Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Uwe, On 27/11/2022 18:55, Uwe Altmann wrote: Hi Andreas While you don't like answers in private mail I post it on this list. Am 27.11.22 um 16:44 schrieb Andreas Mantke: I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here. Maybe most of us follow the golden rule of mailing lists not to feed trolls? ;-) Who are you calling trolls? It's probably an acceptable term in mailing list where some people use anonymity to disrupt a community. What we have seen in this thread is an ex-director interfering with a vote with proven false statements and our chairman jumping on that message and embracing that false statement to influence the vote as well. If they were "simple trolls" we could just try to ignore them but the situation is a lot more serious than that. Seriously: I feel we all are tired of this discussion and I may imagine many of us don't even follow them in detail any more - not out of a lack of interest but mostly because of the way it was and is conducted. Then I wonder if there is any point for me to invest so much time in providing the community with information they could and should check to evaluate if the board is taking the right decisions. This is one of the many examples where the community could, in a few minutes, check the facts and express an informed opinion about what is happening. Coming to the controversial part of the proposal: In my pov it's sheer nonsense to write such statements like those discussed here into a job description or even a contract. Not only the person concerned hardly is in the position to decide on these issues; its also in the full responsibility of his or her boss to decide what they are working on - and no way in the developers own consideration. And I'm rather confident that this also was part of the legal advice the board has got. I guess it's obvious to most that the legal advice would have gone that way. I've tried to explain it in many ways but Jan preferred to resign than accept that it was "sheer nonsense", that's the same "sheer nonsense" that our chairman wants and he's ready to support false statements to make the vote fail. On top of it we can now read another proposal presented by Cor and prepared with "others" which repeats once again the same "sheer nonsense". In a benevolent view on this document it may at best serve as a board's internal letter of intent. But I'm sure - however (if ever) it is voted, when it comes to concrete decisions, the same discussion will arise with new energy. So it's most probably in no case worth all the fuss we see today. Taking in consideration this additional example of disregard for facts and legal advise a simple "internal letter of intent", IMHO, would not be worth they bytes used to store it. My advice emphases the KISS rule (we always should kiss more): Keep it simple, st... :-) I'd love to do that but we've seen a few times that not defining things clearly it leaves room for abuses. Then even when the processes are defined and agreed false statements are used to kill a proposal. It would be great if you could invest a bit more time in evaluating the facts so that you could fine tune your advice do a situation that doesn't seem to fit with the behaviours expected in most boards. Ciao Paolo -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Andreas While you don't like answers in private mail I post it on this list. Am 27.11.22 um 16:44 schrieb Andreas Mantke: I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here. Maybe most of us follow the golden rule of mailing lists not to feed trolls? ;-) Seriously: I feel we all are tired of this discussion and I may imagine many of us don't even follow them in detail any more - not out of a lack of interest but mostly because of the way it was and is conducted. Coming to the controversial part of the proposal: In my pov it's sheer nonsense to write such statements like those discussed here into a job description or even a contract. Not only the person concerned hardly is in the position to decide on these issues; its also in the full responsibility of his or her boss to decide what they are working on - and no way in the developers own consideration. And I'm rather confident that this also was part of the legal advice the board has got. In a benevolent view on this document it may at best serve as a board's internal letter of intent. But I'm sure - however (if ever) it is voted, when it comes to concrete decisions, the same discussion will arise with new energy. So it's most probably in no case worth all the fuss we see today. My advice emphases the KISS rule (we always should kiss more): Keep it simple, st... :-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Uwe Altmann -- 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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Dear all, On 27/11/2022 17:56, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi all, a vote was called under the pretense of consent, for a proposal that did not leave the assigned working group with an approval. The vote has been called on a proposal which followed the agreed at LibOCon and in various email exchanges within the board and with our legal counsel. That is in violation of good practice (to say the least), and it was perfectly ok for directors to leave it on the table (instead of working through 16 pages of text, without change history, to make an informed decision). The chairman is still trying to use false information to justify his appalling behaviour. The notes in the various version of the documents show that what Jan says and what our chairman uses to derail the process is false. The chairman is also ignoring the deputy chairman confirmation that the process has been followed as agreed. If the chairman is sure of what he states then he would have no issues in releasing the exchange of emails we had with our legal counsel where he never challenged the steps we should follow and that the sentence