[board-discuss] Reminder: please be respectful & patient to each other
Dear list, this email is the occasional reminder, that at TDF, we strive to: - be inclusive, and patient - recognise each other as humans (with our different quirks & cultures), and don't assume we stand for our group, company, or nationality - try to resolve personal conflicts privately (if necessary by asking for moderation) - above all, we try to keep discussions focused on issues, not on persons involved. If we offend, we apologize - if we feel offended, we try to be generous - and if all else fails, we stop writing emails, and sort things out in a call Thanks a lot, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] WollMux adoption proposal for The Document Foundation
Hi Marina, Marina Latini wrote: > The license is "EUPL-1.1" but looking at some of the subfolders I found for > example also mentions to GNU LGPLv2 [1]. > Yep, that's part of the LibreOffice l10n tools, that Samuel was cloning recently from there (and as such a build-time, not a runtime component). > Did the ESC (or anyone else) make an analysis of the source code > looking for other licenses mentioned? Could it be possible to make > use of the REUSE[2] project started by FSFE? > REUSE is AFAIK working with already-existing metadata. I did run scancode a while ago without anything surprising sticking out, but it's a good point to run it again, before any possible final switch. > In the potential move under the TDF umbrella, is there any plan to > also re-license it following the usual licenses of LibreOffice? > I can ask LHM if that is an option. But would we really need that? LibreOffice itself only has the core code (mostly) under MPL. The binary itself has a massive bouquet of other licenses, and other libraries TDF is hosting, feature licenses ranging from GPL to ASL or BSD. > For example, looking at the GitHub project the main branch is called > "master". > Ah yep, thx for mentioning. That's an easy fix, and I'll also run the usual greps regarding other anachronisms in the code. Branch rename might though only happen immediately before or after the move (if/when approved). > Some comments are also affected by a similar non inclusive writing like for > example here [4] where the comment states "the bookmarks aren't deleted and > the user is request to confirm, that he wants to create a" and there's the > assumption that the user can be only a male. > If you share your greps with me, I can have a look. > As per today, there are 8 open pull requests[5] and some of them are in > German. Is there any plan to translate the content or close the PRs in > German and reopen new PRs in English? > I'd leave that to the maintainers. But sure, having PRs in English would presumably increase the chances of getting them merged. > Some of the existing pull requests use a tag "trac" but I could't find any > reference to this naming convention? Is this something private that the > mentioned maintainers from 2 organizations will take care of document? Could > it be possible to know more about those tags? > trac# is like the internal StarOffice bugtracker references in OOo/LibreOffice commit messages and code. I'm near certain that data cannot be published. > As per today, there are 14 open issues[6] and some of them are in German. > Like for the case of the pull requests, is there any plan to translate the > content or close the issues in German and reopen new issues in English? > Same answer as for PRs, that should be decided by those doing the work. > The security policy[7] seems to be not defined. Which is the > agreement here? Are the two mentioned maintainers supposed to take > over everything or WollMux will also be covered by the LibreOffice > security[8] policy? With that amount of lines of code I suppose the > ESC should have a clear view of the status of the project. > At least for the foreseeable future, we (allotropia) can look into any security reports. If/when the move happens, my suggestion would be reporting to secur...@documentfoundation.org, just like for DLP and LibreOffice. The only relevant issues over the time I see there is third party stuff, e.g. WollMux was affected by the log4j fallout. > The jenkinsfile is mentioning the integration with SonarQube[9] for > the the security scans, is there any plan to also move the SonarQube > setup under the TDF infra? > I'd also leave that to the maintainers, and our infra team. SonarQube needs an extra server (I think), and has an opencore business model - so whether that's a good fit for TDF infra needs discussion. > Which is the potential timeline for having the localization on > Weblate? Is there any ongoing discussion with the L10N team at > LibreOffice? > Hard to say, those things can I guess only happen (and then be discussed with the community), if/when the move has happened. > Should the L10N community consider also WollMux as a priority > project to be translated with high priority like LibreOffice (UI, > Help, Guides)? > I would not expect that. Then again, the effort (after initial translation) is likely very, very small per release. > The main WollmMux website[11] has a link to a catalog on JoinUp[12] that > describes WollMux as an extension for OpenOffice. Is this just an old > catalog description or WollMux is really intended for working with both > LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice (and it will need to support both?) > Pretty sure that's stale. Then again, the OXT has this: , so there's even more staleness (given that there was no sidebar support in that version, which is required now). Ultimately, which version(s) of LibreOffice and/or OpenOffice the maintainers want to support, is up to them (I'd certainly not expect
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Emiliano, Emiliano Vavassori wrote on 28/11/2022 22:55: Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto: Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Yes, you replied that you chose not to take part. True. For the rest: topic has been mentioned and briefly touched in today's board meeting. We agreed to have discuss that in a (separate) meeting. Cheers, Cor -- 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 -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Report about numbers from Apple App Store
Hi all, it's sad to see that the board is not willing or able to report to the TDF members (not even internal) on the Apple App Store numbers from the last years. The board shows not even the will to give an interim message. This shows the lack of respect face to face with the members. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Andreas, On 28/11/2022 17:19, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi Cor, hi all, if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. recent emails and declarations during BoD meetings seem to have created some uncertainties in regards to what is going on with the developers proposal so I've asked the board to release an email thread, which also contains some recommendations from our trusted legal counsel, that should clarify the situation once and for all. I'm sure the board will be very pleased to release those emails so that we can remove any doubt and move forward with the original proposal. Regards, Andreas Ciao Paolo Am 27.11.22 um 23:40 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Sophie, Thanks for expressing your concerns on the matter. Given the situation, I can only understand that. Although I think it is not needed to expect something weird or bad to happen. Wrt my comments: see the minutes of the meeting at 2022-11-14: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable. Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers. So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work? Cheers, Cor sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50: Hi Cor, all, Le 27/11/2022 à 17:41, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi all, I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, Il 27/11/22 17:41, Cor Nouws ha scritto: Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it. I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it. Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior. I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever. The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved. I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone. Regards, -- Emiliano Vavassori syntaxerror...@libreoffice.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
