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

Hi Michael,

I prefer to avoid going into details as people should draw their conclusions by looking at timing and people involved by looking at the ESC meeting minutes and your proposal.

On 08/06/2022 10:40, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Paolo,

On 08/06/2022 09:18, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
That is a copy/paste from a text the general manager of a commercial contributor sent the 23/05

    It is not the greatest vote of confidence in your position that you critique the source of a counter-proposal rather than the proposal itself: please play the ball not the man.

Actions have been performed by people, in this case you and Kendy.

As I've been told off for stating facts and not naming people so I guess I have to make it clear who did what and when.

A sequence of events/coincidences show that some proposals are more equal than others and clear objections that make your proposal more complicated, expensive and much less effective have not been addressed at all.

    You then go on to (again) mis-characterize Kendy's merged proposal, something you've repeatedly done and been corrected on:

developers mostly focused on mentoring are very difficult to find and very expensive, and anyone with basic HR skills would never let employees be managed by a committee in which third party companies have can have so much influence as seen in recent minutes.

    The proposal contains this:

    "The Executive Director shall direct day to day management for
     the Targeted Developers to ensure they effectively focus on the
     Target Areas."

    Line management is up to the ED - that is explicit. I suspect that they will not direct management by a committee - but it's up to them =)

Our ED has already plenty of things to do and micromanaging in-house developers should not be part of his job.

Please re-read the rest of my proposal as it states how things should be run to avoid overwhelming our ED. Our ED will evaluate things only if there are issues between the team and the ESC.

    Attempting to exclude targetted developers from attending the ESC call and reporting on what they're up to - as they become respected peers alongside others working on the code seems extraordinary.

Nowhere in my proposal is being said that the ESC will be excluded.

Please re-read my proposal.

    Again your understanding of how LibreOffice development and the ESC works seems weak as I've outlined before[1].

I'm slowly learning about it thanks to the good comments from Adreas that pushed me to look into it even if development is not my main focus and it is only one of the various areas LibreOffice is made of.

I've seen a very nice way to cooperate between developers in a way that seems to take in consideration the best way to deal with code and find good solutions to issues

Your intervention in the ESC meeting the 26/05/2022 and the 02/06/2022 had absolutely nothing to do with code and a lot to do with politics and undue influence in a committee that now cannot be seen as a neutral ground.





[1] -

Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

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.