Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] ratify board communication best practices document
Hello, Thorsten Behrens píše v Út 12. 04. 2022 v 18:44 +0200: > having discussed this and incorporated your feedback, calling for a > vote, to: > > * ratify attached best practices as current board communication > guidelines > (verbatim copy from > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 as of 2022-04-12 > 1600 UTC) > > Vote runs the usual 72 hours, please answer with +1/-1/abstain to > this > email. +1, thank you! All the best, Kendy -- 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] [VOTE] ratify board communication best practices document
+1Ayhan YALÇINSOY, Deputy Member of the Board of DirectorsThe Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DEGemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen RechtsLegal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint12 Nis 2022 19:44 tarihinde Thorsten Behrens yazdı:Dear fellow directors, having discussed this and incorporated your feedback, calling for a vote, to: * ratify attached best practices as current board communication guidelines (verbatim copy from https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 as of 2022-04-12 1600 UTC) Vote runs the usual 72 hours, please answer with +1/-1/abstain to this email. Thanks, -- Thorsten
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] ratify board communication best practices document
On Tue, 2022-04-12 at 18:44 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > ... calling for a vote, to: > > * ratify attached best practices as current board communication > guidelines ... https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 > > Vote runs the usual 72 hours, please answer with +1/-1/abstain to +1 -- Caolán McNamara, 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
Re: [board-discuss] Mailing List Moderation
Dear Simon, I believe is much better to have open discussions than trying to keep hiding the fact that there are issues that some seem less inclined to see solved. If long-established contributors want to keep doing something that is sub-optimal then I believe that others should speak out so that things get looked at. If a [VOTE] thread doesn't receive positive comments maybe that vote should be stopped, things should be fixed and people should not be censored by a Board Chair that should be impartial and intervene to fix things and not to tell people to shut up. It is about time that this list becomes a case study for those that want to see how good things can come out from a list that wanted to be "politically correct" to a list where people are free to express, sometimes even in a quite strong way, there views about TDF and the community to make things better for all. Ciao Paolo On 11/04/2022 14:27, Simon Phipps wrote: 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
[board-discuss] [VOTE] ratify board communication best practices document
Dear fellow directors, having discussed this and incorporated your feedback, calling for a vote, to: * ratify attached best practices as current board communication guidelines (verbatim copy from https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 as of 2022-04-12 1600 UTC) Vote runs the usual 72 hours, please answer with +1/-1/abstain to this email. Thanks, -- Thorsten # Best practices for board communication We believe that beyond common sense good manners, and the community CoC, the TDF board bears the extra burden of leading by (excellent) example when it comes to define interaction styles in the community. We therefore feel bound by the following board communication best practices, to be used in all written board communication channels. Applies to: - intra-TDF communication channels (tdf-directors, working groups, direct emails, TDF matrix chat rooms, MC- and staff-internal mailing lists) - the public board-discuss email list ## Communication best practices we apply: - We are cognizant that people with whom we communicate are located across the globe. We don't expect people to respond immediately, they might not have the bandwidth beside their jobs and private obligations to process all emails in a short time. We give them a chance to read and digest our text, form an opinion and answer in their own time. If we find ourselves being the only one sending a lot of messages in a short time frame, we slow down. - We always remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture, language, and humor have different points of reference from your own. We know that date formats, measurements, and idioms may not travel well. We are especially careful with sarcasm. - We use smileys to indicate tone of voice, but use them sparingly. We don't assume that the inclusion of a smiley will make the recipient happy with what we say, or wipe out an otherwise insulting comment. - We wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. No, we don't answer immediately. - We are brief without being overly terse. When replying to an email, we include enough original material to be understood but no more. It is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including all the previous emails: we edit out all the irrelevant material. Giving context helps everyone. We delete irrelevant material and focus on what we want to comment on. This makes for easier reading and takes up less space. - We assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they say does not represent their organization (unless stated explicitly). Conversely, we assume that while on the board, what we write in public will certainly be attributed to TDF as well! - We keep messages brief and to the point. We don't wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. - If we should find ourselves in a strong disagreement with another person, we make our responses to each other via private messages rather than continue to send them to the list or the group. If we are debating a point on which the group might have some interest, we may summarize for them later. If we should find even the private interaction hard, we ask a trusted peer for help. - We don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material. - We avoid "me-too" posts. It's wonderful to agree with each other, but it's rare that pointing this out adds much to the discussion. New information is always welcome; an echo chamber is often less pleasant. In a word: we reply to messages only when we have something substantive to contribute. "Good one, Joan" does not qualify as substantive. That said, for discussions where checking support of opinions is desirable, there should be an easy way for the _community_ to give their feedback in a +1/-1 form, without running an official vote. LimeSurvey or Nextcloud Polls could fit that purpose, and in the hopefully not too distant future, Decidim can take over that task. - If we are caught in an argument, we keep the discussion focused on issues rather than the personalities involved. Similarly, if we inadvertently offend someone, we apologize quickly. - If we feel that someone's response to one of our messages is offensive, we take pains to reply generously rather than defensively. "Taking the high road" will almost always diffuse bad feelings. - We resist taking a difference of opinion personally. Someone not liking our position or the crazy thing we have done does not mean that they dislike us. - Not everybody will agree on everything. It's healthy to recognise that differing views can't always be reconciled. Often, we have to accept that someone else thinks differently and move on. If a particular list or topic is constantly leaving us irritable because of these kinds of issues, the message
Re: [board-discuss] certification list issue ?
Hi Michael, all, I'm not used to an email thread where the subject was changed without notice (for the second time). Am 11.04.22 um 21:19 schrieb Michael Meeks: Am 09.04.22 um 08:51 schrieb Heiko Tietze: If you take me as an external observer, the opposite is true. Collabora is home for many experts, every single one always supportive, and never acted against the interests of the project. Thank you for your kind words Heiko - much appreciated. On 09/04/2022 13:17, Andreas Mantke wrote: it's great to have a lot of certified developer, which are able to work on LibreOffice. But if you have a look on e.g. https://www.documentfoundation.org/gethelp/developers/ you see that most of them are contracted by Collabora. A quick count shows 20/57 - around a third - which doesn't seem unreasonable. The whole discussion in the original thread was about the way decisions were made by TDF and its board. It's not possible to have board members responsible for the whole budget on one side of the table and a contractor, which is connected with some board members and bids on parts of the budget, on the other side of this table. This was completed by the ranking from the ESC / certified developers on tender proposals, because there are also a number of developers involved, which are connected to those companies/organizations. Thus there is no room for biding on a tender of the 2022 budget from those companies / organizations. If TDF wouldn't follow such rule, it has a compliance issue and an issue with its reputation as charity organization. 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
[board-discuss] no board meeting on Monday, April 18
Hello, the board meeting on Monday, April 18, has been cancelled. It's a public holiday in several countries. The next regular board meeting therefore is on Monday, May 2. 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
