Hi Thorsten,
On 12/01/2022 15:34, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
On 12/01/2022 12:44, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any
LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 12:44, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
>
> You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any
> LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you think that the board in future
> will surely spot that
Hi all,
On 12/01/2022 12:44, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Unfortunately it seems like the board didn't realise that a big issue was
brewing for quite a few years as clear rules were not set.
That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
You think no other commercial
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Unfortunately it seems like the board didn't realise that a big issue was
> brewing for quite a few years as clear rules were not set.
>
That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
> > Putting this burden on everyone **up-front** and **by default** (with
> > the added
Hi Thorsten,
On 12/01/2022 09:24, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
It is notoriously hard to separate commercial from non-commercial
activities.
It may be hard but to simplify things, as a first step, I would ask the
submitter of a new project if they do it on behalf of a commercial
entity or as a
Hi *,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> That should be added in the "## De-atticization requirements. The form could
> be along the line of:
>
> - If the parties involved in the development of the project are commercial
> entities an agreement must be signed to make clear the final scope, the
> benefits to
I wrote:
> So I'd like to call for a vote soon, unless there's concrete input for
> edits. Let's give this two more days.
>
There were two concrete proposals to amend the policy, that we'll
discuss during the board call on Friday. Thus, holding the vote for
the moment.
All the best,
-- Thorsten
About the severity to overrule the ESC we are on the same side, a board should
think twice or even more if doing so.
But without clarification these two sentences set the expectations that an ESC
have a blocking decision which is in fact wrong as you say by your own. And in
such a case to
Hi Thorsten,
On 10/01/2022 16:48, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Again, for this to be constructive, could you please suggest concrete
changes to the proposed policy?
I did propose a concrete change which sparked this conversation. Here it
is in case you missed it:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > Can I see the adjustments/changes to the proposal then please?
>
> The proposal, as stated in my previous emails, is related to the eventual
> "de-atticisation" of the project.
>
Again, for this to be constructive, could you please suggest concrete
changes to
On 09/01/2022 17:27, Lothar K. Becker wrote:
Both sentences imply that the ESC have in praxis a blocking veto,
independent of the decision by a board, for both procedures.
In general, I think it is wise when (re-)starting an engineering
project to get input from the engineering community
Hi Thorsten,
see below.
On 10/01/2022 12:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,
let's stay focused -
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Do you have concrete suggestions on changing the actual
proposal?
Well, yes. That's what the rest of the email you replied to was about.
Can I see the
Hi Paolo,
let's stay focused -
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > Do you have concrete suggestions on changing the actual
> > proposal?
>
> Well, yes. That's what the rest of the email you replied to was about.
>
Can I see the adjustments/changes to the proposal then please?
> I'm not even suggesting
+1 on Lothar's proposal.
Paolo
On 09/01/2022 18:27, Lothar K. Becker wrote:
Hi Thorsten, Emiliano, all,
thanks for the reminder Thorsten, as the discussion goes on in
different areas of using this status of attic, my feedback is more on
the procedural aspect of it.
It says, Quote:
" ...
Hi Thorsten,
On 09/01/2022 17:45, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
I would wait for an eventual vote until a few weeks after FOSDEM just in
case more questions and/or interest about the future of LOOL come up.
The attic proposal is only incidentally related to
Hi Thorsten, Emiliano, all,
thanks for the reminder Thorsten, as the discussion goes on in
different areas of using this status of attic, my feedback is more
on the procedural aspect of it.
It says, Quote:
" ...
**snip**
## Atticization process
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> I would wait for an eventual vote until a few weeks after FOSDEM just in
> case more questions and/or interest about the future of LOOL come up.
>
The attic proposal is only incidentally related to LibreOffice
Online. Do you have concrete suggestions on changing
Hi all,
I would wait for an eventual vote until a few weeks after FOSDEM just in
case more questions and/or interest about the future of LOOL come up.
That would also allow time to evaluate how an eventual "de-atticisation"
or support for any additional project should be managed to avoid a
18 matches
Mail list logo
