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

Hi Andreas, all,

On 24/05/2022 23.09, Andreas Mantke wrote:
I follow the thread(s) about hiring two in-ho use developers by TDF for
some month yet. I got the impression that there are some TDF members
which might have no real interest in getting this task done. They are
asking only questions and didn't submit any solutions or proposals for
solutions. And once all valuable input from TDF members had been
incorporated in the document the beforehand mentioned members try to
start the whole process with a new proposal.

It seemed there is a approach behind this behavior: postpone the whole
topic as far as possible. And try to frustrate the members who try to
drive this topic forward.

I agree that it is frustrating to see what is going on and to get the impression that it seems to be impossible to work together on a common proposal.

Obviously, I am not able to judge what each one's motivation is.

However, from following the discussion so far, I don't think it is fair to blame only "one side" for the state of affairs.

While I am generally in favor of Paolo's proposal, I share the impression that various concerns or suggestions have not been dealt with adequately so far.

For example: Michael has asked for an ODF version of the proposal so that he could suggest changes and he pointed out some specific issues he saw in the proposal e.g. in [1]. Unless I'm missing something, he didn't receive any reply to that (at least none on the public mailing list) and at a quick glance, (most of) the mentioned passages are still unchanged in the current version of the proposal.

Obviously, I can't speak for him, but I could at least understand to some extent in case he felt unheard and that doing an own counter-proposal would be the only way of his suggestions not just being ignored completely...

My impression is that there seems to be no clear process of how to work together on a proposal, how to suggest changes,...

Doesn't the BoD have any defined process for doing so?

(If somehow working together on the ODF version or talking to each other in person is no option: From a developer's perspective, having the proposal as plain text in a git repo and then allowing people to suggest changes and the "proposal owner" reviewing those sounds like one way that would allow to keep track of suggestions, but that may not be easily usable for non-developers. Having a plain text version being discussed on the mailing list and the proposal owner answering there and integrating changes into the authoritative version sounds like an alternative that might work instead, while having some more overhead. But there are probably other ways...)

In my opinion the whole process and the behavior of beforehand mentioned
members is not in the interest of TDF. If that would be the way how
members will work together during the current board term the future of
TDF will not be bright.

Again, I wouldn't limit that to the "beforehand mentioned members", but to the (at least perceived) inability to work together constructively when there are different opinions.

Quoting from a previous email of mine in one of the threads [2]:

In my previous email, I wrote: "Assuming members in the involved
LibreOffice/TDF bodies found a way to work together constructively, my current
impression is that this approach could be for the benefit of all."

I admit that this will probably be very hard if members of the involved
LibreOffice/TDF bodies don't find a way to work together constructively, but
rather "fight against each other". But I think that's a problem on a completely
different level, and I don't see how TDF can properly serve it's purpose then
anyway, regardless of the specific question around TDF-internal developers
being discussed here...

Best regards,

[1] [2]

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.