Dear list,
this email is a very generic reminder of how we as a board would like
to communicate. It would be great, if we could also inspire everyone
else on this list to follow our lead there.
We strive to:
- be inclusive, and patient
- recognise each other as humans (with our different quirks
Hi Paolo, all,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 27/05/2022 12:31, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > Process-wise, my call to work out a proposal how to come to a joint
> > text (in a small circle) is still open.
>
> I've asked many times but still no answer. Will you one day explain w
Hi Paolo, all,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> That document clearly contains another proposal which should go its own way
> instead of trying to make it pass as a "merged" proposal.
>
The intention here (and I would very much like to support that idea),
is to come up with a merged proposal, which then
Dear list,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> He may have missed my emails but I suppose that our chairman, which is also
> his direct superior at work, could have made him notice that he overlooked
> some emails from a fellow member of the board.
>
Just to clarify - Gabor does not receive orders or
Hi Paolo, all,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 25/05/2022 10:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > To reiterate the question, is that something the two of you would be
> > willing to collaborate on?
> It seems like you missed my previous answer:
>
> https://listarchives.document
Hi Paolo, hi Kendy,
I wrote:
> Could I ask the two of you to work out a joint proposal, how to
> finalize the document?
>
> It could be a working group or a shared, editable document, or
> something else entirely - but would be great to see this finished
> soonish, and with wide board support.
>
Hi Andreas, all,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> It seemed there is a approach behind this behavior: postpone the whole
> topic as far as possible. And try to frustrate the members who try to
> drive this topic forward. And prevent this project in the end or to vary
> it that it will not disturb own
Hi Ilmari, all,
Ilmari Lauhakangas wrote:
> I'm thinking of what will be written in the job posting. If the
> title contains "mentor" and mentoring will be central in the job
> description, it will scare devs away.
>
Yeah, I agree that past job postings were perhaps over-specific there.
The
Hi Paolo, hi Kendy, all,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a
> > similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or
> > fourth time.
>
> You stated that I should have answered questions, that in my opinion are
> answered
Hi Paolo, hi Kendy,
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> Paolo Vecchi píše v Čt 12. 05. 2022 v 14:29 +0200:
> > I have received no additional constructive feedback from the board
> > since
> > the last published version so I assume that the proposal will be
> > promptly approved as a new strategic project
Hi Regina,
copying Armin, who did quite a bit of work in that area -
Regina Henschel wrote:
> you are the contact person for tender proposal
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2022#Unify_Writer_and_Draw_Images
> The topic of this tender proposal is not very clear to me.
Dear fellow directors, all,
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 6 Board of Directors members have participated in
+1 from me.
I wrote:
> 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
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
ity calls from all parts
of this world, and we should be welcoming instead of patronizing.
Let's end-thread here.
Thanks, Thorsten
--
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Lega
Hi Florian,
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Mike Saunders maintains an events calendar. This is embedded in the wiki on
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Events and directly accessible via
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/calendar/embed/WPAQ2UTYAJPRW84U/dayGridMonth/now
>
Is
Hi Daniel, all,
Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote:
> This all goes hand in hand with the refusal to hire developers within TDF.
>
I don't see where that should have happened. See also Paolo's answer.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Simon, all,
Simon Phipps wrote:
> Can you tell is the voting details please?
>
The vote on the budget was unanimous, among the board members present.
Best,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Andreas, all,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> But you didn't consider the mental aspects.
>
I did, but I still believe that's quite minor compared to the actual
development effort.
The policy as it stands now is a compromise between a number of needs
(and people's ideas), where there's some barrier
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Abstaining from voting on it as while the text could be a starting point it
> seems to make it clear that whatever goes in the "attic" will never come out
> of it as explained very well by Andreas Mantke:
>
>
Hi Andreas, all,
let me address your questions as how I can summarise the intentions &
discussions we've had, over the past months. Other board members can
chime in and explain their take.
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Thus it is not possible to make a contribution or a potential
> contribution for
Hi Andreas, all,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Am 24.03.22 um 00:20 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
> > • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” or
> >“pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes to
> >the code to be shared as
I vote +1.
