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

El 04.07.2022 06:39, Paolo Vecchi escribió:
Dear community,

for the record my rejection of the proposal as formulated has not been counted.

I repeatedly asked for various elements to be considered and to amend
the text before being able to vote on it but that unfortunately hasn't

My opinion is that the text doesn't take in consideration feedback and
other issues which include:
    - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day
where people are busy with their day job
    - vote started after less than 21h at 18:53 when people coming
back from work could have had time to rush in a comment
    - comments made during the meeting and in the mailing lists were
not considered for inclusion in an actual compromise text
    - attempts to have an evaluation of the concerns expressed in time
met no considerations
    - some managed to provide their opinion only in the vote reply but
still no corrective actions have been taken
    - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company reselling COOL[0],
should have declared a potential CoI and let the vice-chairman deal
with the evaluation and inclusions of comments to make sure the
process is seen by all as fully impartial regardless of actual CoIs.

I could have simply voted against and found ourselves once again in
the same split situation we had in the original vote and that's what I
wanted to avoid.

The main issues and missing elements I see in this proposal are:
    - LOOL should not be automatically archived, a full evaluation of
the situation after a fair period of time should be done
    - the time frame is too short for a community to form (holiday
season making it even more difficult) so 12 months could be a fair
period of time
    - reopening of the repository with due warnings until LOOL is safe
to use and activities show a healthy community forming
    - marketing to promote the creation of a community around LOOL
    - get more feedback from the wider community at LibOCon about the
future of LOOL
    - finishing evaluating with commercial stakeholders the mutually

Without the above IMHO the proposal will lead only to one outcome.

Having said the above I ask to reconsider the decision and add it to
the public part of the agenda for the next board meeting.




Fully support Paolo hoping more voices raise their concerns too.

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.