposed CEO for TDC and former TDF director)

[board-discuss] Re: Trademark policy

[Simon Phipps]

No, I was referring to the trademark licenses TDF extends to uses that are
not allowed under that policy (such as branding by companies or usage on
goods). In those cases, TDF offers a commercial-style trademark license. To
discuss it further I suggest we move to the Members list as it's another
legal matter.

S.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:04 PM Dennis Roczek 
wrote:

> Hi Board,
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> you just were telling us in the public part of the board meeting that
> the TDF can remove the trade mark of the TDC with a prenotification of
> 30 days.
>
> Is the trade mark policy basically the one published in the wiki? [0] Or
> is it another one (and is this the published somewhere else)?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dennis
>
>
> [0] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Trademark_Policy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Deputy Board Director, *The Document Foundation
*Desk:*  +44 238 098 7027  *Mobile/Signal:* +44 774 776 2816
*Official address*: Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

Re: [board-discuss] The Document Collective ownership

[Simon Phipps]

It would be better to conduct this discussion on the Members list.

S.


On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Ilmari Lauhakangas <
ilmari.lauhakan...@libreoffice.org> wrote:

> In the public board call today it was said that the proposed commercial
> entity The Document Collective should not be owned by TDF because of
> litigation risk. The risk is thought to form due to the anticipated
> significant amount of funds moved through TDC (which will lead TDC to
> enter into various contracts).
>
> I am not convinced that this is reason enough to establish TDC outside
> TDF. How did the board arrive at this conclusion? By consulting with
> lawyers?
>
> TDF members should understand that in practice nothing is stopping TDF
> from owning a commercial entity either in Germany or outside of Germany.
>
> Furthermore, TDF already has a business entity which handles the
> production costs and income from sales of promotional products (t-shirts
> etc.). This existing entity could be used to pilot the ideas behind the
> TDC proposal.
>
> Ilmari
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com

*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Diversity Is Key?

[Simon Phipps]

I favour having one or two seats reserved for appointment by the board
rather than by election, so that missing skills or representations can be
temporarily addressed. OSI just did this, for example.

S

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 23:22 Sam Tuke,  wrote:

> Thanks Thorsten; that's very helpful context. The 48% chance you
> referenced does indicate that the issue is still larger than this
> particular election. It's also worth noting that Gabriele, Italo, and
> others did a great job of reminding us of the opportunity to stand, and the
> deadlines.
>
> As the election has a strict timetable, it seems that a procedural change
> would now be necessary in order to avoid a board devoid of women.
>
> Were procedural changes possible, they could include extending the
> nomination phase, or keeping one or more seats open explicitly for a female
> board member in future. If such changes are impossible, then those ideas
> could be explored by the next board.
>
> Thoughts from other Board members or Trustees? This might be the most
> direct stimulus to this subject for another two years.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sam.
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov, 2019 at 15:14, Thorsten Behrens 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Sam, Sam Tuke wrote:
>
> This is a problem which past Boards and Membership Committees have no
> doubt worked on; perhaps those people can say more about their efforts and
> challenges.
>
> Right - it's been a topic for board and MC discussions at the very least
> since 2015 (if my memory serves me). That year saw the formation of
> LibreLadies, had a number of diversity talks at the conference, and the
> board started working on a code of conduct. Also (but perhaps Sophie can
> fill in with more details), IIRC the year before we started to try &
> balance conference travel bursaries a bit better, to ensure participants
> from far-away places get a chance to attend the conference.
>
> I understand that contributors with non-technical backgrounds make up a
> minority percentage of the Foundation's members.
>
> I'm not sure about that. Additionally my impression is, the membership
> committee does a good job encouraging contributors to become members of the
> Foundation, so I believe that body is ~representative of our community
> (whether diversity among _contributors_ could be improved is a different,
> but equally important question). Because that's relatively easy to derive
> from the members list: I currently count at least 15 female members, which
> constitutes a bit more than 7% of our membership. That's more than the
> average opensource female developer ratio (good news, but probably due to
> our mix of also non-developer members), but much less than I would expect
> from industry averages in the professions that would likely be found among
> our contributors. Sticking that into the helpful diversity calculator (
> http://aanandprasad.com/diversity-calculator/?groupName=women=10=7),
> the situation we find ourselves in for this board election, and that
> started this thread, has a probability of 48%. Which is a problem, because
> for increasing diversity, you want representation. Beyond that, there's the
> obvious negative signalling effect. The upcoming board will thus be the
> first since 2011 without a female member. :/ In conclusion, I'm decidedly
> unhappy about the current situation (while other aspects of the candidate
> list are encouraging), believe that we must do better here, and said so in
> my candidacy statement. What's additionally sad, is that past attempts to
> move the needle where so frustrating for some participants, that they gave
> up, or simply left. All the best, -- Thorsten
>
>

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] public vote resolution on TDC (The Document Collective)

[Simon Phipps]

I am abstaining from this vote.

