On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:03 AM Emiliano Vavassori <
Il 12/06/22 11:17, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
I am sorry you do not find this helpful, but being
aware of the true history of the project (especially at a time when
there are voices trying to reframe history) is very important and
refusing to do so may lead to incorrect assumptions and the acceptance
of untrue framing.
I didn't say I found it useless, I said it wouldn't really still help
with moving the general balance of the discussion towards a positive
outcome, which was the main objections to Andreas' mails.
Please note that I have (intentionally) refrained from responding to
earlier messages. But no-one (including you) was addressing the repeated
negative framing of Andreas' many e-mails so I offered a contribution from
experience to balance it.
By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises with
other members through selecting positive elements of their
I'd generally agree, but what I can read from the thread is that some
discussions and objections are less likely to be acknowledged and
recognized, and taken as a basis to work on a positive compromise,
mostly because that is not coming from a long-time contributor.
I don't think it's primarily about the length of time contributing. I'd
suggest the problem is more that the decision-making style at TDF is a
friend-to-friend collaboration that, when there is a strong disagreement,
reverts to face-to-face discussion.
We have discovered over the long term that text-only discussions lead to
both misunderstandings and escalation that are (usually) resolved when
people meet in person. We have also discovered that text disagreements
discourage participation by people who are either conflict-averse or
concerned the argument is public and permanently recorded. Attempts to do
what we always did in the past when there were disagreements - stop arguing
in e-mail and have a phone call, and have a face-to-face if that doesn't
work - have been blocked.
I am really pleased to see the Board has been gathered in-person this
weekend and sincerely hope you've all been able to devise ways to work
together. Doing everything by text-only for two years has been extremely
not the case for Andreas, who you are confirming he is akin to the
Foundation since a lot of time.
Andreas was one of the founding generation of TDF so has been involved in
the project for a long time, yes. He contributed great work on
infrastructure and deserves credit for it. He was unhappy when TDF migrated
from Plone and I believe felt insulted by that step because his work was
lost, which we regretted. I do understand that frustration, and have
experienced it myself.
How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists harming
the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised regardless
of how they are answered?
Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they are
even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short ones,
possibly something to discuss is there.
Absolutely right. My original message however was to indicate that there is
a very old problem that has not been "let go" and which newcomers might not
recognise, and its repetition should probably not be heavily weighted as an
indicator of the validity of the concerns today.
Re: [board-discuss] Merged proposal for in-house developers at TDF · Michael Weghorn
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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