Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision

[Alexander Thurgood]

Thanks Thorsten 

Alex

Le mer. 13 juil. 2022 à 23:41, Thorsten Behrens 
a écrit :

> Hi Alex,
>
> Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> > Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
> > Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still
> present in
> > the amended version ?
> >
> That clause got added - it wasn't there before.
>
> > My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer,
> > trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was
> > felt necessary.
> >
> In the cited decision, that clause helped to strike down a contract as
> invalid, that would have otherwise been harmful to that other
> foundation.
>
> Best, Thorsten
>
> --
> Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
> Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Alex,

Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
> Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in
> the amended version ?
>
That clause got added - it wasn't there before.

> My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer,
> trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was
> felt necessary.
>
In the cited decision, that clause helped to strike down a contract as
invalid, that would have otherwise been harmful to that other
foundation.

Best, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Offer AppStore LibreOffice for a fee

[Cor Nouws]

Hi,

Paolo Vecchi wrote on 13/07/2022 16:12:

Hi all,

just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite 
a few reasons.


As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see 
similar issues:


Indeed. Recently you already tried to reopen the vote on LOOL. You got a 
reply to that here: 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00746.html 
You didn't reply / take notice /* it seems.

Instead you're doing the same here with another board decision..

     - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day 
where people are busy with their day job
     - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent during the 
discussion period
     - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent also in the 
vote process


If the majority of the board votes in favor, the board agrees. It is 
known that you are not happy here. Try to live with it and not 
repeatedly spoil precious time and good will by starting debates on 
closed votes.
I've tried to explain you this before. Even several times. Sadly you 
didn't respond to that or just ignore and do the same again..


     - Most push backs from objections coming from representatives of 
publishers of their own products based on LibreOffice


Lacking any reasonable relation between the one and the other, the 
decision for TDF starting to publish in the app stores is just passed, 
this seems to be one of the infamous passive accusations.


     - No evaluation or statements of potential CoIs have been made so 
not clear if publishers should have voted abstain


To start with, this is not in line with the CoI policy.
Then it is again an statement showing that we really need to look at 
that topic. I already asked for doing so at our LibOCon in Milan.


     - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company publishing its own 
products based on LibreOffice, should have declared a potential CoI and 


Lacking any reasonable ground for that, in as well the CoI policy as 
well as in practice, this looks as a false accusation and abuse of the 
policy again..


let the vice-chairman deal with the evaluation and inclusions of 
comments to make sure the process is seen by all as fully impartial 
regardless of actual CoIs being present or not.


Here we have also the additional issue that it is not clear what we have 
voted for as there hasn't been a proper discussion on the implications 
of the vote.


If the majority of the board votes in favor, the majority of the board 
is fine with content, discussion, information available.. (Before 
repeating myself: see above for the rest.)



...


Seeing that we are in a position where we need to get together, grow 
understanding, find common grounds, I think a mail with passive 
accusation, insinuation, disrespect for board procedures, ... does not 
belong on this list.


Therefore I really think that it is needed that this type of mail is not 
moderated through.


If you would write something as
   "I voted against because I consider this or that more or less 
important, or .." other reason related to the content of the decision,

that would be perfectly fine to me.
I suggest there's been more then enough explanations, also in careful, 
friendly, winsome ways, about your dominant style of communication?


So again, I regret that it has been moderated through in this form. I 
will further discuss this in the board internally.


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] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision

[Alexander Thurgood]

Hi Florian,

Interesting decision by the BGH.

Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner 
Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still 
present in the amended version ?


If so, how is that now different to the previous situation (other than 
what follows this sentence with regard to how legal representation by 
the Board is effected) ?


My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer, trying 
to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was felt necessary.



Alex



Le 13/07/2022 à 16:51, Florian Effenberger a écrit :

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-06-14, is 
now made public in accordance with our statutes.


Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):
Ayhan, Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Kendy, Laszlo, Paolo, Thorsten

Caolán McNamara wrote on 09.06.22 at 11:00:


The German Federal Court of Justice decided (in judgement of 15 April
2021, case number III ZR 139/20, [1]) that the following clause in the
statutes of a non-profit foundation effectively hinders third parties
to contract to its detriment: “Der Vorstand ist in seiner
Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”(non-binding
translation “The Board of Directors is limited in its power of
representation by the purpose of the Foundation.”).