S.


On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:13 AM Marina Latini <
mar...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Dear Directors,
> at the end of the last board meeting (27.09.2019) I was asked to send
> out this email vote to be posted on this public board-discuss list.
>
> The following vote was proposed during the last meeting:
>
> -
>The Board RESOLVES to start creation of The Document Collective
> (TDC) by taking the following acts:
>- Broadly, to implement the concepts in the Board's Document "The
> Document Collective" version 0.4
> (https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/6FLTHyR8kYTAjrY)
>- Appoint a transitional leadership Group comprising Nicolas
> Christener, Eike Rathke, Michael Meeks, Thorsten Behrens, Uwe Altmann
>- Direct the Group to sign an agreement with Public Software CIC
> hosting TDC as an unincorporated association
>- Allocate a line of credit of €5 to be requested
> incrementally as needed by Public Software CIC for TDC when the Group so
> directs,
>  to be returned once a surplus is available and at the Group's
> discretion concerning timing and portioning, with the addition of 3%
> annual interest.
>- Grant Public Software CIC a trademark license for "LibreOffice"
> when used in the context of an online application software store
>- Direct the Group to initiate availability of LibreOffice for Mac
> OS and Windows through the appropriate app stores for an appropriate fee
>- Request the Group to take over making available Impress Remote
> and LibreOffice Viewer if each or either proves appropriate for TDC
>- Direct the Group to commission a mechanism to spend TDC's income
> surplus in the manner agreed by the Board's Document
>- Direct the Group to plan for the transfer of all TDC activities
> and liabilities to an independent legal entity as soon as practical,
>  with governance implementing the concepts in the Board's
> Document.
> -
>
> ATB,
> Marina
>
> --
> Marina Latini, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors
> Tel: +39 3497482812 | IRC: deneb_alpha on Freenode
> GPG key "ID" 0xF010C774 - DAEC 51E7 4316 5FAE EAE0  F256 3DB8 2837 F010
> C774
> Better use 64-bit 0x3DB82837F010C774 here is why: https://evil32.com/
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com

*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: Re: [board-discuss] creation of The Document Collective (TDC)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Thomas Meyer  wrote:

> subsumtion:
> * it's really the situation of self dealing (you are sitting on both sides
> of the same table).
>

No, as I am only a Board deputy rather than a full director, have not voted
on this proposal and will not do so at the Board meeting where the decision
is made.

We are a community of people with a commitment to free/open source software
in general and LibreOffice/Document Liberation in particular. You can find
a way almost everyone willing to serve here has a conflict in any positive
action we try to take. If you choose to.


> So it could be regarded as a  letterbox company.
>

Are you making an accusation here, it's not clear? Do you intend to make
the same accusation against other entities which do not trade from their
registered address, such as  The Document Foundation?

S.

Re: [board-discuss] creation of The Document Collective (TDC)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Thomas! Thanks for asking.

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 2:03 PM Thomas Meyer  wrote:

> could there be a Conflict of Interest (CoI)?:
>
> https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10026175/officers
>
> and maybe an issue with self-dealing? And what about good governance
> /compliance?
>
Public Software CIC was created by Andrew Katz and I specifically to
provide a not-for-profit service hosting FLOSS community initiatives. While
I am a director of Public Software CIC, it is a Community Interest Company
which means no-one (including me) benefits individually from the trading
activities it conducts. CICs are overseen by a government regulator, see
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies

Additionally, I am not compensated by Public Software and act in a
voluntary capacity. In any case, we are proposing only that Public Software
host the activities of TDC in the initial stage while it is being
incorporated, a bank account opened (and hopefully the Brexit transition is
crossed). Once those tasks are done, we will move all activities from
Public Software CIC to The Document Collective entity in a suitable
jusrisdiction.  To ensure that the governance of TDC is well formed, the
Board intends to direct a group rather than me individually to define and
operate its governance.

