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


On 25/05/2022 12:48, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo, all,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
On 25/05/2022 10:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
To reiterate the question, is that something the two of you would be
willing to collaborate on?
It seems like you missed my previous answer:

Indeed I saw your answer, but it very much sounded like a no to me
(and we didn't find the time in a call yet to clarify).
Why would you need a call to clarify?

I think the community may like to know why you are creating "opposing sides" and why your want a "small group" to discuss things behind closed doors.

I still haven't received any explanations for it.

Since you bring it up here:

I've been willing to work together with anyone in a transparent and
public way.

So would you be ok to sit down with Kendy to work out a proposal for
the _process_ of getting to a final document?

The process up to now is that I had to get to a final document on my own as neither you or Kendy actually contributed to it.

The document is here:

What other parts of the _process_ of having a final document are missing?

The other option I see, is to select a small working group (board and
perhaps community members) during the next board call, with the
mission to synthesize a 3rd, new proposal from all input received so
Why are you once again proposing a small group to do things behind closed

It is one option to make effective progress. As you state, it appears
that all people with an opinion have spoken up here;

Yes, it appears that we have covered all the important elements required in the final document I've published thanks to the contributions from the community.

  what's now left
to do, is to come up with a document, for which many (if not all)
directors can stand behind it.

What are the elements that would stop directors from supporting it?
I haven't seen any coming from you.

Can you list some and the eventual improvements?

  If community members like Michael
Weghorn or Michael Meeks would like to be part of that working group,
we should of course consider that, too.
Michael Weghorn contributed a lot to the proposal and I'm very grateful for that.

Michael Meeks made a completely different proposal to employ a mentor.

The 2 proposals should follow different paths as they are not aimed at fixing the same issues.

As said in previous email I think that another mentor is not going to improve on the issues listed in my proposal but I guess that the community and then the board could publicly discuss if would make sense investing on a new one while also investing on two developers to actually tackle the issues.

But see above, for an alternative suggestion how we can move this

Another suggestion could be to confirm to the team to start working on the job description for the 2 developers and then once they are settled see if a new mentor is needed.


-- Thorsten


Paolo Vecchi - 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.