Re: [board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

2022-12-04 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Hi Kev,

Kev M wrote:
> Casual observer here. Lot's of thoughts about the discussion over
> the last few months.
>
Thx for sharing your thoughts - it's quite valuable to get the somehow
outside view reflected back at us. ;)

> 1) Just pass the resolution and get donor funds working towards
>  development. It isn't and will never be a competitive threat to
>  Collabora/Altropia.
>
We're actually on a good way, that this vote may pass now.

> 2) Please find a board governance arbitrator ASAP.
>
That's also in-progress (we started looking for consultants,
independently of this a few weeks ago)

> And strongly recommend you stop using back channels in a FOSS
> project.
>
That might actually be a misunderstanding. The list people were
referring to, is the one open to all TDF members. So it's more a
strive to having project-internal arguments (like how to read the
statutes) in a venue where people can speak more freely.

Cheers, 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] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

2022-12-04 Thread Kev M
Hi Everyone,
 
Casual observer here. Lot's of thoughts about the discussion over the last few 
months.
 
I just wanted to share my opinion as someone who has worked in board governance 
before, donates, and wants to see the LibreOffice project succeed.
 
There's obvious personal animosity between Cor/Thorsten and Paolo. You guys 
should look for an arbitrator immediately. It would be worth the money to do 
so. I don't mean a lawyer, but a professional board governance arbitrator. I'm 
a little concerned about how Thorsten is handling this manner as Board Chair as 
it seems like he's in conflict with TDF management and this is happening in a 
passive aggressive manner (I say this from the limited information I have).
 
Here's some suggested reading about why board backchannels are a bad practice, 
and how you can make your board healthier: 
https://hbr.org/2019/09/back-channels-in-the-boardroom

That aside;
 
On the issue of hiring a dedicated TDF developer. There's obvious blatant 
interest on the part of the directors that represent Collabora and Altropia to 
nerf the ability of the future TDF developer to do anything that competes with 
their companies. I'm not sure this is aligned with the interests of the TDF and 
poses an interesting FOSS problem as Collabora and Altropia are clearly the 
largest contributors to LibreOffice code.
 
But I'm having trouble understanding why this is such a big deal? TDF takes in 
1.3 million in donations a year. You already have overhead on foundation 
administration. There will be maybe 1-2 developers at TDF that will be funded 
in the short (1-2 years) to medium (5 years) term.
 
Even if, as Cor insinuates, Paolo has Machiavellian plans to leverage TDF 
developers to restart LO Online development for his own personal gain (I'm 
skeptical based on Occam's razor), Collabora and Altropia don't offer 
consumer-facing LibreOffice products (I as a consumer can't use Collabora 
Online unless I go through a third-party distributor). So there's no 
competition here. Further, surely Collabora and Altropia must realize what 
resources are needed to support office suite software for consumers (since they 
don't offer consumer products), or businesses. Customer service, SLAs, QA, etc. 
is not something the TDF will be able to do. Arguing over a clause in a hiring 
document is irrelevant when compared to the pragmatic realities of the resource 
constraints. You could say explicitly in the hiring document this single 
developer will work on an alternative to Collabra Online and it still wouldn't 
happen, not least because it conflicts with the new marketing strategy of 
Community vs. En
 terprise. Further, making it easier for people to screw up their installations 
at the office with a LO Online version and require enterprise support can only 
benefit the Enterprise support partners. I'm struggling to understand the 
short-termism of Collabora's strategy here.

1) Just pass the resolution and get donor funds working towards development. It 
isn't and will never be a competitive threat to Collabora/Altropia.
 
2) Please find a board governance arbitrator ASAP. And strongly recommend you 
stop using back channels in a FOSS project. It's bad practice in a private 
company I'm not sure why it would be considered good in a foundation that's 
raison d'etre is to be open and transparent.
 
Forest through the trees people..
 
Best of Luck,
Kevin Morris

Re: [board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

2022-12-04 Thread Stephan Ficht

Hi,

=
Foreword:
I here speak in my capacity as a Member of the Board of Trustees.
=

Why do you want brought this to the list tdf-internal for further 
discussion? Something that here should be hide away from now on?


AFAICS until now an appropriate discussion (board-discuss!) and 
expression of several opinions on the subject.


Best
Stephan


Am 04.12.22 um 00:44 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi,

I've brought this to the list tdf-internal for further discussion.

Cheers,
Cor

Paolo Vecchi wrote on 03/12/2022 01:32:

Hi all,

On 02/12/2022 23:42, Cor Nouws wrote:

Hi,

Until someone can explain me that it is beneficial to TDF to compete 
with contributing members of the ecosystem, I see this attempt from 
Andreas as not at all interesting.