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Dear people, Cor Nouws wrote on 27/11/2022 17:41: I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal. Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See: https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal Greetings, Cor -- 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 -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Uwe, On 27/11/2022 18:55, Uwe Altmann wrote: Hi Andreas While you don't like answers in private mail I post it on this list. Am 27.11.22 um 16:44 schrieb Andreas Mantke: I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here. Maybe most of us follow the golden rule of mailing lists not to feed trolls? ;-) Who are you calling trolls? It's probably an acceptable term in mailing list where some people use anonymity to disrupt a community. What we have seen in this thread is an ex-director interfering with a vote with proven false statements and our chairman jumping on that message and embracing that false statement to influence the vote as well. If they were "simple trolls" we could just try to ignore them but the situation is a lot more serious than that. Seriously: I feel we all are tired of this discussion and I may imagine many of us don't even follow them in detail any more - not out of a lack of interest but mostly because of the way it was and is conducted. Then I wonder if there is any point for me to invest so much time in providing the community with information they could and should check to evaluate if the board is taking the right decisions. This is one of the many examples where the community could, in a few minutes, check the facts and express an informed opinion about what is happening. Coming to the controversial part of the proposal: In my pov it's sheer nonsense to write such statements like those discussed here into a job description or even a contract. Not only the person concerned hardly is in the position to decide on these issues; its also in the full responsibility of his or her boss to decide what they are working on - and no way in the developers own consideration. And I'm rather confident that this also was part of the legal advice the board has got. I guess it's obvious to most that the legal advice would have gone that way. I've tried to explain it in many ways but Jan preferred to resign than accept that it was "sheer nonsense", that's the same "sheer nonsense" that our chairman wants and he's ready to support false statements to make the vote fail. On top of it we can now read another proposal presented by Cor and prepared with "others" which repeats once again the same "sheer nonsense". In a benevolent view on this document it may at best serve as a board's internal letter of intent. But I'm sure - however (if ever) it is voted, when it comes to concrete decisions, the same discussion will arise with new energy. So it's most probably in no case worth all the fuss we see today. Taking in consideration this additional example of disregard for facts and legal advise a simple "internal letter of intent", IMHO, would not be worth they bytes used to store it. My advice emphases the KISS rule (we always should kiss more): Keep it simple, st... :-) I'd love to do that but we've seen a few times that not defining things clearly it leaves room for abuses. Then even when the processes are defined and agreed false statements are used to kill a proposal. It would be great if you could invest a bit more time in evaluating the facts so that you could fine tune your advice do a situation that doesn't seem to fit with the behaviours expected in most boards. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Cor, all, Am 28.11.22 um 12:06 schrieb Cor Nouws: In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal. Why do you go to tdf-internal after an open exchange of opinions already on the board-discuss list? It seems to me hiding away that perhaps the 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' is nothing else than 'Old wine in new wineskins'? Just another attempt to keep the famous "one sentence" alive by rephrasing it nicely? In other words and as alreay discussed on the board-discuss list: Third parties directing TDF how and what their employee(s) are allowed or not allowed to work on? I am curious to know about any employer accepting this. Would you accept the same for your company? Would one of our valuable ecosystem partners accept? Best Stephan -- Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees Affiliation: The Document Foundation -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, On 28/11/2022 12:06, Cor Nouws wrote: Dear people, Cor Nouws wrote on 27/11/2022 17:41: I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal. Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See: https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal That's a peculiar proposal that should not be hidden to others that have followed the progress of the proposal that failed to reach the quorum for some "odd" reasons. The proposal seems to have been written by someone blissfully unaware of the legal advice that invalidates this "new" proposal on various points and that the mistakes been repeated here were already fixed during the negotiations with Jan. You can find the various versions of the proposals with comments here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj See if you can spot the various changes that need to be implemented to make the proposal below acceptable of any organisation and legally sound. -%<-- ## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022 "Whereas, - with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice community; - given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where extra developers can add value with additional activities, that complement the existing contributions; - with this being an ongoing need; Therefore the board resolves that: - TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC; - who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work; - for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice core; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables, Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus areas; - thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be hired initially; - after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results. Requirements for the candidates: * Very good C++ development skills; * Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK experience is a strong plus; * Love for open source; * Team players; * Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus. Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the abandoned dev proposal: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB " -%<-- Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] fast ahead soon... Re: [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Cor, hi all, if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training to improve your skills. Regards, Andreas Am 27.11.22 um 23:40 schrieb Cor Nouws: Hi Sophie, Thanks for expressing your concerns on the matter. Given the situation, I can only understand that. Although I think it is not needed to expect something weird or bad to happen. Wrt my comments: see the minutes of the meeting at 2022-11-14: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable. Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers. So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work? Cheers, Cor sophi wrote on 27/11/2022 21:50: Hi Cor, all, Le 27/11/2022 à 17:41, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi all, I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting. I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic. Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others. I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members? I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope. With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage? Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer. I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions? I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers. We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis). Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks. Sophie -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
