Hi *,
looking at this thread, we start to run in circles.
My understanding was, that Paolo volunteered to write-up a more
detailed proposal, including goals (short-term and possibly
long-term).
I agree with several other directors (current and upcoming) that this
would be very useful to have, to base a decision on.
So lets wait for that document; in this sub-thread there was no new
arguments in a while. I suggest we retire it.
A few quick comments, no need to discuss further:
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> The difference is that we already have a mentor (actually several
> mentors in several areas), while you suggest a strategic decision -We recently employed only 1 mentor.
No one else has been employed in that specific role.
TDF employed, and still employs, several mentors in various roles &
overlapping responsibilities (including development).
Those were, if my memory serves me well, unanimously wanted.
It would be great if members of the board of directors, with their
TDF hat on, would explain clearly why they seem to be opposed to
employing in-house developers.
The opposition seems to be about the process, and about putting the
means before the end. There was BTW a constructive side-thread with
some thoughts on how/where a salaried developer at TDF could be
beneficial, with contributions from all sides of the aisle.
Best,
-- Thorsten