[VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1

Board Discuss
#6

Hi all,

just a reminder that the voting window expires in about half an hour.

Members of the board that have a personal/business interest in budgeting and tendering, as they know, should vote “abstain” and not abstain from voting.

Making also this vote fail based information which have been easily proven to be false, IMHO, would show a clear successful attempt by Jan and our chairman to unduly influence a vote. I guess that the board and the community will have to evaluate how to deal with this.

Ciao

Paolo

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve in-house developers proposal v.3.1
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 17:35:08 +0100
From: Paolo Vecchi paolo.vecchi@documentfoundation.org
To: Board Discuss board-discuss@documentfoundation.org

Dear board and all,

during LibOCon it has been agreed that we would iron out the divergences about the last few sentences, we would have the proposal discussed with our legal counsel and then proceed with the vote.

As we went through all these stages I’m proposing the following vote:

-%<------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Approve the In-House Developer Proposal v3.1 https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB
  • Instruct the members of our staff led by our ED to draft the job description for 2 developers
  • Publish the job description
  • Task the members of our staff led by our ED to proceed with the interviews and selection of the best candidates
  • Task our ED to propose to the board the best candidates for confirmation of contracts
  • Task our ED to prepare and sign the relevant contracts

-%<------------------------------------------------------------------

The vote runs 72h from now. If all full board members voted before, the vote can be concluded earlier.

Ciao

Paolo

#7

Hi all,

I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting.

Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others.
I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.

Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer.

Thanks,
Cor

#8

Hi Cor,

Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others.

odd that AFAIK there was no other proposal being worked on within the board.

Who are the "others"?

Why did you decide to work with "others" while you had your colleague working with me?

Ciao

Paolo

#9

Hi Cor, all,

Hi all,

I could not join this vote. As all that read my mails and hear my spoken contributions can know, I've always supported the idea for hiring developers. The proposal brought to vote by Paolo however, was IMO not fit for purpose - I've mentioned that on this list and explained it before in e.g. the recent board meeting.

I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at people and not to the background of the document.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of what in this document after the feedback from the community, the team, and the 9 months work of the board plus the legal review should still be problematic.

Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others.

I'm really surprised to learn about another proposal worked by _others_ supported by _others_. Who in the Board are those _others_? New Board members, community members?

I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.

With a review by the community and the lawyers too? And who will wrote the hiring proposal? Why is this a different process than the one in place currently with the team involved at all stage?

Also I expect that this mail is sufficient answer to all questions (and more ..) brought to me on this list. But if there's anything essential I missed, please let me know and I'll try to answer.

I don't understand this last paragraph, which questions?

I really don't understand what is going on with this proposal to have in-house developers. First you were against, now you're not against but deny all the work done on the past months with input from the community, the team, the board and the lawyers.

We have all read this document, line by line, I know a bunch of people who were really happy with it and it has the support of the team (who will be the one working with those two developers on a daily basis).

Please explain what is wrong with the background of this document (not the people behind it - I really don't care who wrote it) but please cite line by line what is wrong and doesn't fit with TDF mission, doesn't pursue TDF vision, and doesn't help the community at large. Thanks.
Sophie

#10

Hi Sophie,

Thanks for expressing your concerns on the matter. Given the situation, I can only understand that. Although I think it is not needed to expect something weird or bad to happen.

Wrt my comments: see the minutes of the meeting at 2022-11-14:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01063.html

It's a nice coincidence by the way that Uwe mentioned KISS, earlier this evening. The new proposal indeed will be simple and understandable.

Then again: whatever others may tell you, I was never against in house developers.

So clearly the idea is not to deny the work of you and other team members and so on. Maybe we only make sure that it actually comes to work?

Cheers,
Cor

#11

Hello,

- Approve the In-House Developer Proposal v3.1 https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB
- Instruct the members of our staff led by our ED to draft the job description for 2 developers
- Publish the job description
- Task the members of our staff led by our ED to proceed with the interviews and selection of the best candidates
- Task our ED to propose to the board the best candidates for confirmation of contracts
- Task our ED to prepare and sign the relevant contracts

The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.

A total of 2 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is not quorate.

Florian

#12

Dear people,

I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.

In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal.
Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See:
   https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal

Greetings,
Cor

#13

Hi Cor, all,

In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal.

Why do you go to tdf-internal after an open exchange of opinions already on the board-discuss list?

It seems to me hiding away that perhaps the 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' is nothing else than 'Old wine in new wineskins'?

Just another attempt to keep the famous "one sentence" alive by rephrasing it nicely?

In other words and as alreay discussed on the board-discuss list:
Third parties directing TDF how and what their employee(s) are allowed or not allowed to work on?

