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

Hi Simon,

On 12/06/2022 12:42, Simon Phipps wrote:

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.

Some actually addressed Andreas' emails and understood the requests for a positive change for TDF.

If others wants to look away when there are criticisms they a free to do it but then they shouldn't negatively affect those that wants to fix issues.

    > By entering into a dialogue. By hearing and evolving compromises
    > other members through selecting positive elements of their
    > contributions.

    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.

Doing everything by text-only for two years has been extremely toxic.

The positive side of it is that we now have clear records in email threads that allowed us to pinpoint issues that then had to be dealt with.

    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.

Regardless of the reasons behind his will to participate to discussions I found Andreas' contributions very useful. Sometimes he's very direct but we have to accept that there are different communication styles and that we can't block or refer to the CoC people only because they say something that might not conform with our own ideas.

I hope that more community members will find the courage to speak out if they see that there are issues that need to be dealt with.

    > How should members voice their concerns when they see entryists
    > the project and old unsettled grudges being repeatedly raised
    > of how they are answered?

    Let's start by acknowledging that if there are objections and they
    even consistently confirmed from long relationships and from short
    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.

Old problems should not be "let go" they should be evaluated objectively and addressed.

If Andreas was demanding that we re-implemented his Plone infrastructure I'll be one of those saying that it's probably better if he "let go" but as far as I can see Andreas comments had nothing to do with it and all to do with improving our processes, increasing transparency and adding bits of information that are difficult to source as they might be spread in old email archives.

I've been on the receiving side of Andreas' effort to keep an eye on board's decisions pointing out potential issues and I've actually appreciated that. I think there should be more people like him to keep the board in check and make sure we don't get too complacent or reliant on a narrative coming from only one source.


*Simon Phipps*
/TDF Trustee/



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


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.