Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Proposed update for the CoI Policy: version 1.3.2
Hi Thorsten, On 15/02/2022 19:17, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Dear board (current & new), *, there's another update to the board CoI policy now in draft status, I've uploaded it with enabled change tracking here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/e/e5/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2_draft_2022-02-15.pdf Modifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed in the legal group, and drafted by Mike. I had a look at my emails and the only reference I found about the changes in the CoI by a member of the legal oversight team (me) said that the changes in 6.3 were OK, but nothing about 5.1, and that as suggested by our legal counsel we will use 1.3.2 as base for eventual future versions. Could you point me to emails from other members of the legal oversight team stating that 1.3.2 was ready and accepted for adoption? Many called for unanimous consent for adoption of the CoI Policy so I believe there should be also unanimous consent for changes to be published and then adopted IMHO. I propose a brief discussion here (in case there's a need) and would subsequently then ask the new board if they would want to adopt it as the working policy on our first, inaugural board call. I would have been good to talk in generic terms about the changes that the new draft would have brought to the CoI Policy while at the same time asking to the legal oversight team if the new version was OK to be published before publishing it. Cheers, -- Thorsten Ciao Paolo -- 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 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 12:47 +0100, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > Hi Caolán, > > thanks for your feedback. > > On 14/02/2022 21:49, Caolán McNamara wrote: > > I think at least some of the push back is less against the concept > > that TDF should hire developers and more that it's a clearer path > > to start with some specific problems and then what options could > > solve them and hiring can be an option on that decision tree. It's > > a rare dev that has skills in multiple appstores, mentoring, qa, > > a11y, CTL, CJK and bugfixing in the various quite diverse > > components. > > Keep in mind that the point of the proposal was to get feedback from > the community and the team which seems to confirm that it is > desirable to have in-house developers to take care of certain areas. > > Now that we know we want in-house developers, the team and the > interviews will help in determining which areas we can start > covering. It does still feel somewhat cart before horse in the sense that it starts with a premise that hiring developers is the best solution and then backfills it with the problems to solve. And I can understand reluctance to go straight to that conclusion without stepping through it starting from some specific priority problem areas to make sure funds are distributed as wisely as possible to get the most tangible reward. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Proposed update for the CoI Policy: version 1.3.2
Dear board (current & new), *, there's another update to the board CoI policy now in draft status, I've uploaded it with enabled change tracking here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/e/e5/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2_draft_2022-02-15.pdf Modifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed in the legal group, and drafted by Mike. I propose a brief discussion here (in case there's a need) and would subsequently then ask the new board if they would want to adopt it as the working policy on our first, inaugural board call. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi all, On 15/02/2022 17:11, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Since bugfixing tends to be expensive, the proposal back then was to 'match' community funding with proceeds from e.g. app store sales; thus effectively steering money towards what users would prominently want (and also be willing to chip-in money for). Thank you for showing your support for even more internal developers. As the proposal includes investing in developers with funds coming from donors and the app stores the sooner we employ those developers the faster TDF can start satisfying their needs. Ciao Paolo -- 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 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Ah - my mail crossed Simons one. Killing this part of the thread now ;) Cor Nouws wrote on 15/02/2022 17:05: Hi Mike, *, Mike Saunders wrote on 15/02/2022 16:01: ... 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 Indeed, it is not all that easy. 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. While working on the TDC plan, one of the elements was a channel to bring users, bounties, BugZilla issues and freelance developers together, also with the idea to grow the pool of LibreOffice developers. 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] Bounty Programme/Fund
Hi Simon, *, Simon Phipps wrote on 15/02/2022 16:39: 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. Yes that what I just wrote in the old thread :) : a channel to bring users, bounties, BugZilla issues and freelance developers together, also with the idea to grow the pool of LibreOffice developers. 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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi Mike, all, Mike Saunders wrote: > 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. > Thx for that background & the link to Ilmari's writeup. It's clearly something we've pondered from the very early days on; the latest reasonably concrete plan around hosting our own bounty/crowdfunding platform was running this inside the planned business entity. Since bugfixing tends to be expensive, the proposal back then was to 'match' community funding with proceeds from e.g. app store sales; thus effectively steering money towards what users would prominently want (and also be willing to chip-in money for). Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi all, On 15/02/2022 15:50, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi *, Cor Nouws wrote: Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/02/2022 12:47: Now that we know we want in-house developers, the team and the ... It is recognized that in-house developers (...) may be a (partial) solution some of the issues we face. Yeah it is a bit annoying, having to repeatedly state this is an ongoing process. I feel it's a bit like saying we need a marketing plan and somebody complaining that that's not good as it maybe only a partial solution of the issues we face. Well, now you have a marketing plan and some of the issues are being sorted. We face many more issues and a couple of developers will start easing some of them but once again it's a good step in the right direction. Then we'll deal also with the rest. From the board call minutes just posted: + Proposal: discuss more, decide with strategy workshop? (Lothar) + could be interesting (Paolo) + a consensus from one side brilliant idea to have it + other side seems like its a better idea for the ecosystem to do that A "consensus from one side" is not a consensus, and not a decision. The wider community and our own team seems to indicate that employing developers is actually a good idea. Even within the budget another member of the board proposed a new employee dedicated to QA so it seems like the need is there and I'm sure that 2 developers dedicating some of their time helping in QA and agreeing with the team which bugs should be fixed would help in speeding up things for both tasks. Currently, both the old and the new board are ranking all budget proposals. We will see what comes out top, if there's budget for it, and how the board & TDF can then execute on those items we want to do. So it seems like you are totally ignoring the feedback from the team and the community as you keep want to rank a strategic decision like any tender. We know that the budget is there and that we can move forward. The fact that you want to put them in a ranking sheet seems to show that you haven't yet understood the proposal from a strategic point of view. And to conclude: the easiest way to convince me (and likely others) on the board that a proposal is a good idea - is to make your case properly with a well-researched writeup. Could you please forward to me the well researched write-up used to employ the new mentor so that I can use that as a template? Repeatedly claiming that all is clear, and why haven't we hired yet - is not convincing, to say the least. It is clear that we should employ developers but the details as explained in a few emails well be worked out with the team. Cheers, -- Thorsten Ciao Paolo -- 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 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi Mike, *, Mike Saunders wrote on 15/02/2022 16:01: ... 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 Indeed, it is not all that easy. 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. While working on the TDC plan, one of the elements was a channel to bring users, bounties, BugZilla issues and freelance developers together, also with the idea to grow the pool of LibreOffice developers. 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
[board-discuss] Bounty Programme/Fund
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] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
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. Mike -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi *, Cor Nouws wrote: > Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/02/2022 12:47: > > > Now that we know we want in-house developers, the team and the ... > > It is recognized that in-house developers (...) may be a (partial) solution > some of the issues we face. > Yeah it is a bit annoying, having to repeatedly state this is an ongoing process. From the board call minutes just posted: + Proposal: discuss more, decide with strategy workshop? (Lothar) + could be interesting (Paolo) + a consensus from one side brilliant idea to have it + other side seems like its a better idea for the ecosystem to do that A "consensus from one side" is not a consensus, and not a decision. Currently, both the old and the new board are ranking all budget proposals. We will see what comes out top, if there's budget for it, and how the board & TDF can then execute on those items we want to do. And to conclude: the easiest way to convince me (and likely others) on the board that a proposal is a good idea - is to make your case properly with a well-researched writeup. Repeatedly claiming that all is clear, and why haven't we hired yet - is not convincing, to say the least. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Michael Meeks wrote on 10/02/2022 19:08: On 10/02/2022 14:53, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote: This reminds me of a comment by MMeeks where he made reference to the fact that those who do not code have no say. Which is a total absurdity. That has slipped my memory. Mine too ;) Then I imagine what Daniel thought to remind, is a (irresponsible) simplification of a complex situation. Black-white: "users only use and developers do everything so they decide." Reality: "there is a huge variety of users and developers and the process of developing is more than (the fine and complex art of) coding." TDF as community is set up around meritocracy: people that do the work have a saying. And it is up to us to make all work smoothly :) 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. Lacking that, it is the competence of the board to take care for good spending of the donations. 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] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/02/2022 12:47: Now that we know we want in-house developers, the team and the ... It is recognized that in-house developers (...) may be a (partial) solution some of the issues we face. So I really look forward to the proposal you are working on that will address all the ideas and questions we saw in the discussion so far. 