Nobody can explain to you "that it is beneficial to TDF to compete 
with contributing members of the ecosystem" because it isn't and TDF 
doesn't do it.


Now that that is sorted.

Does Article 8 of our statutes sound more interesting to you?

Isn't your and Thorsten's behaviour leading to think that there is a 
potential conflict of interests?



Cheers,
Cor


Ciao

Paolo


Andreas Mantke wrote on 02/12/2022 23:38:

Hi all,

Am 02.12.22 um 13:52 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

+1

(thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this
  moving!)


this vote was done by an owner and executive director of a software
company who /which have an declared interest to influence the direction
of the LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house
developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and
could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in 
the

future, on which his company might bid. Thus the voter has a non
arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic of this vote. Because of 
this

he has to abstain from this vote. His vote is null.

Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote and
should not unduly influence the decision. The comments on this list and
the attacks are very problematic.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog










--
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] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

2022-12-03 Thread Cor Nouws

Hi,

I've brought this to the list tdf-internal for further discussion.

Cheers,
Cor

Paolo Vecchi wrote on 03/12/2022 01:32:

Hi all,

On 02/12/2022 23:42, Cor Nouws wrote:

Hi,

Until someone can explain me that it is beneficial to TDF to compete 
with contributing members of the ecosystem, I see this attempt from 
Andreas as not at all interesting.


Nobody can explain to you "that it is beneficial to TDF to compete with 
contributing members of the ecosystem" because it isn't and TDF doesn't 
do it.


Now that that is sorted.

Does Article 8 of our statutes sound more interesting to you?

Isn't your and Thorsten's behaviour leading to think that there is a 
potential conflict of interests?



Cheers,
Cor


Ciao

Paolo


Andreas Mantke wrote on 02/12/2022 23:38:

Hi all,

Am 02.12.22 um 13:52 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

+1

(thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this
  moving!)


this vote was done by an owner and executive director of a software
company who /which have an declared interest to influence the direction
of the LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house
developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and
could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in the
future, on which his company might bid. Thus the voter has a non
arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic of this vote. Because of this
he has to abstain from this vote. His vote is null.

Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote and
should not unduly influence the decision. The comments on this list and
the attacks are very problematic.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog








--
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] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

2022-12-02 Thread Paolo Vecchi

Hi all,

On 02/12/2022 23:42, Cor Nouws wrote:

Hi,

Until someone can explain me that it is beneficial to TDF to compete 
with contributing members of the ecosystem, I see this attempt from 
Andreas as not at all interesting.


Nobody can explain to you "that it is beneficial to TDF to compete with 
contributing members of the ecosystem" because it isn't and TDF doesn't 
do it.


Now that that is sorted.

Does Article 8 of our statutes sound more interesting to you?

Isn't your and Thorsten's behaviour leading to think that there is a 
potential conflict of interests?



Cheers,
Cor


Ciao

Paolo


Andreas Mantke wrote on 02/12/2022 23:38:

Hi all,

Am 02.12.22 um 13:52 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

+1

(thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this
  moving!)


this vote was done by an owner and executive director of a software
company who /which have an declared interest to influence the direction
of the LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house
developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and
could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in the
future, on which his company might bid. Thus the voter has a non
arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic of this vote. Because of this
he has to abstain from this vote. His vote is null.

Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote and
should not unduly influence the decision. The comments on this list and
the attacks are very problematic.

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] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.

2022-12-02 Thread Cor Nouws

Hi,

Until someone can explain me that it is beneficial to TDF to compete 
with contributing members of the ecosystem, I see this attempt from 
Andreas as not at all interesting.


Cheers,
Cor

Andreas Mantke wrote on 02/12/2022 23:38:

Hi all,

Am 02.12.22 um 13:52 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

+1

(thanks a lot for all the good feedback, feels great to get this
  moving!)


this vote was done by an owner and executive director of a software
company who /which have an declared interest to influence the direction
of the LibreOffice development by the in-house developers. The in-house
developers will remove a lot of advantage from the tendering budget and
could work on parts of the code, that otherwise could be a tender in the
future, on which his company might bid. Thus the voter has a non
arguable Conflict of Interest on the topic of this vote. Because of this
he has to abstain from this vote. His vote is null.

Because of his Conflict of Interest on this topic he cannot vote and
should not unduly influence the decision. The comments on this list and
the attacks are very problematic.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog




--
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