In order to protect The Document Foundation this clause therefore
should be placed in the statutes [1] in § 8 section 1 which shall then
read:
Ҥ 8 Aufgaben des Vorstandes
(1) Der Vorstand entscheidet in allen grundsätzlichen Angelegenheiten
nach Maßgabe der Satzung in eigener Verantwortung und führt die
laufenden Geschäfte der Stiftung. Der Vorstand hat die Stellung eines
gesetzlichen Vertreters und vertritt die Stiftung gerichtlich und
außergerichtlich. Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den
Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt. Die Vertretung der Stiftung erfolgt
durch zwei Vorstandsmitglieder, von denen eines der Vorsitzende oder
der stellvertretende Vorsitzende sein muss. In dieser Weise kann für
bestimmte Geschäfte Einzelbevollmächtigung erteilt werden. Im
Innenverhältnis ist der stellvertretende Vorsitzende gehalten, nurbei
Verhinderung des Vorsitzenden tätig zu werden.”

Non-binding translation [3]:
"§ 8 Tasks of the Board of Directors
(1) The Board of Directors decides on all fundamental matters on its
own authority in accordance with the Articles and conducts the ongoing
business of the foundation. The Board of Directors has the status of a
legal representative and represents the foundation in and out of court.
The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the
purpose of the Foundation. The foundation shall be represented by two
members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be the chairman or
vice-chairman. Individual empowerment may be granted for certain
transactions in this way. The vice chairman will take action on
internal matters only if the chairman is unavailable."

In accordance with § 14 statutes the Board of Directors should make
this change to the statutes as it does not affect the foundation’s
goals and does not alter the original design of the foundation or
facilitates the fulfilment of the foundation’s goals. The change of the
statutes only becomes effective upon approval by the Foundation
Supervisory Authority.

This vote is proposed by all members of the legal subcommittee: Caolán,
Emiliano, Paolo.
This vote runs 72 hours from now on.

[1]
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh=en=69a429d192b32e52aa408ebee0d476d6=119437 


[2] German original https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf
[3] non-binding translation
https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf


The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat 
holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote 
needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which 
gives 4.


A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.

Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

One deputy supports the motion.

Florian



--
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] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision

[Florian Effenberger]

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-06-14, is now 
made public in accordance with our statutes.


Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):
Ayhan, Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Kendy, Laszlo, Paolo, Thorsten

Caolán McNamara wrote on 09.06.22 at 11:00:


The German Federal Court of Justice decided (in judgement of 15 April
2021, case number III ZR 139/20, [1]) that the following clause in the
statutes of a non-profit foundation effectively hinders third parties
to contract to its detriment: “Der Vorstand ist in seiner
Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”(non-binding
translation “The Board of Directors is limited in its power of
representation by the purpose of the Foundation.”).

In order to protect The Document Foundation this clause therefore
should be placed in the statutes [1] in § 8 section 1 which shall then
read:
Ҥ 8 Aufgaben des Vorstandes
(1) Der Vorstand entscheidet in allen grundsätzlichen Angelegenheiten
nach Maßgabe der Satzung in eigener Verantwortung und führt die
laufenden Geschäfte der Stiftung. Der Vorstand hat die Stellung eines
gesetzlichen Vertreters und vertritt die Stiftung gerichtlich und
außergerichtlich. Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den
Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt. Die Vertretung der Stiftung erfolgt
durch zwei Vorstandsmitglieder, von denen eines der Vorsitzende oder
der stellvertretende Vorsitzende sein muss. In dieser Weise kann für
bestimmte Geschäfte Einzelbevollmächtigung erteilt werden. Im
Innenverhältnis ist der stellvertretende Vorsitzende gehalten, nurbei
Verhinderung des Vorsitzenden tätig zu werden.”

Non-binding translation [3]:
"§ 8 Tasks of the Board of Directors
(1) The Board of Directors decides on all fundamental matters on its
own authority in accordance with the Articles and conducts the ongoing
business of the foundation. The Board of Directors has the status of a
legal representative and represents the foundation in and out of court.
The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the
purpose of the Foundation. The foundation shall be represented by two
members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be the chairman or
vice-chairman. Individual empowerment may be granted for certain
transactions in this way. The vice chairman will take action on
internal matters only if the chairman is unavailable."

In accordance with § 14 statutes the Board of Directors should make
this change to the statutes as it does not affect the foundation’s
goals and does not alter the original design of the foundation or
facilitates the fulfilment of the foundation’s goals. The change of the
statutes only becomes effective upon approval by the Foundation
Supervisory Authority.

This vote is proposed by all members of the legal subcommittee: Caolán,
Emiliano, Paolo.
This vote runs 72 hours from now on.

[1]
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh=en=69a429d192b32e52aa408ebee0d476d6=119437
[2] German original https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf
[3] non-binding translation
https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf


The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders 
(not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 
1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.


A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.

Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

One deputy supports the motion.

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

[board-discuss] Re: [tdf-internal] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Mark Hung]

-1

I think BoD should handle LOOL repository according to attic / deattic
policy, measuring how many people devote their time to improve the code and
make release happen, instead of based on how many people want it, by
replying +1.

Just check our own marketing material [1] that compares LibreOffice and
Apache OpenOffice on the number of releases and code changes. That's what
attic policy is trying to avoid. And I bet it's far from enough just
satisfying the deattic threshold in order to be an active project. For the
project to sustain, you'll need core developers, regular contributors, and
other newbies who have potential to make contribution. Based on my
observation, LOOL has none of them now.

Given that repositories of LOOL, LODE, OSSII are competing the scarce
resources, i.e. developers.
As a developer, I'll choose the project that is most active to contribute
to and advice others to do so. I tried to make few patches for Apache
Office even after I had started to contribute to LibreOffice many years
ago. I stopped doing so because it took  me more than twice effort since
the code had diverged. Not to mention that developers need to collaborate
with each other. Considering these, I think LOOL under TDF little chance to
grow again. I'd advice accept the fact that the developer community has
moved away. Just let it go as if it had never happened. Do better and form
a robust developer community first next time.

OTOH, I think the idea of facilitating access to information and
communication is admirable. It's worth us to brainstorm the method to
achieve the goal. There are other technology worth considering, for
example, investing on Android version or WebAssembly port of LibreOffice.
LOOL need not to be the only solution. It is not even a feasible solution
at the moment.

Best regards.






[1] https://www.libreoffice.org/discover/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/





Daniel A. Rodriguez  於 2022年7月11日 週一 凌晨4:42寫道：

> We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding the
> definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice Online.
> Considering the mission of facilitating access to information and
> communication technologies as a fundamental and strategic achievement of
> inclusion and exercise of digital sovereignty.
>
> As a foundation committed to eliminating the digital divide in society by
> giving everyone free access to office productivity tools, the most
> important thing is to demonstrate that we are committed to offering
> alternatives to all those individuals and organizations that lack the
> resources to hire corporate services.
>
> We intend with this message, an absolute rethinking of the vote that
> established the current condition of the repository, which belongs to the
> community and should welcome improvements from all over the community, as
> we consider it goes against the objectives outlined by The Document
> Foundation.
>
> To avoid the process of atticization, as the clock is already ticking,
> and, at the same time, emphasize the global nature of the foundation we
> urge full consideration of the two proposals that have been made so far.
>
> Support Andreas Mantke's effort to revive the LOOL project. Who has
> already succeeded in upgrading the pre-fork code base to current libraries
> and dependencies versions. (
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00684.html
> )
> Implement the OxOffice On Line Community Version fork that already has
> several improvements before the LOOL version has been frozen, including
> those implemented in the commercial versions, and bugs fixed by them as
> they see fit. (
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00694.html
> )
>
> In any case, since this is a community version TDF must show its
> commitment to its core values and do everything in their power to grow LOOL
> community in order to continue development.
>
> Sincerely yours, LibreOffice Community Members and Activists around the
> world.
>
>
>
> --
> Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
> Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
> O únete a la Comunidad Hispana:
> https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org
>
> --
> Postings on this list are considered private communication among TDF
> members. Please do NOT share outside this circle!
>


-- 
Mark Hung

RE: [board-discuss] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Penny Mar]

Hi everyone!

Penny here, on the Spanish Documentation Team we mostly like the idea of 
reopening that project, taking into account two things:

First, we´d like to maintain the TDF spirit about keeping things public and 
open.

And second, we agree to try it for a trial period and check if this project is 
really interesting or not for the general public (we can easily verify this two 
ways, with the amount of programmers who commit to boost the program, and with 
the response of the general public by using the program).

We want to reach as many people as possible and provide them with a free and 
open source tool, but we are also concious of the amount of work that could 
imply. So let´s keep updated and see how it works.

All the best,
Penny





[cid:2478206f-988f-4528-9fdd-3f92aa42ab90]

Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] Offer AppStore LibreOffice for a fee

[Paolo Vecchi]

Hi all,

just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite 
a few reasons.


As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see 
similar issues:
    - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day 
where people are busy with their day job
    - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent during the 
discussion period
    - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent also in the 
vote process
    - Most push backs from objections coming from representatives of 
publishers of their own products based on LibreOffice
    - No evaluation or statements of potential CoIs have been made so 
not clear if publishers should have voted abstain
    - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company publishing its own 
products based on LibreOffice, should have declared a potential CoI and 
let the vice-chairman deal with the evaluation and inclusions of 
comments to make sure the process is seen by all as fully impartial 
regardless of actual CoIs being present or not.


Here we have also the additional issue that it is not clear what we have 
voted for as there hasn't been a proper discussion on the implications 
of the vote.


Eg. is the price set by previous licensees right for TDF, what 
entitlements does it include, shouldn't we have done at least some 
testing with a free version, etc..


I have shared many questions with the board which hopefully will soon 
receive answers so that the situation will be clearer.


While it's since 2020 that I push for TDF to publish LibreOffice in the 
app stores, and I believe we should have (also) a paid version, I can't 
+1 that text as the issues it might bring have not been clarified.


Ciao

Paolo



On 13/07/2022 11:53, Florian Effenberger wrote:

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-07-11, is 
now made public in accordance with our statutes.


The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote
needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which
gives 4.

A total of 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 1 disapproval.

**Decision: The proposal has been accepted.**

Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):

Caolán, Cor, László, Paolo, Thorsten

Thorsten Behrens wrote:


Dear board,

thanks for the feedback, was good to let the discussion run for a bit
longer. I'm putting this for an email vote now, lasting the usual 72
hours from now on (such that directors on vacation can participate):

Motion:

   TDF to offer LibreOffice as a paid product in both Apple's Mac Store,
   as well as Microsoft's Windows Store. Initial prices to be taken from
   the last offers the ecosystem licensees had set, with regular
   reporting and reviews to the board (at least quarterly).

This is the first step to get the apps out. Oversight group, further
work, marketing & development needs we should discuss in the following
weeks.



Florian



--
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

[board-discuss] Re: [tdf-internal] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Paolo Vecchi]

+1

Paolo

On 10/07/2022 22:42, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:


We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding 
the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice 
Online. Considering the mission of facilitating access to information 
and communication technologies as a fundamental and strategic 
achievement of inclusion and exercise of digital sovereignty.


As a foundation committed to eliminating the digital divide in society 
by giving everyone free access to office productivity tools, the most 
important thing is to demonstrate that we are committed to offering 
alternatives to all those individuals and organizations that lack the 
resources to hire corporate services.


We intend with this message, an absolute rethinking of the vote that 
established the current condition of the repository, which belongs to 
the community and should welcome improvements from all over the 
community, as we consider it goes against the objectives outlined by 
The Document Foundation.


To avoid the process of atticization, as the clock is already ticking, 
and, at the same time, emphasize the global nature of the foundation 
we urge full consideration of the two proposals that have been made so 
far.


Support Andreas Mantke's effort to revive the LOOL project. Who has 
already succeeded in upgrading the pre-fork code base to current 
libraries and dependencies versions. 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00684.html)
Implement the OxOffice On Line Community Version fork that already has 
several improvements before the LOOL version has been frozen, 
including those implemented in the commercial versions, and bugs fixed 
by them as they see fit. 
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00694.html)


In any case, since this is a community version TDF must show its 
commitment to its core values and do everything in their power to grow 
LOOL community in order to continue development.


Sincerely yours, LibreOffice Community Members and Activists around 
the world.




--
Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: 
https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org




--
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

[board-discuss] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Jose Mª Lopez]

On 10.07.2022 15:42, Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:

We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern regarding
the definitive closure of the repository of what was LibreOffice
Online. Considering the mission of facilitating access to information
and communication technologies as a fundamental and strategic
achievement of inclusion and exercise of digital sovereignty.

As a foundation committed to eliminating the digital divide in society
by giving everyone free access to office productivity tools, the most
important thing is to demonstrate that we are committed to offering
alternatives to all those individuals and organizations that lack the
resources to hire corporate services.

We intend with this message, an absolute rethinking of the vote that
established the current condition of the repository, which belongs to
the community and should welcome improvements from all over the
community, as we consider it goes against the objectives outlined by
The Document Foundation.

To avoid the process of atticization, as the clock is already ticking,
and, at the same time, emphasize the global nature of the foundation
we urge full consideration of the two proposals that have been made so
far.

Support Andreas Mantke's effort to revive the LOOL project. Who has
already succeeded in upgrading the pre-fork code base to current
libraries and dependencies versions.
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00684.html)
Implement the OxOffice On Line Community Version fork that already has
several improvements before the LOOL version has been frozen,
including those implemented in the commercial versions, and bugs fixed
by them as they see fit.
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00694.html)

In any case, since this is a community version TDF must show its
commitment to its core values and do everything in their power to grow
LOOL community in order to continue development.

Sincerely yours, LibreOffice Community Members and Activists around
the world.


I totally agree.

+1

-- 
José María López Sáez (angler)
Zamora

[board-discuss] Re: [tdf-internal] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree

[Ayhan YALÇINSOY]

+123:42, 10 Temmuz 2022, "Daniel A. Rodriguez" :
We, the undersigned, would like to express our great concern
  regarding the definitive closure of the repository of what was
  LibreOffice Online. Considering the mission of facilitating access
  to information and communication technologies as a fundamental and
  strategic achievement of inclusion and exercise of digital
  sovereignty.
  
  As a foundation committed to eliminating the digital divide in
  society by giving everyone free access to office productivity
  tools, the most important thing is to demonstrate that we are
  committed to offering alternatives to all those individuals and
  organizations that lack the resources to hire corporate services.
  
  We intend with this message, an absolute rethinking of the vote
  that established the current condition of the repository, which
  belongs to the community and should welcome improvements from all
  over the community, as we consider it goes against the objectives
  outlined by The Document Foundation.
  
  To avoid the process of atticization, as the clock is already
  ticking, and, at the same time, emphasize the global nature of the
  foundation we urge full consideration of the two proposals that
  have been made so far.
  
  Support Andreas Mantke's effort to revive the LOOL project. Who
  has already succeeded in upgrading the pre-fork code base to
  current libraries and dependencies versions.
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00684.html)
  Implement the OxOffice On Line Community Version fork that already
  has several improvements before the LOOL version has been frozen,
  including those implemented in the commercial versions, and bugs
  fixed by them as they see fit.
(https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00694.html)
  
  In any case, since this is a community version TDF must show its
  commitment to its core values and do everything in their power to
  grow LOOL community in order to continue development.
  
  Sincerely yours, LibreOffice Community Members and Activists
  around the world.





-- 
  Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos.
  Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org
  O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org
  
-- Postings on this list are considered private communication among TDF members. Please do NOT share outside this circle!Dr. Ayhan Yalçınsoy (PhD)Management and Organization+90 507 231 57 79Pisi Linux DeveloperLibreoffice Translator

-- 
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] Re: [tdf-internal] LibreOffice in app stores free, paid or both?

[Adolfo Jayme Barrientos]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:53 AM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> I just wanted to ask the community how they think LibreOffice should be
> published in the various app stores.
>
> Should it be:
>
> a. available at a cost
> b. free
> c. both
>

paint.net does this: the version available at their website is gratis, but
it has a fee on the Microsoft Store. I would be fine with this approach for
LibreOffice. My only concern is that we could mislead some users into
thinking that, given they have paid for a product, we are a commercial
entity that provides them with tiered support. We need to make that very
clear in the app’s listing on the Store.

Adolfo

[board-discuss] [DECISION] Offer AppStore LibreOffice for a fee

[Florian Effenberger]

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-07-11, is now 
made public in accordance with our statutes.


The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote
needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which
gives 4.

A total of 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 1 disapproval.

**Decision: The proposal has been accepted.**

Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):

Caolán, Cor, László, Paolo, Thorsten

Thorsten Behrens wrote:


Dear board,

thanks for the feedback, was good to let the discussion run for a bit
longer. I'm putting this for an email vote now, lasting the usual 72
hours from now on (such that directors on vacation can participate):

Motion:

   TDF to offer LibreOffice as a paid product in both Apple's Mac Store,
   as well as Microsoft's Windows Store. Initial prices to be taken from
   the last offers the ecosystem licensees had set, with regular
   reporting and reviews to the board (at least quarterly).

This is the first step to get the apps out. Oversight group, further
work, marketing & development needs we should discuss in the following
weeks.



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

[board-discuss] Re: [tdf-internal] LibreOffice in app stores free, paid or both?

[Diego Maniacco]

one more option:
d. if you like it, send [TDF?] some money (must think about an effctive way
to do it)

diego

On Wednesday, 13 July 2022, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:53 AM Paolo Vecchi <
paolo.vec...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I just wanted to ask the community how they think LibreOffice should be
>> published in the various app stores.
>>
>> Should it be:
>>
>> a. available at a cost
>> b. free
>> c. both
>
> paint.net does this: the version available at their website is gratis,
but it has a fee on the Microsoft Store. I would be fine with this approach
for LibreOffice. My only concern is that we could mislead some users into
thinking that, given they have paid for a product, we are a commercial
entity that provides them with tiered support. We need to make that very
clear in the app’s listing on the Store.
> Adolfo
>

-- 
---
Diego Maniacco, Bolzano (Italy)
diego.mania...@gmail.com
---

[image: Not f'd — you won't find me on Facebook] 
Not f'd — you won't find me on FacebookNot wa'd — you won't find me on WhatsApp