On 10/02/2022 15:31, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 2/10/22 13:36, Michael Weghorn wrote:
I have the impression that a fundamentally important question is what
the purpose/task of TDF-internal developers would be.
Yes, but it looks like the discussion is blocked one step before
reaching a consensus on this very simple point.
It seems reasonable to explore what people should be hired to do -
before hiring them =) That has the benefit of working out what skills
are needed in the job advert and/or interview process for example. The
'discussion' here - I would not see as blocked, but problematic see later.
There is a huge amount of need around LibreOffice development. It is
easy to find a hundred different "top priority" issues each dear to the
heart of a user, each user convinced that if only we had eg. 'Reveal
Codes' in writer everyone would use LibreOffice.
As for no-one listening to users - I spend my life listening to
customers & partners & users - and trying to do what they want. Anyone
jealous of some big pool of unconstrained money / development power in
corporate contributors is mistaken. Nevertheless I still get impassioned
complaints of why Collabora did X and not Y from intelligent,
articulate, engaged community members.
TDF in contrast while it has many constraints on what it can do - has
few time constraints on its spending, which frees it to do more
strategic long-term work. Thus it can invest more efficiently with some
multiplying factor - via the educational / mentoring role into specific
areas. I for one would support some targeted a11y / CTL mentoring -
those seem like good areas that Sophie outlines - and ones where we can
perhaps shine & grow the contributor community.
However - there is a cliff-face of need here. It seems totally sensible
to suggest that hiring internal developers without any plan of working
out what they should work on seems premature. Part of why mentors are
attractive is that their agenda is partly lead by what volunteers want
to do. That can be steered of course by creating new easy-hacks / tasks
/ projects in directions they want to go - and/or learning on the job
themselves by hacking on things.
For myself, I would want to see some sensible mechanism that includes
the views of those who contribute via donations as to what is important.
Then again if we dedicate donations solely in-line with what donors want
- I suspect certain key functions: admin, marketing might not get the
attention they deserve: so again, there is no obvious solution here
beyond the board getting wide input and deciding (as they do now).
If the discussion stays as such, I have to say that I don't feel I
am represented - as a TDF Member - by any member of the just elected
board of directors (of course, those who have expressed their opinions).
> Of course, given my complete lack of understanding of development, is
> too easy to find a technical angle to disprove what I just wrote, but
> it would also be disproving what many of the contributors - the
> community - think, and this would confirm my personal belief that
> TDF BoD does not represent the community as a whole, but only a
> portion of it.
It would be deeply unfortunate if the above was read as questioning the
legitimacy and composition of the new board - and that before they have
been seated and/or taken a single decision. It would be good to clarify
I would note that everyone who stood for the board was elected - and
perhaps acknowledging the complexity of what might look like simple
decisions from the outside - is real & not imaginary. I wish them the
best as they try to find the local maxima in some multi-dimensional
As for finding new board members on the list to express a view you feel
represents you: these long threads packed with trolling and
misrepresentation on board-discuss are not a great way to interact I
suspect. Why would a new board member want to engage in them while they
find their feet ? Lets not be quick to preemptively despair of sensible
But I don't see the issue, as ESC and BoD members could easily stop
any project before it starts, when there is a potential risk of conflict.
These days the we have created rules to exclude people from such
decision making - which has the potential to significantly exacerbate
conflict and division I feel.
But you're right, in theory the BoD is sovereign.
email@example.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: firstname.lastname@example.org, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs · Michael Meeks
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs · Michael Weghorn
[board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs · Daniel A. Rodriguez
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs · Thorsten Behrens
- Re: [board-discuss] Re: Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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