that Jan wanted to add was actually against laws and regulations. Best, -- Thorsten Ciao Paolo -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, a vote was called under the pretense of consent, for a proposal that did not leave the assigned working group with an approval. That is in violation of good practice (to say the least), and it was perfectly ok for directors to leave it on the table (instead of working through 16 pages of text, without change history, to make an informed decision). Best, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Thorsten, hi all, Am 27.11.22 um 13:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens: Hi Stephan, all, Stephan Ficht wrote: (...) Furthermore, I think that a good relationship with everyone is valuable and helpful for all parts of the community and for the common projects. I fully support that notion. That indeed though includes all parts of our community, several of them are on record of being rather very unhappy with the proposal in its current state. it looks as if there are no members from the community which are able to support your above statement in public or at least on a members list. Because there had been invested a lot of resources from the board, the community etc. it would be respectful, if they show there issues with the proposal themselves. I'm not prepared for such arcane statements 'several of them'. It's important that everyone speaks for herself/himself in public. If she/he is not able / willing to do this, the concern is not important enough to be considered. I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here. And I'd like to hear what TDF's team think. Don't be shy and show up yet. 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Thorsten, Am 27.11.22 um 13:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens: Thank you very much for taking the initiative to respond. I'm still curious to know any opinion and explanation about: Am 26.11.22 um 16:14 schrieb Stephan Ficht: Am 18.11.22 um 11:30 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: "Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on which the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are already engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate agreements and relevant communications between TDF and the third parties." In general this is more than unusual from my point of view. Can anyone here explain why an employer should accept restrictions on their employee's activities from third parties? Would she/he accept it herself/himself as an employer? You, being an employer, would you accept the famous 'one sentence' when hiring for your company? Best Stephan -- Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees Affiliation: The Document Foundation -- 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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Stephan, all,
Stephan Ficht wrote:
> Questions just to delay the matter more and more?
> At least that's the impression I get.
>
No. There was always support for getting devs hired. You've received
personal statements from me that this is not a delay tactic.
> After an incredible period of 9(!) months, an incredible amount of around
> 15-20(!) versions of the 14(!) pages 'Proposal of TDF In-House-Developers'
> and incredible efforts from especially Kendy and Paolo (big thanks to both
> of you!) it seems to me that some want to restart the process ('stop here
> and restart, from a clean state'; 're-evaluate', ...).
> For what reason? Because of one sentence? Incredible!
>
This is unfortunately the situation, yes. Sometimes, one sentence can
make a whole lot of a difference - just imagine we would remove the
first sentence from our statutes: "The objective of the foundation is
the promotion and development of office software available for use by
anyone free of charge."
This is not to say any board decision will require the fought-over
sentence, just that the proposal now up for voting is not balanced
without it.
Like the next guy, I'm not eager to fight over 14 pages of rather
verbose text for another 9 months. Thus the suggestion to start from a
clean slate.
> Furthermore, I think that a good relationship with everyone is
> valuable and helpful for all parts of the community and for the
> common projects.
>
I fully support that notion. That indeed though includes all parts
of our community, several of them are on record of being rather very
unhappy with the proposal in its current state.
All the best,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Cor , hi all, On 26.11.22 15:25, Cor Nouws wrote: Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 25/11/2022 14:57: All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as I'm sure I did not. I mentioned items that make it questionable and definitely not fit to help our community with developers. it's really hard to understand, why were not able to give constructive feedback to the work group (Kendy and Paolo) for about 9 long month or more. The last version of document was finished by them weeks ago. The check by the legal adviser has been done. A lot of resources from board and the community has already spent on this task. Such a behavior is an insult of the community, of your fellows and it is not appropriate to the function and the duties of a director of a (charity) foundation. It is really sad to see such an understanding of the duties of a director in a TDF body. I expect that you rethink about your duties and take part in the vote about the in-house developer proposal asap! You explained that you are in the board, because you represent the community (and not to dodge decisions). Regards, Andreas -- 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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Stephan,
Le 26/11/2022 à 16:14, Stephan Ficht a écrit :
Hi all,
Am 26.11.22 um 13:02 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
topic with lots of questions on the Monday call agenda.