I am curious to know about any employer accepting this.
Would you accept the same for your company? Would one of our valuable ecosystem partners accept?

Best
Stephan

#14

Hi all,

Dear people,

I promise that will be posted soon - ultimately tomorrow - allowing us to start the process of hiring by the end of the week, I hope.

In the mean time, there is a mail 'New proposal for hiring in-house developers' on the list tdf-internal.
Members that want to have a look for possible feedback, but are not subscribed to that list, can file a request to be added there. See:
https://lists.documentfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tdf-internal

That's a peculiar proposal that should not be hidden to others that have followed the progress of the proposal that failed to reach the quorum for some "odd" reasons.

The proposal seems to have been written by someone blissfully unaware of the legal advice that invalidates this "new" proposal on various points and that the mistakes been repeated here were already fixed during the negotiations with Jan.

You can find the various versions of the proposals with comments here: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/zfoRygFbBgJZZcj

See if you can spot the various changes that need to be implemented to make the proposal below acceptable of any organisation and legally sound.

-%<------------------------------------------------------------------

## TDF Developer Hiring Resolution 2022

"Whereas,

- with TDF stewarding, among other things, a well-working symbiosis of
  various companies and volunteer developers inside of the LibreOffice
  community;

- given that in the current situation, there are certain areas where
  extra developers can add value with additional activities, that
  complement the existing contributions;

- with this being an ongoing need;

Therefore the board resolves that:

- TDF will seek to hire a developer(s) reporting to the ESC;

- who will work in such a way, that both volunteer and ecosystem peers
  regard them as helpful, supportive and complementing their own work;

- for whom as the initial areas of work, the board identifies
  improving RTL/CTL writing support and accessibility for LibreOffice
  core; as well as mentoring new volunteers in these specific
  areas. After that, depending on skills available, Writer tables,
  Base, general regression fixing, Draw, and Math are the next focus
  areas;

- thus, there will be two job postings, with requirements matching the
  initial focus areas listed above, and one or two developers will be
  hired initially;

- after 6, and after 9 months following the developers starting their
  work, the board will do an assessment of the situation and results.

Requirements for the candidates:

* Very good C++ development skills;
* Proven experience with Accessibility and/or RTL/CTL, additional CJK
  experience is a strong plus;
* Love for open source;
* Team players;
* Experience with LibreOffice development is a plus.

Footnote: for a requirements analysis on the need for hiring
developers, please refer to information on the pages 3-8 of the
abandoned dev proposal:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qofn646Jg6bmPYB "

-%<------------------------------------------------------------------

Ciao

Paolo

#15

Hi Cor, hi all,

if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell
you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the
inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate
and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It
shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your
understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think
about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training
to improve your skills.

Regards,
Andreas

#16

Hi Andreas,

Hi Cor, hi all,

if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell
you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the
inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate
and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It
shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your
understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think
about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training
to improve your skills.

recent emails and declarations during BoD meetings seem to have created some uncertainties in regards to what is going on with the developers proposal so I've asked the board to release an email thread, which also contains some recommendations from our trusted legal counsel, that should clarify the situation once and for all.

I'm sure the board will be very pleased to release those emails so that we can remove any doubt and move forward with the original proposal.

Regards,
Andreas

Ciao

Paolo

#17

Hi all,

Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others.

Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it.

I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it.

Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior.

I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever.

The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved.

I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone.

Regards,

#18

Hi Emiliano,

Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it.

I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it.

Yes, you replied that you chose not to take part. True.

For the rest: topic has been mentioned and briefly touched in today's board meeting. We agreed to have discuss that in a (separate) meeting.

Cheers,
Cor

#19

Hi all,

Emiliano Vavassori wrote:

Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected
director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is
IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not
fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different
opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors.

There's quite some irony here, in being upset about excluding a
disruptive person from drafting work, while at the same time being
upset for being included.

Why this approach was taken, should be relatively obvious. Questions
on that will be answered, but I'd very much prefer that conversation
to be members-internal.

Best,

-- Thorsten

#20

Hi Emiliano,

Hi all,

Then, I've been busy recently, among others working on another proposal of course with great support from others.

Let me clarify that I did NOT take any part on the drafting of such proposal, nor I do approve or support it or even part of it.

I clearly wrote to the other directors involved to IMMEDIATELY STOP that process and that I didn't want to be involved with it.

Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior.

I fully agree with you. Excluding those you disagree with is really not what is expected in our community.

I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever.

The proposal was even sent to me privately on an instant messaging platform, ignoring my words to leave me out of the entire endeavor, basically forcing me to have a look over it, even if I stated clearly I didn't want to be involved.

