Hi *,
Michael Weghorn wrote:
> > > Regarding interoperability with MSO (p. 6), I don't have the
> > > impression that this is in general a neglected topic that would
> > > necessarily need special attention from TDF side at this point (in
> > > addition to what's already happening e.g. via
Hi Paolo,
thanks for your reply and additional explanations!
On 24/02/2022 16.56, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Yes the initial plan is to look at the general areas and then the team
will work out with the developers which bugs they can start tackling on
their own, with mentoring and/or with experts
Hi Michael,
thanks for the extensive contribution! :-)
On 24/02/2022 13:42, Michael Weghorn wrote:
Hi Paolo,
thanks a lot.
I haven't added an extensive list of bugs or improvements in the main
document as I think we should, with your feedback and with TDF's
team, create a set of addendum
Hi Paolo,
thanks a lot.
I haven't added an extensive list of bugs or improvements in the main
document as I think we should, with your feedback and with TDF's team,
create a set of addendum for each area.
Regardless of the progress of this proposal I will ask the board to
involve TDF's
On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 12:41 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Paolo Vecchi wrote on 24/02/2022 09:06:
>
> > On 24/02/2022 03:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > > How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state
> > > of the policy is still considered not ok for some.
> > All of
Hi all,
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 24/02/2022 09:06:
On 24/02/2022 03:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the
policy is still considered not ok for some.
All of us read and accepted to be bound by the current version of the
CoI Policy by
Hi Thorsten, all,
Thorsten Behrens píše v Út 15. 02. 2022 v 19:17 +0100:
> 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_Inte
>
Hi Thorsten,
On 24/02/2022 10:18, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or
wouldn't have ran for a board position.
That is in direct contradiction to my statement up-thread. So what
follows is not a workable
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or
> wouldn't have ran for a board position.
>
That is in direct contradiction to my statement up-thread. So what
follows is not a workable proposal.
But let's hear what the rest of the board thinks.
Hi Thorsten,
On 24/02/2022 03:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the
policy is still considered not ok for some.
All of us read and accepted to be bound by the current version of the
CoI Policy by being a member of the Board of
10 matches
Mail list logo