Am 26.11.22 um 15:25 schrieb Cor Nouws:
I mentioned items that make it questionable
Questions just to delay the matter more and more?
At least that's the impression I get.
Thanks to Paolo the process has been started here on Feb 7th.
After an incredible period of 9(!) months, an incredible amount of
around 15-20(!) versions of the 14(!) pages 'Proposal of TDF
In-House-Developers' and incredible efforts from especially Kendy and
Paolo (big thanks to both of you!) it seems to me that some want to
restart the process ('stop here and restart, from a clean state';
're-evaluate', ...).
For what reason? Because of one sentence? Incredible!
At LibOCon in Milan, 2(!) months ago, with the participation of board,
MC, team and community (Uwe's workshop Sept 26), it turned out that this
is an _important and urgent_ matter the board to deal with.
The now famous 'one sentence'...
Am 18.11.22 um 11:30 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
"Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on
which the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are
already engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate
agreements and relevant communications between TDF and the third
parties."
In general this is more than unusual from my point of view.
Can anyone here explain why an employer should accept restrictions on
their employee's activities from third parties? Would she/he accept it
herself/himself as an employer?
Furthermore, I think that a good relationship with everyone is valuable
and helpful for all parts of the community and for the common projects.
So instead of retrograding let us move forward. Quickly.
Thank you, I fully support you here Stephan, let's move forward and
quickly, enough time, energy, trust and money lost.
Cheers
Sophie
--
Sophie Gautier so...@libreoffice.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: soph
Foundation coordinator
The Document Foundation
--
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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all,
Am 26.11.22 um 13:02 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
topic with lots of questions on the Monday call agenda.
Am 26.11.22 um 15:25 schrieb Cor Nouws:
I mentioned items that make it questionable
Questions just to delay the matter more and more?
At least that's the impression I get.
Thanks to Paolo the process has been started here on Feb 7th.
After an incredible period of 9(!) months, an incredible amount of
around 15-20(!) versions of the 14(!) pages 'Proposal of TDF
In-House-Developers' and incredible efforts from especially Kendy and
Paolo (big thanks to both of you!) it seems to me that some want to
restart the process ('stop here and restart, from a clean state';
're-evaluate', ...).
For what reason? Because of one sentence? Incredible!
At LibOCon in Milan, 2(!) months ago, with the participation of board,
MC, team and community (Uwe's workshop Sept 26), it turned out that this
is an _important and urgent_ matter the board to deal with.
The now famous 'one sentence'...
Am 18.11.22 um 11:30 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
"Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on which
the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are already
engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate agreements and
relevant communications between TDF and the third parties."
In general this is more than unusual from my point of view.
Can anyone here explain why an employer should accept restrictions on
their employee's activities from third parties? Would she/he accept it
herself/himself as an employer?
Furthermore, I think that a good relationship with everyone is valuable
and helpful for all parts of the community and for the common projects.
So instead of retrograding let us move forward. Quickly.
Best
Stephan
--
Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees
Affiliation: The Document Foundation
--
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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 25/11/2022 14:57: All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as I'm sure I did not. I mentioned items that make it questionable and definitely not fit to help our community with developers. 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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, I have the impression that some live in a different reality or simply don't check things before coming up with statements. On 26/11/2022 13:02, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi all, Paolo Vecchi wrote: On 25/11/2022 14:04, Florian Effenberger wrote: We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if the board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, my teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts. As pointed out (I believe at considerable length) during the board call on Monday, November 14, this proposal is not ready to vote on. Monday the 14 you have shown disrespect for the work put on it for several months by several people including Jan. As agreed at LibOCon we went to the process and the proposal is ready to be voted: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00993.html You got a full explanation that you fully ignored. Your statements look or purposefully misleading or the result of lack of validation of what you say. All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as agreed, has been finalised by both myself and Jan so I'm sure the community is expecting that they follow through with their votes. It is frankly shocking to read this statement. There has been support for the idea in general, but certainly not for this specific version. It is frankly shocking that we have a chairman so disconnected with reality and that doesn't even check facts before coming out with comments that could influence the voting intentions of other directors. So you are fully aware that the final version went to our legal counsel, you even popped up with a very peculiar comment to our legal counsel in support of changes that turn out not to me aligned with laws and regulations and as agreed the version that came out of the legal consultation was the version to be voted. * not ready for vote (Thorsten) * Kendy resigned because no compromise was reached It seems you are supporting a false statement without even checking the facts. If you support that then it means you are supporting the fact that he resigned because I tried to convince him that what he wanted was against