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

Hi Paolo,

thanks for your reply.

On 25/05/2022 11.54, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
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.

You are right, I did not provide Michael Meeks an ODF version as I wanted this process to be transparent for all.

I've asked from the beginning for everyone to make their proposals in board-discuss so that everyone would see what changes were being requested.

As you can see if Michael Meeks wants to propose something he can do it even without having an ODF at hand.

Regarding his suggestions he may have not noticed that in page 10 there the proposal has been updated nearly 2 weeks ago:

Thanks for mentioning this once again, I hadn't read all emails in the threads once again before writing my previous email.

However, as far as I can see, even that version still doesn't address all of the aspects that Michael mentioned in his email [1].

For illustration what I mean, let me give two examples:

1) Even v2 still uses the different formulations throughout the document on how and by whom the developers are managed and tasked, as Michael Meeks pointed out in his email. While I wouldn't say those are completely contradictory, unifying that across the document seems reasonable to help avoid potential confusion.

2) Michael wrote:

    Other pieces surprise me by still being there eg.

:    "Commercial contributors confirm that tenders issued by TDF
:     form a negligible part of their income"

which seems to refer to this from his previous email [2]:

"Collabora publishes numbers on this at the conference each year - between 0% and 5% of income depending; but still, 5% is not insignificant."

But still, the sentence is in v2 of the proposal just the same.

That was for illustration; I see no need to discuss these points in detail in this thread here. I think it makes sense to rather base further discussion on the diff between your version 2.0 and Kendy's suggested changes in what he called version 2.1. That "version 2.1" touches the above aspects as well. Whether it does so in the "correct way" is certainly something that is worth discussing if there is disagreement.
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?

There are processes we follow for some areas. Other areas can and should be in the open so that the community can participate and see how the proposals are being influenced.

My presumably too naive expectation was that there would already be a working process to work together on a proposal within the BoD (how modifications would be suggested and integrated,...), and it might be possible to do similarly in public as well, e.g. by just writing the emails discussing the proposal on the public mailing list (in addition) or sharing a link to an editable document or some tool with more people (maybe with just read permission for non-BoD members).

As above it seems like some processes are not working as they should and we haven't yet implemented the right tool for this specific job which should give a voice also to non developers.

Having a clear process for this that would allow everybody to contribute actually sounds like a huge step forward to me, seeing there was quite some confusion in the current discussion and it seems that there were different expectations even among BoD members on how contribution was supposed to take place. [3]

If there are different opinions/interests then, IMHO, the best thing to do is to make them public so that our community can express their own opinions.

I agree with that, and hopefully discussing the different opinions/proposals now will help everybody understand the underlying reasoning/motivation better.

Now we can clearly see that a member of our community and representative of a commercial contributor prefers to have mentors instead of developers.

I have the impression that the wider community prefers to have actual developers so, which voice should we follow?

As mentioned above, I think it makes sense to continue that discussion in the other thread on Kendy's so-called "merged proposal" (version 2.1).
I'll reply on that thread later.

Best regards,

[1] [2] [3]

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.