Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Marco,

I have to agree with you here that maybe censoring threads isn't the best way forward and that surely isn't a message agreed within the board.

While there haven't been yet clear answers that can bring a solution, at least we all have a clearer view on how LOOL came to be, evolved into a viable product and then has been forked.

As a deputy member of the board and a member of our community I expressed my opinion about your 4 points:

It's true that I may have been a bit harsh with my answers, and I apologise if you got upset by it, but while I understand your proposal we have also to deal with the reality that without a reconsideration from the company that made the fork we don't have yet the internal/external contributors that could allow us to revive the LOOL project.

Even if I get full support from the board to employ internal developers I don't think is a good idea to unilaterally decide to backport the forked repository to LOOL without a clear agreement with the company involved so that probably won't fix the issue either.

Surely the fastest and easier way to solve the issue would be to have the company that forked LOOL to concede that they may have overlooked the initial agreement with TDF and the community but up to now we received no new proposals from them.

Having said that and with my answers underlying the issues I've noticed do you see ways to reformulate your proposal?

Any other practical proposals from other members of the board and the community?



On 26/01/2022 12:47, Marco Marinello wrote:
Hi Thorsten, all,

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.

In my opening message sent on January 9th I made a proposal consisting
of four points as an alternative approach to the current online
situation and although the ML is named "board-discuss", nobody from the
board commented on the merit of the proposal.

I'm geniunally interested in the opinion of who's currently driving the
foundation and I don't understand why you, Thorsten, as current and
future board member, are certainly following the thread but only asking
to close it, instead of giving your contribution. So please, as for
other board members, go back to my first mail here and reply to that.



Il 25/01/22 21:34, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:
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

Thanks. So let's end-thread here.


-- Thorsten

Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.