I wrote:
> Dear directors,
>
> calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic
> Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now.
>
> Changes since v2.1:
> * corrected mistakes found during Monday board call
> * light touch-ups for English
> * aligned the readme
Dear directors,
calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic
Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now.
Changes since v2.1:
* corrected mistakes found during Monday board call
* light touch-ups for English
* aligned the readme text suggestions with the changes in
Hi *,
Caolán McNamara wrote:
> I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something
> by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base
> which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security
> issues mount up, creating a sort of zombie would be a
Approve.
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Dear board,
>
> as discussed in https://listarchives.tdf.io/i/nUXiQDLatIR_Od6g63A08xU3 and
> in the last board call, the following VOTE is proposed on the recently
> published draft update to the CoI policy [1], to modify our Rules of
> Procedure [2] - such
I, Thorsten Behrens, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in
the order set forth below:
1. Gábor Kelemen
2. Ayhan Yalçınsoy
3. Gabriel Masei
Best
Hi Andreas,
thx a lot for bringing this up.
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> In my view TDF should reconsider the membership of Rubitech-Astra after
> breach of international law by Russia and the attack against the Ukraine.
>
The board has just decided to suspend the AB membership.
Best,
-- Thorsten
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,
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 Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > 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
Hi Simon,
Simon Phipps wrote:
> So I still think it would be worth asking around to see if there is
> another open source community using Decidim/Consul/LiquidFeedback in
> their governance who can share their experiences. I can do that if
> you want or there are others here who participate in
Hi *,
looking at this thread, we start to run in circles.
My understanding was, that Paolo volunteered to write-up a more
detailed proposal, including goals (short-term and possibly
long-term).
I agree with several other directors (current and upcoming) that this
would be very useful to have,
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
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
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
Hi Michael,
[reordered for the sake of a linear argument]
Michael Weghorn wrote:
> and I remember that the importance of users was emphasized at some in-person
> event I attended (probably Akademy) as well.
>
And I would agree. A user-facing project (opensource or not) that
doesn't care about
Hi *,
with the lively discussion ensuing here, it is perhaps worth sharing
my position ahead of the board call tomorrow:
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers
> to address our donors specific needs
>
I think it is worth considering,
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> I was actually disagreeing with a statement saying that users are not part
> of the community.
>
Then we have to agree to disagree.
Sole users (i.e. without contributing anything to the community) are
to my mind never part of a FLOSS project community.
The rest
Hi Olivier,
Olivier Hallot wrote:
> Other users express their happiness translating, adding linguistic stuff,
> documenting and building culture in askbot, telegram channels and regional
> meetings.
>
I would consider those users contributors.
> I wonder who is actually listening to users.
>
I
Hi *,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 09/02/2022 15:57, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> > It is important to understand that "community" means "contributors"; as
> > opposed to "users". "Users" are not part of the "community", until
> > they start contributing; via code, QA, translations, marketing under
> >
sophi wrote:
> > Do you have any insight into why the community has not chosen to fix the
> > issue please?
>
> Reading through the bug (which was only an example) and other contributions,
> I don't think we can say that the community has not chosen to fix their
> issues.
>
Wasn't that meant to
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > The evolving consensus in the board it
> > seems (though of course I cannot speak for them), is that TDF should
> > for the moment close the chapter of LibreOffice Online.
>
> More than a consensus I believe that we may have to resign to the fact that
> we may have been
Hi Marco,
it's unclear if we're talking past each other -
Marco Marinello wrote:
> it's of course legit to ask people contributing here to comply with the
> ML netiquette but I don't think closing the thread here is the solution.
>
This part of the thread is a conversation about the past, and
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> In regard to your questions:
>
[references to earlier emails]
> I'll follow up on the board list also with the proposal to look more
> in detail at what we host and status and future of the Android
> Viewer.
>
Thanks. So let's end-thread here.
Cheers,
--
rent ideas on how to deal with stale
projects
Everything else is badly off-topic on this thread (and very likely
even on this list). For general discussions, please do move that over
to our disc...@documentfoundation.org list.
Cheers, Thorsten
--
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of
Hi Marco,
Marco Marinello wrote:
> No. I started a new thread, as requested, not to be confused with *your*
> thread regarding the actization proposal.