And once I googled the address of Public Software CiC I stumbled over this:
>
> https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/so17-1xs
>
> (374 companies listed under this address).
>
Yes, the address is that of a reputable accounting firm, Fiander Tovell
Ltd, who provide Registered Office services to many of the companies for
which they handle accounts. In common with many small community entities,
Public Software does not have any offices so this arrangement is ideal.

Happy to answer further questions on this,

Simon

-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Deputy Board Director, *The Document Foundation
*Desk:*  +44 238 098 7027  *Mobile/Signal:* +44 774 776 2816
*Official address*: Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Host the ODF Toolkit project at TDF

[Simon Phipps]

As they say at Apache, +1

S.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, 17:05 Thorsten Behrens  Dear board,
>
> as the discussion seems to have calmed down, and also folks over at
> Apache seem to be supportive - let me call a vote:
>
> * TDF to formally offer the ASF to take over the ODF Toolkit project
> * by copying the existing github repo (minus perhaps the simple API)
> * taking the existing markdown documentation & website, and on a
> best-effort
>   basis either importing that into MediaWiki, or keeping a static HTML
>   copy available
> * offer to take over ownership of the odftoolkit.org domain
>
> Vote is open for the usual 72h.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Thorsten
>

Re: [board-discuss] Apache ODF Toolkit migration

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:12 AM Thorsten Behrens <
t...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Michael Meeks wrote:
> > On 28/11/2018 09:40, Michael Stahl wrote:
> > > so i'll propose to migrate the ODF Toolkit to The Document Foundation.
> >
> >   Seems like something the BoD should vote on, In general, subject
> to the
> > marketing concerns at the end, it seems like a good idea to me. I assume
> > there are no current contributors to be upset either way.
> >
> Indeed, very supportive of that idea. I'd be quite happy if the ASF
> would formally agree handing this over to TDF.
>

 I agree. I would be very pleased for TDF to host this as a service, and
would prefer that it happened with the co-operation of the ASF.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] Public agenda for TDF board web meeting on Friday, November 23rd, at 1400, Berlin time

[Simon Phipps]

The BOD would likely need to approve whatever the ESC proposes, sure.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:46 AM K-J LibreOffice 
wrote:

> Am 19.11.2018 um 11:35 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > Since this primarily affects the software would it not be a topic for
> > the ESC?
>
> As the brand and all things around that are also legal stuff, the BoD
> has to say nothing about it?
>
> As the ESC only "provides *technological* guidance on stratetic matters"
> [1] and has skills across development [2] I don't know if this is the
> right place to decide about legal stuff.
>
> But perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> [1]
>
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Organization#Engineering_Steering_Committee_.28ESC.29
> [2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/ESC
>
> --
> Grüße
> k-j
>
> Member of TheDocumentFoundation
> https://www.documentfoundation.org/governance/members/
> https://de.libreoffice.org
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com

*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

Re: [board-discuss] Public agenda for TDF board web meeting on Friday, November 23rd, at 1400, Berlin time

[Simon Phipps]

I agree but I was considering just the decision-making aspect rather than
the implementation.

{Terse? Mobile!}

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, 12:04 Franklin Weng  Besides ESC I would suggest to get some more professional visual designers
> into this topic.
>
> Simon Phipps  於 2018年11月19日 週一 下午6:36寫道：
>
>> Since this primarily affects the software would it not be a topic for the
>> ESC?
>>
>> {Terse? Mobile!}
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, 11:32 Heiko Tietze >
>>> I'd like to ask again for a decision regarding the MIME icon. Question
>>> was if we can find a more appearing icon for LibreOffice or create
>>> something more special for TDF (the brand is too close to the product). And
>>> I received a request to restart the mascot topic. Belongs to the same
>>> topic, somehow.
>>>
>>> On 18.11.18 21:20, Marina Latini wrote:
>>> > Dear Community,
>>> > the board will meet again
>>> >
>>> >  on Friday, November 23rd, at 1400, Berlin time
>>> >
>>> > We'll meet using our own Jitsi instance at
>>> >  https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
>>> > or at
>>> >  https://meet.jit.si/TDFBoard **ONLY** as fallback.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 
>>> > Public part
>>> >
>>> > 1) LibreOffice Online for other organizations
>>> >
>>> > 2) FOSDEM meeting and agenda
>>> >
>>> > 3) quarterly reports
>>> >
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > If you have something to discuss with the board, please, reply to this
>>> > message and join us during the meeting.
>>> >
>>> > ATB,
>>> > Marina
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Heiko Tietze
>>> UX designer
>>> Tel. +49 (0)179/1268509
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Franklin Weng
> 中華民國軟體自由協會理事長
> LibreOffice 導入專家
> LibreOffice 法人代表文件基金會董事、認證委員會委員
> KDE 協會成員、歐洲自由軟體基金會成員
>

