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


Hi Paolo,

On 23/03/2022 14:08, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> following the initial consultation in regards to the first draft I've
> included some of the recommendations and comments received.
>
> You can find the new version here:
>
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/d5fF4eCK4JHtpHj
...
> Please do remind me if I forgot to include your constructive feedback!

    Thank you for the new version; I wrote previously:

On 25/02/2022 09:22, Michael Meeks wrote:
>      It's a bit sad it is a PDF, and without any heading numbering, so
> rather hard to interact with; an ODT that allowed comments / patching
> would be better.

    I'd really like an ODF version that can be easily improved.

The concern around clarifying management and tasking of the proposed new staff is still there. I link my original comment which seems to still be unaddressed. Having ten people manage two is a problem as we know from previous boards.

But let me perhaps juxtapose several statements from the document about how this would work - how do you reconcile these ?

: Document v1.5 has:
:    "Our development mentor together with the team should propose
:     to the BoD projects for internal development"

    So dev mentor + team propose to board for approval ?

    or:

:    "The focus of the in-house developers will be set on specific
:     areas suggested for them by TDF’s team in consultation with the
:     ESC and, in case of unresolved conflicts, the board."

TDF's team consult with ESC and only in case of conflicts consult the board ?

    or:

:    "TDF’s team in collaboration with ESC and the BoD will evaluate
:    that tickets and projects taken on by TDF’s developers can be
:    considered neutral in terms of benefit that a single commercial
:    contributor can derive from it and that do not overlap with
:    current paid for projects run by commercial contributors."

TDF's team collaborate with the ESC and the BoD to evaluate what projects are suitable.

Simply because it is not tendered does not mean that the BoD should not have clear oversight of where donation money is spent. The BoD should have a clear and decisive role in an open process - based on advice (as I wrote before). And more as I wrote here:

https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05477.html

    Other pieces surprise me by still being there eg.

:    "Commercial contributors confirm that tenders issued by TDF
:     form a negligible part of their income"
...
:     "and the quantity of bugs, features and updates that may require
:     tendering or paid for services by the commercial contributors is
:    still so vast that it will not affect noticeably their income"

    As I wrote:

While it is true that there may be an inexhaustible amount of work and TDF will never reduce that by doing some of it, I'm not sure that is really relevant.

    Why did you keep the controversial app-store piece ?

I was really surprised to see Interoperability mentioned as an area here still - despite the (apparent) consensus on-list that this was not a huge issue.

> Other comments received, also from fellow members of the board, stated
> that my proposal lacked of clear developers and project management
> procedures so I've added in page 10 what I see, at least initially, as
> the simplest approach but suggestions for improvements are very
> welcome.

The: "Developers management" and "Project management" sections are quite spartan - it would be good to have something concrete, they read a bit like a request for someone else to write this part for you. Unfortunately (see above) that is rather difficult without an editable version.

Put in a nutshell, if TDF struggles to project manage tenders effectively (which is much easier), how do you think it will manage with the harder design / architectural / personnel-management / scheduling / prioritization / motivation and other problems associated with writing software to time & budget ?

So - again, there are some good things here particularly avoiding wasteful and/or counter-productive overlaps with things that are getting done anyway.

Unfortunately overall it seems not to have engaged with all of the feedback. We still lacks clear management, clear project-management, accountability to the community and so on in my view.

    Regards,

        Michael.

--
michael.meeks@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejmeeks@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@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

Context


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.