Hi Michael!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:34 AM Michael Weghorn
wrote:
>
> I think tendering works best for items where the scope is clear
> beforehand, while here it would be much easier to say:
> "Here is a ranked list of a11y issues, spend X days on fixing as many as
> you can.", which to my
Hi Paolo,
On 19/01/2022 14.38, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
It could take a while to get new developers on-board but in the meantime
do tell us when you are able to refine the proposal as it may then be
picked up by ESC or a member of staff for further evaluation.
thanks! My personal plan is to
Hi Michael,
thanks for your email, your support and contributions.
Your comments regarding the complexity of proposing "tender ready"
specifications vs just doing it is pretty much in line with my
experience as sometimes it's easier/faster for me to do things than
explaining what to do to
Hi,
On 14/01/2022 20.24, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Personally, I'm not interested in playing zero-sum games (taking
development away from the ecosystem, and re-patriating it into
TDF). Instead, we need to work much more on creating win-win setups,
and supplementing each other.
TDF must make its
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
Hi Thorsten,
On 14/01/2022 16:27, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
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
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