Re: [board-discuss] Public agenda for TDF board web meeting on Friday, November 23rd, at 1400, Berlin time

[Simon Phipps]

Since this primarily affects the software would it not be a topic for the
ESC?

{Terse? Mobile!}

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, 11:32 Heiko Tietze  I'd like to ask again for a decision regarding the MIME icon. Question was
> if we can find a more appearing icon for LibreOffice or create something
> more special for TDF (the brand is too close to the product). And I
> received a request to restart the mascot topic. Belongs to the same topic,
> somehow.
>
> On 18.11.18 21:20, Marina Latini wrote:
> > Dear Community,
> > the board will meet again
> >
> >  on Friday, November 23rd, at 1400, Berlin time
> >
> > We'll meet using our own Jitsi instance at
> >  https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
> > or at
> >  https://meet.jit.si/TDFBoard **ONLY** as fallback.
> >
> >
> > 
> > Public part
> >
> > 1) LibreOffice Online for other organizations
> >
> > 2) FOSDEM meeting and agenda
> >
> > 3) quarterly reports
> >
> > 
> >
> > If you have something to discuss with the board, please, reply to this
> > message and join us during the meeting.
> >
> > ATB,
> > Marina
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Heiko Tietze
> UX designer
> Tel. +49 (0)179/1268509
>
>

[board-discuss] Re: Acceptance of BoD role

[Simon Phipps]

>
>
> I, Simon Phipps, elected Deputy Director of the Board of The Document
> Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung bürgerlichen
> Rechts "The Document Foundation". My term will start February 18, 2018.
>
> Signed: Simon Phipps
>
> Ich, Simon Phipps, gewähltes Ersatz-Vorstandsmitglied der The Document
> Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts "The
> Document Foundation" an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 18. Februar 2018.
>
> Unterzeichnet: Simon Phipps
>


-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Director, *The Document Foundation
*Desk:*  +44 238 098 7027  *Mobile/Signal:* +44 774 776 2816
<(774)%20776-2816>
*Official address*: Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

[board-discuss] Board candidate: Simon Phipps

[Simon Phipps]

Dear TDF members,

Having just completed two years on the board at The Document Foundation
performing less visible work related to contracts, trademarks, copyrights
and staffing, I am willing to serve as a director again for the next two
years if elected and thus submit myself as a candidate.

Candidate statement:
"I've been involved with the LibreOffice project in some way since the
OpenOffice.org launch in 2000. I still believe LibreOffice is one of
software freedom movement's most important projects. I have previously
served both as Membership Chair and and as a Director and have extensive
business experience which I have used to TDF's advantage. Now independent,
I'd be honoured to serve again; my priority will be the new challenges of
the cloud era."

Personal information:
My full name is Simon Phipps
I am nominated in a personal capacity and have no corporate affiliations
relevant to the role.
Work: I am a director of Meshed Insights Ltd. (management consulting) and
Meshed Management Ltd. (property management)
Pro-bono roles: I also serve of the Board of the Open Source Initiative
(where I am currently President), of the Open Rights Group, and of Public
Software CIC.
I may be contacted as si...@webmink.com

Best regards,

Simon

Re: [board-discuss] Procedure Of TDF Board Elections

[Simon Phipps]

On 31 Oct 2017 18:54, "Andreas Mantke" <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Simon, Cor, all,

Am 31.10.2017 um 19:19 schrieb Simon Phipps:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Andreas Mantke <ma...@gmx.de
> <mailto:ma...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi Cor, all,
>
> Am 31.10.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Cor Nouws:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > Andreas Mantke wrote on 31-10-17 13:44:
> >
> >> that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close
personal
> >> or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.
> >
> > In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're
friendly
> > with ;)
> > So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to
prevent
> > personal relations being the stronger argument than rational
considerations.
> >
>
> I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other (that's also
a
> rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an
> organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good
behavior
> and transparent administration/organization.
>
>
> Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal?
>

yes, as I already mentioned and quoted here:

"Thus the people acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of
witness because of a or economic dependence to a member of the the other
body."