I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone.

I am so so sorry to read that, that is just incredible for a person of your kindness. I would like to apologize that you have to live that in our community, I'm speechless... just sorry again.

Cheers
Sophie

#21

I stopped following the endless threads on this list a long time ago as I felt the annoyance of having to read the same ridiculousness over and over again.

Today I decided to give it a new chance and I find this, and I recognize myself in Emiliano's words.

Before coming to the BoD I had an ideal image of the environment within TDF, unfortunately the reality is quite different.

I don't quite understand how this modus operandi was maintained over time, but it definitely has to end. It cannot be that certain people attack valuable members of our community in such a blatant manner. Here I also include Paolo who is still suffering from the unfounded CoI accusations against him.

I collaborate voluntarily with TDF since its beginnings as such and I think many will agree with me, this behavior by the same characters must stop.

#22

Hi Emiliano,

thank you for clarifying your position and for trying yet again to get some members of the board to understand that what they are doing is not only ethically wrong but very likely also against our statutes.

Last night Thorsten, Cor and Gabor declared an "interest" in relation to the "Hiring TDF developers" while derailing the current proposal and imposing a new one. There are strong indicators that what is going on could be seen as a conflict of interest and the board should start an official investigation.

What concerns me is that I haven't seen any reactions from Laszlo, Gabor, Ayhan or Gabriel in any of the other cases during this term where you reported to the board that what they were doing was deeply wrong.
I hope they start realising that they should start questioning more what they are being told by Cor and Thorsten.

Ciao

Paolo

#23

Hi Emiliano, *

Although we agreed to discuss the below separately, I think it is good to give some counter-balance right now as well.

Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is

Various people are writing on this list and tdf-internal that they do not appreciate amount/style of discussion.
Now, you and me do know the directors mailing list. What shall we say: a factor 10, 15.. times what happens here?
And then, as director having a day job that asks your attention and concentration.. You open the mail in the evening, and.. An hour or so later: most mail read and energy lost.

So we're trying various concepts that allow all people to join (more) in various stages.

IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. In fact, I

No director is excluded from rights nor possibilities to give input or to vote.

find it disgusting in a democratic setup and added I was not engaging furthermore on the topic as I was appalled by the whole behavior.

Why this dislike? You do not understand or see the need of trying to create a positive, workable and safe working environment?

I was even asked to reconsider and be part of the group working on that proposal, basically ignoring my previous words whatsoever.

Before you replied to the mail with the draft, the idea of the approach, with an invite to respond with your thoughts, was already sent twice.
The when you did reply, I tried to explain the need for that approach in different words. And since consider your input generally very useful and important, I asked you to think about it again. Why is this something to be angry about?

I am deeply saddened, frustrated and nauseated on being constantly ignored, abused, mistold and misrepresented in so many different and articulated ways, even when I'm trying to stay balanced and try hard to fulfill my role as vice-chairman by giving voice to everyone.

Really, if you feel treated badly in board discussions etc., do speak up, or in private, or try to have a call.. it should not be that way :frowning:

Best,
Cor

#24

Hi Andreas,

if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell
you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the
inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate
and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It

My reading of Sophie's mail:
>>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at
>>> people and not to the background of the document.

is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes).
Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail.

It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your
understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think
about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training
to improve your skills.

So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas?

Thanks,
Cor

#25

Hi,

Hi Andreas,

if a community member points on the last board meeting minutes and tell
you that it could not read any objective reasons (from you) why the
inhouse-dev proposal 3.1 not fit the purpose, it is really inappropriate
and impertinent to point in the answer only on this meeting minutes. It

My reading of Sophie's mail:
>>> I was not in the board meeting, but what I read was to point at
>>> people and not to the background of the document.

is that she read things at another location. Thus I've mentioned the minutes where I do not point at people, but reflect on the content. (Note the difference with what she describes).
Apart from that: I think Sophie is very well capable to write me if I misunderstood her mail.

So yes, you misunderstood my mail, I repeat: what I read in those minutes is pointing at people and not to the substance of the document, mail for which I still miss part of the answers:
- who are the _others_ you talked about?
- will this new proposal be reviewed by the community?
- will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers?
- what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis.

It seems now I've some answers:
- all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me
- only by part of the members -> which is unacceptable for me when the whole discussion was public and you even inform here on a public list that it won't be public
- no answer

It shows no respect face to face with the members. If this is your
understanding of the communication with the members you needn't think
about the strategy for the future of TDF, but about an advanced training
to improve your skills.

So I think with my explanation those words are not in place, Andreas?

I didn't replied you because I found you mail offensive to me and I didn't want to escalate. I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said.

Sophie

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.