>
Indeed, sorry for the imprecise wording. Counter-proposal discussion
here. ;)
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi *,
discussions that don't make progress towards agreement are a waste of
everyone's time.
If this is about personal gripes, the best way to sort things out is a
phone or video call.
Otherwise, let's please circle back to the topic at hand (atticisation
of LibreOffice Online, and what to do
Hi Marco,
Marco Marinello wrote:
> I hope source-only projects will not happen again.
>
In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.
There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a challenge (in the
wider context) that the
Let's now stop this infighting. Nothing good will come from it.
In particular: this is a public list, so let me remind everyone that
our statutes suggest, and our code of conduct mandates:
- that we behave respectfully towards all others, including those that
are different or think differently
Hi Sophie,
sophi wrote:
> - partnering with CHATONS (or whoever) to offer LOOL instances when
> teachers was in cruel lack of such resources
>
That's the one thing that probably would have been pretty contested,
would we have done it -
> - put a dedicated prominent help channel for things like
Hi *,
my first email with that subject wasn't really meant to start a
discussion, but make a statement.
I'll not debate individual points (or answer further in this thread);
in the end we can agree to disagree (as long as we manage to pull
together & towards shared goals).
It is therefore
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> So, to conclude, this "distraction" has actually helped the board in dealing
> with a situation which impaired its freedom to act in a well informed and
> structured way and created a new situation where, thanks to important and in
> some cases overdue work done by the board
Hi Sophie,
a bit sad to read your rather disappointed mail -
sophi wrote:
> I don't read only about products, but about sharing, empowering of
> people, solidarity and creativity, all in the FLOSS spirit. TDF for me
> is not only hosting a product, but has a culture, has a knowledge, has a
> lot
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 12:44, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
>
> You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any
> LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you think that the board in future
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Unfortunately it seems like the board didn't realise that a big issue was
> brewing for quite a few years as clear rules were not set.
>
That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
> > Putting this burden on everyone **up-front** and **by default** (with
> > the added
Hi *,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> That should be added in the "## De-atticization requirements. The form could
> be along the line of:
>
> - If the parties involved in the development of the project are commercial
> entities an agreement must be signed to make clear the final scope, the
> benefits to
I wrote:
> So I'd like to call for a vote soon, unless there's concrete input for
> edits. Let's give this two more days.
>
There were two concrete proposals to amend the policy, that we'll
discuss during the board call on Friday. Thus, holding the vote for
the moment.
All the best,
-- Thorsten
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > Can I see the adjustments/changes to the proposal then please?
>
> The proposal, as stated in my previous emails, is related to the eventual
> "de-atticisation" of the project.
>
Again, for this to be constructive, could you please suggest concrete
changes to
Hi Paolo,
let's stay focused -
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > Do you have concrete suggestions on changing the actual
> > proposal?
>
> Well, yes. That's what the rest of the email you replied to was about.
>
Can I see the adjustments/changes to the proposal then please?
> I'm not even suggesting
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> I would wait for an eventual vote until a few weeks after FOSDEM just in
> case more questions and/or interest about the future of LOOL come up.
>
The attic proposal is only incidentally related to LibreOffice
Online. Do you have concrete suggestions on changing
Hi *,
quick comment on the below -
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Very brief summary of the events:
>
> Back in March 2020, other new board members and I, started making enquiries
> in regards to why we weren't making available an up to date LOOL to the
> community. We were clearly "advertising" LOOL on
Dear board, dear TDF members, all,
this proposal has sparked interesting discussions, that we should
continue. For the proposal at hand though, we've not received much if
any actionable feedback.
So I'd like to call for a vote soon, unless there's concrete input for
edits. Let's give this two
I, Thorsten Behrens, elected director of the board of The Document
Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung bürgerlichen
Rechts. My term will start February 18, 2022.
Signed: Thorsten Behrens
Ich, Thorsten Behrens, gewähltes Mitglied des Vorstands der The Document
Foundation
Hi *,
Michael Weghorn wrote:
> I think that would be in line with how we have been handling single features
> in the desktop version that were in a comparable state in the past - usually
> after discussing the removal in the ESC first.