I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Are you requesting
disqualification of a candidate?



And another recommendation that I think would be worth to follow:

"I think it would be too bad to have a longer break before one get
elected for another body."

I don't think that a good organization/community need to put this into
rules/statutes, but should have it in their DNA.


But that's not an actionable proposal. What should we do?

S.

Re: [board-discuss] Procedure Of TDF Board Elections

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> Hi Cor, all,
>
> Am 31.10.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Cor Nouws:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > Andreas Mantke wrote on 31-10-17 13:44:
> >
> >> that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close personal
> >> or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.
> >
> > In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're friendly
> > with ;)
> > So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to prevent
> > personal relations being the stronger argument than rational
> considerations.
> >
>
> I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other (that's also a
> rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an
> organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good behavior
> and transparent administration/organization.
>

Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal?

S.

Re: [board-discuss] Harassment and lack of code of conduct

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@collabora.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 01/02/17 14:38, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > The Code should indicate that a Trustee can forfeit membership
> > for a serious breach.
>
> Interestingly, he was not a member anymore, and had been trying to
> remove himself from that mailing list for quite some time - it appears.
> So - in this (rather unusual) case, I suspect encouraging quicker
> curation of the mailing list would have avoided this problem.
>

I believe he was and still is a member as that category is not just a club
you can join and leave but rather a statutory duty you take on as Trustee
of the Foundation. The MC rightly acts slowly in processing both
applications to join and applications to leave as they do not want TDF to
fall foul of the law in Germany.

In this case, I believe a CoC-related termination clause would help the MC
as they would now be able to summarily remove him for a breach of this
clause, without waiting for the appropriately slow process to complete.

I also believe we should remind the Trustees that their commitment is not a
gym club membership they can tear up at reception and march off swearing.

S.

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOXML ECMA-376, transitionnal and strict

[Simon Phipps]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Mike Hall  wrote:

> On 27/04/2016 21:18, Italo Vignoli wrote:
>
>> By using C-Fonts, you are therefore producing documents with limited
>> interoperability
>> C-Fonts are not interoperable also in technical terms,
>>
> That's good information.
>
> Does TDF have a recommendation for which fonts to use to maximise
> interoperability across the common range of OS's? (Quite complex if you
> include iOS and Android as well as Win, Mac, nix). Not sure if the generic
> 'sans-serif' etc do what the normal user wants.


I can't speak to a general recommendation, but this advice from Debian to
use Google's compatible free fonts seems good:

https://wiki.debian.org/SubstitutingCalibriAndCambriaFonts

In fact it makes me wonder if these could be the default equivalents for
the C-fonts in LibreOffice?

S.

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [board-discuss] Representation in the board in my absence

[Simon Phipps]

In order to comply with the bylaws of TDF:

I, Simon Phipps, elected member of the board of The Document Foundation,
hereby and until further notice nominate the following elected deputies to
represent me during board meetings of all kinds, in the order set forth
below:

 1. Deputy Norbert Thiebaud
 2. Deputy Björn Michaelsen
 3. Deputy Andreas Mantke

-- 
*Simon Phipps*, * Director, *The Document Foundation
*Desk:*  +44 238 098 7027  *Mobile/Signal:* +44 774 776 2816
*Official address*: Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

[board-discuss] Re: Accepting my position in the Board

[Simon Phipps]

I, Simon Phipps, elected Director of the Board of The Document

> Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung bürgerlichen

> Rechts "The Document Foundation". My term will start February 18, 2016.

>
Signed: Simon Phipps

>
Ich, Simon Phipps, gewähltes Vorstandsmitglied der The Document

> Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts

> "The Document Foundation" an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 18. Februar 2016.

>
Signed: Simon Phipps

--  <cor4off...@jabber.org>
*Simon Phipps*, * Director-elect, *The Document Foundation
<cor4off...@jabber.org>
*Desk:*  +44 238 098 7027  *Mobile/* <cor4off...@jabber.org>*Signal
<https://whispersystems.org/>:* +44 774 776 2816
*Official address*: Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


*No encrypted mail please.*

Re: [tdf-discuss] Installing on Mac OS X

[Simon Phipps]

We use LibreOffice Vanilla from the App Store these days - works well &
stay updated automatically. Would that work for you too, Larry?

