Board of Directors Meeting 2022-09-05

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2022-09-05
Meeting Minutes

Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Thorsten Behrens
Keeper of the minutes: Florian Effenberger

In the meeting:
    Board Members - Thorsten, Laszlo, Kendy, Gabor, Paolo, Cor (joins 18:07), Emiliano (joins 18:11)
    Board Deputy Members - Gabriel
    Membership Committee Members -
    Membership Committee Substitute Members - Uwe
    Community -
    Team - Christian Lohmaier, Ilmari, Florian, Sophie, Hossein, Olivier

Representation: Gabriel representing Emiliano, Emiliano joins 18:11 -> None

AI everyone: revisit representation statement, now that Gabor is full member

The Board of Directors at time of the call consists of 7 seat holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the call needs to have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of Directors members are attending or represented in the call.

The board waives all formal statutory requirements, or requirements in the foundations articles, or other requirements regarding form and invitation, time limits, and for the topics discussed in this meeting.

The meeting is quorate and invitation happened in time. From now on, motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of those remaining present. The majority threshold is currently 4.

Any updates regarding director affiliations & statements of conflicts of interest for agenda items:
* no changes, current affiliations see election page:
   https://elections.documentfoundation.org/2021-board/candidates.html

The public meeting commences at 16:03 UTC / 18:03 Berlin time.

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
    Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions to the board and about TDF

* no questions

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

2. Status Report, Discuss: Merged developer proposal (tdf-board, Jan Holesovsky, Paolo Vecchi, 10 mins)

    * should the merged proposal be ready
    * have a last round of discussion
    * if conclusive - vote & budget for it

    Otherwise, re-evaluate our approach.

    References:
    * Shared folder with the versions: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Developers

* Anything closer to be voted on? (Thorsten)
   * another round of editing document (Kendy)
   * closer to be voted on
   * it's in shared folder
   * another round of edits on his documents
   * Paolo made last edits on Friday, will look into it soon
   * glad to hear, re-added some comments to latest version (Paolo)
   * no massive rush right now, been in the making for a while (Thorsten)
   AI: add to agenda of next board call
Folder with developers proposal (under Shared/Developers)
Latest version 2.6 - Comments in version 2.5-With-Comments
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

3. Status Report, Discuss: Status: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian Effenberger, 5 mins)

    Status report and various ongoing discussions
    * current status & timeline

    * ready with Apple (Cloph)
      * would then be visible within 1-2 days
      * vouchers can be created - can be done on demand pretty quickly
      * voucher users cannot rate the app, nor write reviews
    * for Microsoft, waiting for approval for sharedFonts permissions
      * to install fonts system-wide
      * still waiting for processing by MS engineers, whether we are granted that permission or not
      * expected reply today, still didn't get it - waiting
    * any workaround possible? (Thorsten)
      * would require modifying the installer (Cloph)
      * manual override could be possible, have to double-check, can possibly do by tomorrow (Thorsten)
      * let's see if they get back to us by tomorrow
* all other bits and pieces are done (Cloph)
   * font installing permission is the blocker now
* could go live with Apple App Store at any time
   * tempting, more in favour of it the longer this takes (Thorsten)
   * Apple likely much more popular
   * on the fence - has pros and cons, can live with both outcomes (Florian)
   * I see risks for potential issues with paid-for apps that way without previous testing with free. I made my opinion known in the past. (Paolo)
* shall we try 7.4 directly? (Cloph)
   * 7.3.5 is prepared, 7.3.6 is about to be published next week
   * can do 7.3.6 or 7.4.1
   * asking money for .0 or .1 might backfire (Thorsten)
* round of feedback
   * 7.4 on a Mac causes problems with copy & paste, wouldn't publish it (Uwe)
   * but would publish something now, let's not do everything at the same time, also opportunity on to PRs
   * 7.3.6 is fine if users then get 7.4.x for free (Paolo)
   * in favor of publishing 7.3 at Apple (Gabriel)
   * in favor of publishing 7.3 at Apple (Kendy)
   * agree with Uwe, push stable version and go separately (Gabor)
   * happy with 7.3.6 and Apple to start with (Paolo)
   * publish Apple first (Emiliano)
=> go live with Apple (and 7.3.6)

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

4. Vote, Discuss: Offer one internship via Outreachy's Fall 2022 season (Thorsten Behrens, 5 mins)

    Outreachy provides FLOSS orgs with a way to offer code internships,
    and has been very successful with increasing diversity in projects.

    Ilmari has one potential mentor and project lined up.

* Need to find a proper intern.

    Motion:
    * TDF to apply at Outreachy as a mentoring organisation
    * to offer one internship for LibreOffice in the Fall 2022 season
    * and budget 8k USD for the admin & intern compensation, via Outreachy

    Details: https://www.outreachy.org/docs/community/#funding-requirements

=> Unanimous approval
AI: Ilmari to handle and poke Florian if/when needed

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

5. Discuss: Progress Strategy and combining with Survey results (Cor Nouws, 10 mins)

    * needs preparation how to organize this in a smart way
    * ideally before the conference workshop

* make a start with organizing the outcomes - can do that (Cor)
   - so topics/suggestions can be matched with Strategy choices
   - making it easy for all directors to jump in.
   - should be doable to do that by next meeting :slight_smile:
* Have something for the in person meeting at the LibOCon (too) (Thorsten)

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

6. Status Report: LibreOffice conference planning (Florian Effenberger, 2 mins)

* all going well, t-shirts ordered, Android app in the works (Sophie, Florian)

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

7. Discuss: LibreOffice meetings - agenda planning (Cor Nouws, 10 mins)

    For the LibOCon board / joint meetings:
    * look at the major items / topics we want to have.
    * initially allocate time slots to those
    * e.g. where and how do we fit in the discussion on roots/vision/future?
    * and other major items we expect to prepare for discussing with MC?

* Monday, September 26, 10-18 board-only
* Tuesday, September 27, 10-13 board-only
* Tuesday, September 27, 13-17 board + MC + team
* calendar invites have been sent

* strategy workshop (Cor)
   * who's invited?
   * have all members join? or rather certain group, e.g. board + MC, looking into questions?
   * not what I had in mind (Uwe)
   * 15-20 minutes Florian&Mike to explain what reason behind TDF is
   * then Uwe to work with strategy items raised in Berlin
   * planned in for 2 hours in total
   * Wednesday 28 at 5 PM room Loyola (Sophie)
   * assign urgency & importance to each item by everyone in the room, maybe about 40 people?
   * ~40 dots in ypsilon-graph etc.
   * this is not the strategy discussion (Uwe)
     - not the faintest idea how this could be made up at the conference
   * 40 people in the room gives nice variety of voices (Cor)

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

The public meeting ends at 16:54 UTC / 18:54 Berlin time.

### Private Part

8. Discuss: legal topic (Cor Nouws, 15 mins)
    Reasons for privacy: legal topics

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

9. Status Report: HR topic (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
    Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

10. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
     Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

    Second quarter for the new board is up, so let's hear reports from
    the various oversight groups.

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

11. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
     Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after sending the agenda

===
      * summary:
      * status of consent (none, poor, mostly, full):
      * next step(s):

The private meeting ends at 17:29 UTC / 19:29 Berlin time.

Thorsten Behrens (Session chair)
Florian Effenberger (Keeper of the minutes)

looks like I learned another sort of management strategies:

management by continuous postponement

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Čt 08. 09. 2022 v 21:01 +0200:

> * Anything closer to be voted on? (Thorsten)
> * another round of editing document (Kendy)
> * closer to be voted on
> * it's in shared folder
> * another round of edits on his documents
> * Paolo made last edits on Friday, will look into it soon
> * glad to hear, re-added some comments to latest version (Paolo)
> * no massive rush right now, been in the making for a while
> (Thorsten)
> AI: add to agenda of next board call
> Folder with developers proposal (under Shared/Developers)
> Latest version 2.6 - Comments in version 2.5-With-Comments
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049
>
looks like I learned another sort of management strategies:

management by continuous postponement

I am not sure what do you mean; we are working hard with Paolo on the
document to minimize areas that are mutually unacceptable, and I am
pleased to see that the amount of problematic points is decreasing with
every version.

If you compare the document in the current state with my or Paolo's
first version, you will see the huge amount of work we have both put
into this.

I am also extremely pleased that we are both able to work on one shared
ODT document together.

As to the current state, I cannot speak for Paolo (so Paolo, please
correct me if I'm wrong), but from my point of view it is now clear
that:

1. We both agree TDF should hire developers. I've moved on
   position long ago; I think it was even documented on this ML.

2. We both agree that the Board has the ultimate deciding power.

3. We have accepted and/or removed many problematic parts (ranging from
   words to full paragraphs) all over the document.

4. We are still finding middle-ground for the role of ESC. (For
   example, the idea that TDF in-house developers wouldn't be bound
   by ESC rules and decisions the same way as volunteer and/or
   corporate contributors is not acceptable for me, and so far I am
   unfortunately failing to come up with formulation that is acceptable
   for Paolo.)

5. We are still finding middle-ground for some details around knowledge
   sharing/mentoring in areas where the in-house developers become
   experts. (But I think in this area, we are much closer to
   a conclusion, compared to 4.)

I've spent many hours answering the comments in the 2.5-With-Comments
today, and I'm finalizing the 2.7 that will be hopefully again one more
step closer to being acceptable by both of us; but unfortunately it is
too late to upload it now - hope to do it tomorrow early.

All the best,
Kendy

Hi Jan, hi all,

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Čt 08. 09. 2022 v 21:01 +0200:

* Anything closer to be voted on? (Thorsten)
   * another round of editing document (Kendy)
   * closer to be voted on
   * it's in shared folder
   * another round of edits on his documents
   * Paolo made last edits on Friday, will look into it soon
   * glad to hear, re-added some comments to latest version (Paolo)
   * no massive rush right now, been in the making for a while
(Thorsten)
   AI: add to agenda of next board call
Folder with developers proposal (under Shared/Developers)
Latest version 2.6 - Comments in version 2.5-With-Comments
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049

looks like I learned another sort of management strategies:

management by continuous postponement

I am not sure what do you mean; we are working hard with Paolo on the
document to minimize areas that are mutually unacceptable, and I am
pleased to see that the amount of problematic points is decreasing with
every version.

I'm always interested in learning new and promising managing methods.
And this here seemed a one that I have not learned about.

If you compare the document in the current state with my or Paolo's
first version, you will see the huge amount of work we have both put
into this.

I believe this is true, but the links above in the meeting minutes are
not public (also not public for logged in users). Thus no user of this
list could proof your statement.

Thus it would be great, if you could make the current state of the
documents (maybe with the changes done) available for the interested
community.

This would help to follow the process and understand the pro and cons of
this management method.

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Pá 09. 09. 2022 v 16:50 +0200:

Thus it would be great, if you could make the current state of the
documents (maybe with the changes done) available for the interested
community.

It is still all developing in the same folder as before, available for
all the TDF members:

  https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Developers

It contains all the versions since 2.0, and most of them have change
tracking turned on.

I am happy to share the folder (read-only) to the general public too,
but I'd like to have Paolo's OK before I do - Paolo, is it OK for you?

All the best,
Kendy

Hi Kendy, Andreas and all,

On 09/09/2022 19:44, Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Mantke píše v Pá 09. 09. 2022 v 16:50 +0200:

Thus it would be great, if you could make the current state of the
documents (maybe with the changes done) available for the interested
community.

It is still all developing in the same folder as before, available for
all the TDF members:

  [https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Developers](https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/Developers)

It contains all the versions since 2.0, and most of them have change
tracking turned on.

I am happy to share the folder (read-only) to the general public too,
but I'd like to have Paolo's OK before I do - Paolo, is it OK for you?

I’m totally fine with sharing the folder to all so that they can see how it changed over time.

I’ve uploaded version 2.8 with some comments.

I’ve accepted several changes even if don’t satisfy me fully but a decent compromise today is better than nothing at all.

It took a very long time to get here so I hope that the long discussions haven’t put off potential candidates.

I believe this version (2.8) should now be sent to our legal counsel for verification and the result should be voted on.

Would you agree?

All the best,
Kendy

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi píše v So 10. 09. 2022 v 15:45 +0200:

> I am happy to share the folder (read-only) to the general public
> too,
> but I'd like to have Paolo's OK before I do - Paolo, is it OK for
> you?

I'm totally fine with sharing the folder to all so that they can see
how it changed over time.

Thank you, it can be seen here:

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

I've uploaded version 2.8 with some comments.

I've accepted several changes even if don't satisfy me fully but a
decent compromise today is better than nothing at all.

It took a very long time to get here so I hope that the long
discussions haven't put off potential candidates.

I believe this version (2.8) should now be sent to our legal counsel
for verification and the result should be voted on.

Would you agree?

I've added answers to your comments as:

  TDF-In-House-Developers-Proposal-v2-8-Merged-answers.odt

For many of them, it is just an "OK, accepted"; just few bits around
the ESC are controversial or even not acceptable for me - but I've
outlined those already in the call on Monday.

Can you please have a look? Thank you in advance!

All the best,
Kendy

Hi all,

I think we finally reached a document with quite a few compromises with version 2.9, which is available in the shared folder.

There are a few elements that should be checked by our legal counsel especially from an HR/ESC relationship point of view and limitations about working on specifically mentioned projects.

Once our legal counsel evaluated the document and suggested the needed modifications we should be ready to vote it into action.

Ciao

Paolo