>
I would support that proposal.
The attic process is for
Hi Marco,
since you specifically asked me to comment -
Marco Marinello wrote:
> first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the current
> status quo that this proposal will mainly affect the "Online" project at
> TDF's infra.
>
Conversely, I believe it would be wise to structure
Dear board, dear TDF members, all,
as mentioned a few times during board calls, Emiliano and me have been
drafting a proposal what to do with no-longer-active projects at TDF.
Here's the draft we're both happy with:
-%<--
##
Hi,
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
Hi,
gentle reminder - the vote is running for a bit less than a day
still. ;)
Best, Thorsten
I wrote:
> Dear directors, all,
>
> calling for a VOTE on the just-published draft update to the CoI
> policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we
> reference version 1.3.1 of the
Dear Community, Members of the TDF, and Membership Committee,
I currently serve as a director on the board of The Document
Foundation, and I would like to run again.
My full name is Thorsten Behrens, as of today I'm 47 years
old. Together with my wonderful wife & fellow LibreOffice hacker
B
I wrote:
> Dear directors, all,
>
> calling for a VOTE on the just-published draft update to the CoI
> policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we
> reference version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy:
>
> ---
>
> Preamble
>
> In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of
Dear directors, all,
calling for a VOTE on the just-published draft update to the CoI
policy [1], to modify our Rules of Procedure [2] - such that we
reference version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy:
---
Preamble
In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby
agrees on the
Dear members, all,
Michael Meeks wrote:
> There is a marginally improved 1.3.1 version here from review today:
>
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/1/1f/Mike_BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_1.odt
>
For easier mobile reading, here's the PDF version of that draft:
Hi Andreas,
please, this is not very constructive so far. I tell you §8 is not
affected, you claim it is (and conclude a number of things from there).
At the same time, MC and board are working on a CoI policy, so this:
> And it shows further that a critical view about the impact of such
>
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> seemed the board needs a discussion and decission about § 8 IV of the
> statutes:
>
I can assure you (and the board), that § 8 (4) is most definitely not
touched by that announcement.
Please do reach out if there's any further questions (I'll probably
not be
Italo Vignoli wrote:
> 1. Develop a training for certification (attached), which allows to access
> the "LibreOffice Certified" entry level (without specification about
> migrations and training), after the usual certification review. Once the
> training for certification has been approved, it
Hi Dennis,
Dennis Roczek wrote:
> E.g. You know very well how long which MS Windows version is supported with
> which support plan. In the store you can only guess:
> is it
> * a live time license (buy one, only get this major release updates)
> * some X months supported license
> *
Hi Drew,
on the feedback / contact question - I recall MS tried hard to keep
people on the store pages (discouraging links off-site, encouraging
companies to engage with users on the Store / comment pages there).
The place to go & get support & provide feedback directly to CIB is:
I, Thorsten Behrens, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputy to represent me during board calls and meetings:
1. Nicolas Christener
All the best,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
> * branches will be rewinded to commit (or the commits before)
> 4ca4fd34169dd386c2fa57bd28650c00b23d6864 (last commit before changes by
> Collabora)
>
Yep, that was implied, +1
> * OpenGrok needs to point to the TDF git/gerrit
>
Yep, that was Guilhem's proposal, +1
>
Ah sorry, too much voting in one thread - yep, +1 to that proposal!
Lothar K. Becker wrote:
>+1
>
>Thanks
>Lothar
>
>Am 02.02.2021 um 13:15 schrieb Florian Effenberger:
>
> Hello,
>
> based on the previous discussion, putting the following to VOTE now:
>
>
Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
> "rewind branches on https://git.libreoffice.org/online and for the time
> being deny all write
> operations to the repository, be it on the git or gerrit side. It'll
> freeze the state of the dashboard, notification, and other clones for
> free, and if/when we
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> as discussed during the last board calls, the board is currently collecting
> proposals on a TDF subsidiary. For that, we've created a folder "TDF
> Subsidiary" in the Nextcloud "TDF Members" share, where the various ideas
> will be collected.
>
The board would like
Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> Anyway, why should TDF assist with tooling for a project that's no
> longer developed under its umbrella?
>
Why not? It's a useful service, and the instance is running anyway.
(for the record, it's not without precedent that TDF helps out
not-directly-affiliated projects.
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> 1. Ask the marketing project to make a proposal to revamp the LibreOffice
> Online website (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) to
> reflect the status quo
>
> 2. Ask the team to keep an eye on BugZilla, and freeze/make read-only the
> BugZilla
Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> I assume “freeze” in 1. was not meant to turn
> https://git.libreoffice.org/online it into a read-only mirror?
> That's anyway not how I read the decision.
>
Agreed. The idea was to mirror on github, and freeze on gerrit.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description:
Italo Vignoli wrote:
> So, if you de-couple "rolling" from "release", and couple it with "idea"
> or "object" you get the feeling of what could be the positioning if the
> choice was "rolling" (very similar to "advance").
>
Yes - and from the ESC minutes of last week:
+ idea: get the idea out,
Hi Lothar,
Lothar K. Becker wrote:
>The proposals, in ALPHABETICAL order, are as follows:
>
>a. Advance
>b. Community
>c. Rolling
>
My preference, in decreasing order:
* Community
* Rolling
* Advance
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Lothar K. Becker wrote:
>- APPROVAL of the 7.1 MARKETING PLAN, especially the ACTION ITEMS from the
>aforementioned shared slides slide 27 onwards.
>
>- The board ASKS THE TEAM, especially the marketing group with Italo and
>Mike, to WORK on the aforementioned ACTION ITEMS, as
Hi Lionel,
Lionel Élie Mamane wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:55:01PM +0100, Andreas Mantke wrote:
> >> The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
> >> holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the vote needs to
> >> have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members,
Hey Guilhem,
Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> Could the BoD clarify the short-term period and maybe even commit to
> revisit the vote say, before the end of their term?
>
Though I cannot speak for the entire board, the above is my
understanding at least (I'd say this needs revisiting the latest in
early
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> The vote that has been proposed is the following:
>
> 1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for the time
> being
>
> 1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to instead
> mirror the Collabora repo, for the time being,
Hi Flo, all,
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> The board is eager to get the discussion started, preferably on the public
> board-discuss mailing list.
>
I'm somehow not able to add to that folder, so here's a separate share
link:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/TyRPPBJNsRkcdz8
Thanks
Hi Telesto, all,
Telesto wrote:
> From internal perspective (so within the organization of TDF)
> LibreOffice is viewed, managed, and functioning as a project.
>
and
> LibreOffice for the end-user is pretty often associated with a
> product.
>
True, that is a good description of the status quo.
Hi *,
to comment on one aspect here for the moment:
Italo Vignoli wrote:
> I think the question is legitimate if you take away the last portion:
> "assuming the statutes can be tweaked". I do not see how the statutes
> can be tweaked, but I think that they can be applied with some added
>
ow a potential
fully-owned subsidiary could be setup there, would be greatly
appreciated!
All the best, Thorsten
--
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen
Hi Franklin, all,
Franklin Weng wrote:
> BTW, even if it becomes 15th useless channel, which can be tweaked,
> tried and improved from the running experiences, it will not be a
> big deal IMO.
>
Sure, it would create more silos & further fracture the community.
As I said during the board call -
Hi Peter, Michael,
Michael Meeks wrote:
> > Only from ecosystem members this means if this equals must pay someone
> > to get this version lot of my deployments in different businesses of
> > Libreoffice would never have happened.Yes I can see those wanting
> > to make the "LibreOffice
Michael Meeks wrote:
> Absolutely, my hope is TDF gets more developer mentors to nurture
> those who are frustrated by the code and want to become part of the
> solution =)
>
Quite - expect some job posting there in the nearest future. ;)
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description:
Hi Michael,
Michael Weghorn wrote:
> In my opinion (and from own experience at the City of Munich),
> LibreOffice (and other FLOSS software) is often not suitable for many
> large enterprises "as is", so a good way of managing the lifecycle and
> getting issues addressed (i.e. professional
101 - 200 of 389 matches
Mail list logo