S.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Larry Gusaas 
wrote:

> Once again I can't open LibreOffice after upgrading to
> LibreOffice_5.0.4_MacOS_x86-64 and
> LibreOffice_5.0.4_MacOS_x86-64_langpack_en-GB on my Mac (OS X ver. 10.11.2
> El Capitan)
> Get the following message:
>
>“LibreOffice.app” is damaged and can’t be opened. You should move it to
> the Trash.
>
> I have to go to my security settings to allow apps downloaded from
> anywhere. Can't right click/open to bypass setting like other applications.
>
> You need to fix your signing certificates so they are valid when an
> additional language pack is installed.
>
> I'm one step closer to eradicating LibreOffice from my computer. Still
> need to open old WordPerfect files though.
>
> --
> _
>
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
> theirs." - Edgard Varese
>
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [board-discuss] Questions for the candidates to the board of directors of the Document Foundation

[Simon Phipps]

I see Charles asked some questions. Here are my responses (in-line).

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> 1. Do you commit yourself to have enough time and the necessary
> technological tools in order to participate to the regularly scheduled
> board calls?
>

Yes.


>
>
> 2. Do you commit yourself to follow up and work on (at least) the main
> items and actions you have volunteered to oversee or that have been
> attributed to you by the board?
>

Yes.


> 3. What are your views on the foundation's budget? How should the money be
> spent, besides our fixed costs?
>

The budget should be delegated to Directors and staff to minimise the
rediscussion of decisions each time spending is required. TDF's income
should be spent primarily on tasks for which there are no volunteers but
which the Board and Trustees have identified as important to unlocking
future volunteer contribution. Current activities promoting technical
tendering and community engagement are good examples of worthwhile
expenditure.


> 4. Should we work towards broadening our pool of contributors, both
> technical and non-technical?
>

Yes, although we need to take care not to create intrinsic motivations that
conflict with the extrinsic motivations of contributors.


> 5. Should the Foundation -as an entity distinct from the LibreOffice
> project or the Document Liberation project- engage into growing its
> influence and promoting and defending Free Software and Digital Freedom? It
> is, after all, an integral part of its mission per its very Statutes. If
> yes, do you have ideas on what should be done about this?
>

Yes. TDF should continue to carefully grow its scope, as it did by adding
DLP. TDF must take care that its growing mission and influence relates to
documents, communications and the standards associated with them, rather
than branching out into unrelated evangelism.


> 6. How do you view your (potential) role as a member of the board of
> directors, given that this position does not give you any specific
> functional role inside the LibreOffice or Document Liberation projects?
>

I covered this in my candidate statement.


> 7. What is the biggest problem of the foundation in your opinion? What is
> its biggest opportunity?
>

TDF needs to remember its roots and purpose as it grows. It's important to
balance growth and stability, so that neither dominates to the detriment of
the other. TDF has great potential addressing the needs of the software
freedom communities regarding document-centric communication and
collaboration, and this is sorely needed because of the dominance of
proprietary solutions in the lives and minds of the world's computer users.

-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816 *or Telegram <https://telegram.me/webmink>*

Re: [tdf-discuss] Returning to OpenOffice - Large SS file

[Simon Phipps]

Thanks, Ivan. I'll offer it to the developers as a test case, but you may
also want to submit it to the AOO folk as you mentioned it's slower to open
in AOO and they will presumably want to fix that (which is what I meant in
my regrettably unclear response). While I help out moderating a list over
there I don't have any rights in the development systems.

Was your fastest load time with LibreOffice Still or with LibreOffice
Fresh? Do you know what version(s) you tried?

Thanks,

S.

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Ivan Stephen istep...@vaxxine.com wrote:

 Hi Simon,

 On second thought, I can't see any reason not to send the file I'm working
 on.  Other than the large number of URLs and email addresses in it, I don't
 think there's anything unusual about it.  My long-term plan after I've
 completed it and rearranged it manually, is to export the info to Filemaker.



 Regards,

 Ivan Stephen
 istep...@vaxxine.com
 905-688-5270



 Publishing work - publishing lists for DB.ods (287K) 
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/attachment/4135344/0/Publishing%20work%20-%20publishing%20lists%20for%20DB.ods
 




-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted