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


Hi all,

as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear I've integrated what makes sense to have on a developers recruitment proposal and added a few items clarifying some aspect in version 2.2 (in ODF format) of this "merged" proposal that you'll find here together with the other proposal:

https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049

Those that don't have access to that folder or don't want to edit/comment it can access a PDF version from here:

https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/BMnj2c4A9XR4oWk


*What changed:*
I've adapted a few sentences/words to get closer to the other proposal where possible and eliminated some sentences/words that might not add much to the context.
I've also reinstated the app store area as now is not controversial anymore.
There is a specific paragraph stating that in-house developers are not bound by ESC decisions.

Overall the original logic is still there but showing a lower number of differences to the other proposal.


*What is still different:*
The developers do not need to be senior or already capable of mentoring, training them is part of our goals so we should do that

The focus is clearly on the development side with mentoring to be done when the developers are ready and willing

There is less focus on the ESC handling the task and more on staff dealing with it as developers are going to be part of TDF's staff so they shouldn't be told what to do by non employees of TDF or the Board.


*What is not there:*
The section related to "Targeted Developers" as it's a construct that imposes limitations on what TDF's staff can do. We will employ in-house developers that will work for the best interest of TDF and it's wider community which initially will surely focus on specific areas, the "Focus Areas", but over the years could cover other areas if they like it and it's necessary.

I believe that a candidate reading that an organisation is looking for "targeted developers" might already feel the limitation of the role and the lack of opportunities for personal growth so we might prefer to welcome in-house developers that won't feel that limitations as full members of TDF's staff.

ESC deciding and having a final word on "overlaps in the development of the LibreOffice code" is too broad as it might imply also development related to projects, features or bug fixes on which a third party might have interests expressed through the ESC which at present has no CoI Policy. Limitations imposed on TDF's staff that satisfy the interests/needs of third parties, or in some cases both TDF and third parties, should be part of a separate agreement, not a recruitment proposal.

Other similar limitations, including non competition or development of alternative implementation to (eg.) "Collabora Online, mdds, or cppunit" have not been included in this version as they should be covered by separate agreements which are independent to TDF's staff recruitment.

Contracts with subcontractors, trainers and specialists do not belong in a recruitment proposal. Additional support or training will be taken in consideration once we have evaluated the candidates and when our mentors will inform us of what is necessary.

Development contracts present in the other proposal will follow the due tendering process.


I hope that the rationale for not including certain areas, terms and limitations is clear to all in this "merged" proposal and that we can proceed in finding great candidates to join our team as soon as possible.

Ciao

Paolo

--
Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Context


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.