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] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi Caolán, thanks for your feedback. On 14/02/2022 21:49, Caolán McNamara wrote: I think at least some of the push back is less against the concept that TDF should hire developers and more that it's a clearer path to start with some specific problems and then what options could solve them and hiring can be an option on that decision tree. It's a rare dev that has skills in multiple appstores, mentoring, qa, a11y, CTL, CJK and bugfixing in the various quite diverse components. Keep in mind that the point of the proposal was to get feedback from the community and the team which seems to confirm that it is desirable to have in-house developers to take care of certain areas. Now that we know we want in-house developers, the team and the interviews will help in determining which areas we can start covering. We have already identified that we have the in-house skills to manage the app stores but internal developers, together with external expertise if necessary, can help in adapting LibreOffice packages to deal with the eventual changes and issues that may arise when app store rules change. If interviews show that there are interested parties that are also specialised, or have a good grasp, of a11y, RTL and CJK then that will help in determine what they will cover otherwise we will need to see if they can and are interested in growing their skills in those areas. Developers could also dedicate part of their time in QA and mentoring while helping in validating tenders and their deliverables so I'm sure that nobody will get bored and everyone over time will have the opportunity to show in which areas they perform best. At this stage there are many areas that need to be covered and everyone in the team has demonstrated to be capable in adapting and perform many different tasks. The same adaptability will be, at least at the beginning, appreciated from the new members of the team. Over time funds coming from app stores and donations will allow us to further grow our team and will allow members of the team to focus more in specific areas if they wish. I'm fully aware that this is not the way established development/consulting companies work but TDF isn't one and it needs to build up its internal skills organically for the reasons explained in this thread. Ciao Paolo -- 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 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2022-02-11
The Document Foundation Board of Directors Meeting 2022-02-11 Meeting Minutes Date: 2022-02-11 Location: Jitsi Session chair: Lothar Becker Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht In the meeting: Board - Thorsten Behrens, Emiliano Vavassori, Lothar Becker, Michael Meeks, Cor Nouws Board Deputies - Nicolas Christener, Paolo Vecchi Board Elect - Caolán McNamara, Gabriel Masei, Jan Holešovský, Gábor Kelemen, Laszlo Nemeth Membership Committee - Membership Committee Deputies - Shinji Enoki, Community - Michael Weghorn, Simon Phipps, Imran Sarvar Khan Team - Stephan Ficht, Florian Effenberger, Olivier Hallot, Heiko Tietze, Guilhem Moulin, Sophie Gautier Representation: Nicolas for Franklin, Paolo for Daniel 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 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. The meeting commences 13:01 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 + the mailing list thread is really hard to read (Heiko) + improve the situation by using decidim? + in the budget ranking a project for implementing it (Emiliano) + how does it help? (Michael) + provide proposals, and collect votes (Emiliano) + have to structure workflow for process + platform once installed - is empty + how do we reduce noise so we can hear everyone? (Michael) + right way is with moderators (Emiliano) + interesting topic to see how it can help (Cor) + needs some work to set it up for us + focus is to have all members in the platform + get them to express their needs + been involved with Consul and decidim (Simon) + very complex to setup, hire a consultant to configure it for us + quite a good time, and worth using, like installing CiviCRM + budget proposal for 2022 - is to have budget for that + if solution to noise is moderation - can do it on ML (Michael) + proposal - tool better fitted for the purpose (Emiliano) + discussing in bugzilla is not the best tool + mailing list the same - how obsolete is mailing + possible to have a test account? (Lothar) + yes, but it needs to be forwarded to Infra - let's see how to implement it with the Team (Emiliano) + well worth trying & playing with that (Thorsten) + if we can find something more productive, less stressful, more crisp way of getting feedback + may take a while to play & get up-to-speed + meantime trying stop-gap measures on board-discuss to be more productive self-moderation or whatever else - makes sense 2. Discuss: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs. (Paolo, all, 15min) Rationale: Items and Discussion about them https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00141.html + couldn't follow *all* mailings (Lothar) + Paolo can give a short summary, please + Paolo's proposal of what we think we should do (Paolo) + enable TDF to grow in-house skills + start dealing with several items, bugs, a11y, RTL, Chinese/Korean things + so we don't have to wait for budget / tenders + build up internal skills for the rest of the project + start publishing apps in the app-stores + able to deal with the issues + check / react quickly to security issues + Caolan deals with fast - having someone to deal with things internally + a lot of support for the proposal + lots of additional informations + some that - TDF is not made for that + some questions regarding: can we actually do it + process is the same as for tenders + issue has already been solved + Michael W had some answers to Kendy + shaping an interesting project + let's define a procedure (Lothar) + reading most of the mails (Cor) + short version - certainly some areas of coding development that are poorly covered by what the community does + somehow hard to tender +
[board-discuss] Day and time for future board calls
Hello, the meeting time for the public and private board calls will change with the new board. The meetings will now take place every other Monday starting February 21 1700-1800 UTC during European winter, 1600-1700 UTC during European summer = 1800-1900 Berlin time all season As usual, the first part of the meeting is public, and the community is invited to join at https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard The agenda will be shared in advance. Note that the meeting on February 21 is the inaugural meeting, which is a private one. The first public meeting therefore will be Monday, March 7. Looking forward to see and hear you in the calls! 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