laws and regulations. Legal consultations also confirmed that. Your email to our legal counsel has shown that you were interested in getting some very problematic sentences into the document and that's not a behaviour an objective and impartial chairman should have. * stop here and restart, from a clean slate You had 9 months to provide your input and you imposed Jan so that we could spend months in reviewing a document that Jan wanted to change completely to satisfy the desires of a member of the ecosystem and then we finally worked to to make it more "balanced" (while I was trying to show him that it had to be also legally sound). * if quick action is required instead, tender out as contracted work? How about recognising that your understanding of the proposal is way out of date and just vote on it so that we can move on? Your actions and statements make it look like that you had no intention of having this proposal passing and it makes it look like you intervene on a matter on which you have little understanding about its progress. Then we also have statements from Cor: * I'm still missing information (Cor) Where were you in the past 9 months and what information? * asked comments from Mike Then you should read the answers we have been provided before complaining. You asked 2 questions. One is obvious to all and I've answered again here in an easier way to read it as you didn't understand or missed the legal advice provided: I tried in various way to point out that if any third party organisation, being members of the ecosystem or not, want to impose limitations on TDF's employees or other general activities then an employment proposal is not the best place to put that limitation. The second question has been discussed back in April 2021 and it's marginally linked with potentially serious issues raised in tdf-internal for which I'm still waiting your feedback but they are not related to the proposal. * what he wrote on relations between TDF and companies * looks very limited in the light of TDF It's years that you keep saying that even if you are fully aware of laws and regulations. * and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1 * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare * from legal aspects and organizational wise * very different from contract on properly tendered project And here you confirm that you prefer an easy but legally troublesome sentence in an employment proposal than a clear win-win situation for both parties. It seems like unfortunately we have a chairman and a director that failed to check the information
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > On 25/11/2022 14:04, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the > > LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if the > > board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, my > > teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts. > As pointed out (I believe at considerable length) during the board call on Monday, November 14, this proposal is not ready to vote on. > All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as > agreed, has been finalised by both myself and Jan so I'm sure the community > is expecting that they follow through with their votes. > It is frankly shocking to read this statement. There has been support for the idea in general, but certainly not for this specific version. Paolo was very clearly aware of that, even more so, since we've got the topic with lots of questions on the Monday call agenda. Best, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi all, On 25/11/2022 18:17, Jan Holesovsky wrote: That is not true. That version is not balanced, and Paolo’s unwillingness to find balance there was one of the main reasons to my resignation. That's a very interesting statement which doesn't seem to be supported by publicly available facts and evidence. Last public comments for version 2.9 show that we were making good progress in a very civilised way: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00993.html As agreed we had the proposal checked by our legal counsel, fixed very amicably a few more things and up to that point all was fine. There was only one last sentence left which created some discussions: "TDF in-house developers will not compete with commercial contributors and will not develop alternative implementations of Open Source projects actively maintained by LibreOffice volunteer or corporate contributors – like Collabora Online, mdds, or cppunit." I tried in various way to point out that if any third party organisation, being members of the ecosystem or not, want to impose limitations on TDF's employees or other general activities then an employment proposal is not the best place to put that limitation. There is also the issue that you can't just impose limitations on TDF just like that and by doing it while being affiliated by the interested party of that limitation and specifying the product in questions doesn't really look good either. You tried several variants of sentences that were trying to achieve the same results and you even received clear legal advice against it. I've also pointed out that we agreed months ago on the relevant text necessary to handle these exceptions. As from page 1 of the proposal: "Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on which the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are already engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate agreements and relevant communications between TDF and the third parties." It seems like a win-win agreement between TDF and a third party that tackles the specific issues was not what you were looking for. Between our constructive discussions and your resignations there were only those 2 sentences. If the above is the reason why you resigned then it's quite sad as, while we had some very frank exchanges of opinions, we generally found ways forward and workable compromises. It is also sad that you came out with that comment as your own emails and comments in the document clearly contradict you. All the previous versions with comments can be seen here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj The latest version is here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB For many years, TDF was celebrated as an organization that is always able to find balance of many interests. This developer proposal shows that it has been hard and it took a disproportionate amount of time but at the end the document