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
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
Old problems should not be "let go" they should be evaluated objectively
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.
Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
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