Hi Paolo, hi Kendy, all,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Hence my proposal for another approach, that can well result in a
similar situation, but that you sadly didn't respond to for the third or
fourth time.
You stated that I should have answered questions, that in my opinion are
answered in page 10 and 11 of the proposal, but I haven't seen from you any
actual proposal for improvements. Could you point me to your proposals in
board-discuss just in case I missed them?
Can I repeat my request to get a small group (e.g. Paolo, Kendy as
representatives of the two opposing sides here) to first agree on a
workable process, to quickly iterate the proposal to something we can
all support?
The current approach via emails does not appear to get us closer to a
final result.
Thanks,
-- Thorsten
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Context
- Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF (continued)
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF · Caolán McNamara
Re: [board-discuss] Proposal for in-house developers at TDF · Tuomas Hietala
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.