is quite balanced. The "many interests" that cannot and should not be included in such a proposal will be discussed and drafted in separate dedicated documents as we agreed months ago. I’m afraid this is not true any more - which is very sad :-( I'm afraid that one's belief that some clauses make a document more balanced is a legal minefield for someone else. If your definition of "balanced" is to add rules and limitations that make some third parties more equal than others then it seems like you skipped meetings that clarified concepts about fiduciary duties and regulations. Fortunately you had a fellow member of the board that helped you out in seeing these issues even if you didn't seem to have appreciated it. Seeing the lack of votes from directors that publicly supported the proposal and agreed on the way forward it seems like you email had the effect to get directors to pause their vote while checking if your statement had any connection with reality. By now directors should have verified and confirmed that what I stated is correct and they'll show their support with their votes. Ciao Paolo -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Andreas, I was actually about to send out an even clearer explanation of what was left to do. Your comments anyway show that the information is readily available to all to disprove the accusation. Ciao Paolo On 26/11/2022 11:18, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi Kendy, hi all, Am 25.11.22 um 18:17 schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi all, I have unsubscribed from this mailing list, but it was brought to my attention that Paolo claims that I have signed off the latest version of the Developers proposal. That is not true. That version is not balanced, and Paolo’s unwillingness to find balance there was one of the main reasons to my resignation. I looked into the latest version, of the proposal for the in-house developer, you and Paolo worked on together (version 3.0) (https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj?dir=undefined=1138204) and I couldn't find a valid reference for your claim. If I didn't overlook one of the many comments in the document there was only an incongruity about the addition of one sentence in the paragraph about the concerns expressed by commercial contributors. Your and Paolo's comments in all other paragraphs of the document showed that you agreed on the text. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Kendy, hi all, Am 25.11.22 um 18:17 schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi all, I have unsubscribed from this mailing list, but it was brought to my attention that Paolo claims that I have signed off the latest version of the Developers proposal. That is not true. That version is not balanced, and Paolo’s unwillingness to find balance there was one of the main reasons to my resignation. I looked into the latest version, of the proposal for the in-house developer, you and Paolo worked on together (version 3.0) (https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj?dir=undefined=1138204) and I couldn't find a valid reference for your claim. If I didn't overlook one of the many comments in the document there was only an incongruity about the addition of one sentence in the paragraph about the concerns expressed by commercial contributors. Your and Paolo's comments in all other paragraphs of the document showed that you agreed on the text. 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
Re: Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
> > Hi all, I have unsubscribed from this mailing list, but it was brought to my attention that Paolo claims that I have signed off the latest version of the Developers proposal. That is not true. That version is not balanced, and Paolo’s unwillingness to find balance there was one of the main reasons to my resignation. For many years, TDF was celebrated as an organization that is always able to find balance of many interests. I’m afraid this is not true any more - which is very sad :-( Wish you all good luck. All the best, Kendy > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Paolo Vecchi > To: Florian Effenberger , Board Discuss < > board-discuss@documentfoundation.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:57:02 +0100 > Subject: Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers > proposal v.3.1 > Hi Florian, > > On 25/11/2022 14:04, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > Hello, > > > > me and many others from the team would be very happy to finally see > > the developer proposal come to life. > > > > We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the > > LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if > > the board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, > > my teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts. > > I'm very pleased to see that the team supports the efforts that many of > us put in this proposal. > > All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as > agreed, has been finalised by both myself and Jan so I'm sure the > community is expecting that they follow through with their votes. > > > > > Florian > > > > Ciao > > Paolo > > -- > 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 > >
Re: [board-discuss] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hi Florian, On 25/11/2022 14:04, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hello, me and many others from the team would be very happy to finally see the developer proposal come to life. We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if the board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, my teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts. I'm very pleased to see that the team supports the efforts that many of us put in this proposal. All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as agreed, has been finalised by both myself and Jan so I'm sure the community is expecting that they follow through with their votes. Florian Ciao Paolo -- 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] [DISCUSS] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Hello, me and many others from the team would be very happy to finally see the developer proposal come to life. We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if the board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, my teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts. 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
