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

[drodriguez]

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.

[PaoloVecchi]

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

[cornouws]

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

Best,
Cor

[cornouws]

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

[sophi]

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

[cornouws]

Hi Sophie,

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..

from the minutes: "
* I'm still missing information (Cor)
     * asked comments from Mike
          * and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1
          * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare
          * from legal aspects and organizational wise
     * very different from contract on properly tendered project
"

In my understanding that is on the content of the proposal.

And sorry that I misunderstood your question. I would have appreciated if you would have let me know.

mail for which I still miss part of the answers:
- who are the _others_ you talked about?

As mentioned in most recent board meeting: all apart from Kendy and Paolo.

- will this new proposal be reviewed by the community?

Is ongoing I think.

- will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers?

That is not needed for a simple proposal to hire people for the team.

- what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis.

You can't seriously mean you want me to respond to this, do you?
I've seen also others already explaining that the length and nature of the old proposal is a problem on it's own.
Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included.

It seems now I've some answers:
- all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me

See my reply to Emiliano explaining the need and that the idea that Paolo is excluded from the process is false:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01148.html

- 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

I don't consider the list tdf-internal as a second class place to cooperate. It's only to be expected that members engage there.
Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included.

- no answer

see above.

- no answer

See above.

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.

Sad that you did not try to let me know somehow etc.
That left the stage for someone who is pouring a lot of negativity on top of my head

I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said.

I'm not aware that I tried to turn what you said. Sorry if I gave that impression.
And happy to look into this, other details, more closely. Either here, in private mail (with others you prefer in CC) or in a call (with others you prefer present as well).

thanks,
Cor

[sophi]

Hi Cor,

Last mail on my side

Hi Sophie,

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..

from the minutes: "
* I'm still missing information (Cor)
    * asked comments from Mike
    * looks very limited in the light of TDF
         * and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1
         * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare
         * from legal aspects and organizational wise
    * very different from contract on properly tendered project
"

In my understanding that is on the content of the proposal.

And sorry that I misunderstood your question. I would have appreciated if you would have let me know.

mail for which I still miss part of the answers:
- who are the _others_ you talked about?

As mentioned in most recent board meeting: all apart from Kendy and Paolo.

Kendy had already resigned, so only Paolo

- will this new proposal be reviewed by the community?

Is ongoing I think.

no, it's only part of TDF members, not the community

- will this new proposal be reviewed by TDF lawyers?

That is not needed for a simple proposal to hire people for the team.

- what is wrong in the substance of the first proposal on a line by line analysis.

You can't seriously mean you want me to respond to this, do you?
I've seen also others already explaining that the length and nature of the old proposal is a problem on it's own.
Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included.

I was serious, but it seems none of the board wants to give reasons, so I give up.

It seems now I've some answers:
- all but Paolo -> which is unacceptable for me

See my reply to Emiliano explaining the need and that the idea that Paolo is excluded from the process is false:

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg01148.html

No need, he was excluded, period (me calls a cat a cat

- 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

I don't consider the list tdf-internal as a second class place to cooperate. It's only to be expected that members engage there.
Besides that, as explained: the new proposal does what is needed: make possible that developers are hired, and needs, areas of interest that have been discussed for the old proposal, are included.

I don't say that it's a second class place, just it's only a small subset of the community while the roles will interact with the whole community and there is nothing that requests to be on a private list.

- no answer

see above.

- no answer

See above.

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.

Sad that you did not try to let me know somehow etc.
That left the stage for someone who is pouring a lot of negativity on top of my head

I can live with you thinking that I'm stupid enough, no problem, but please, don't try to turn what I said.

I'm not aware that I tried to turn what you said. Sorry if I gave that impression.
And happy to look into this, other details, more closely. Either here, in private mail (with others you prefer in CC) or in a call (with others you prefer present as well).

No need for private exchanges, I'm old enough to care only about important things, which here are TDF and its community.
Cheers
Sophie

[andreasma]

Hi Cor, hi all,

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).

I quote your statements from the board-meeting at 14.11.2022:

-------- Begin quote ----------

* really looks as if Paolo's behavior shows a lack of understanding
    * fundamental principle of TDF being a community
    * also the balance of cooperating companies
    * shared interests, statutes restricting influence
  * Paolo's comments show no understanding
  * one of the board's major responsibilities to maintain a modus
operandi that best serves TDF's goals
    * respecting, understanding and supporting synergy vital
  * Paolo’s personal and business situation ignored so far
    * failed to establish a business relation with Collabora and CIB
    * interested in other ways to get online solutions?
    * a one sided, negative, attitude towards ecosystem companies?
    * now telling TDF/Directors what they should do?
  * all this has lead to a bad proposal?
  * the board should look into this issue first

------------   End quote ------------------

That's really a reflect on the content only?

You blunt attack another board member during a board meeting and the
chair of the meeting is not stopping you and give you advise about the
netiquette.

But everyone who subscribe not to your view get an advise from the chair
/ moderator.

What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years.

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?

See above. Your words speaks volumes.

Regards,
Andreas

[deneb_alpha]

Hello Cor, hi all,

during the last board call on Monday, I unsuccessfully tried to get clarifications about this new "proposal" for hiring in-house developers.

I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9 months of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the "abstract" of the previous document with some changes that are even bringing more controversial problems on the table (like for example how many positions will be opened for hiring the in-house developers - one, two, many).

In parallel with this, I'm still not buying the explanation given to the exclusion of one elected board member from the work on this new "proposal". During the call you replied to me in a contradictory way, first saying that Paolo and Kendy have been excluded, than stating that the new "proposal" have been worked on when Kendy was already out of the board...that brings back again to "just Paolo being excluded".

I attended the board call, I read the thread here and, also to me, Sophie's questions are valid and still unanswered.
This "proposal" is just ignoring all the work done in the last 9 months and it reduces the previous publicly available document to just an analysis of the areas where this potential in-house developers could work on, when and if the ESC will give the permission to work.

And, BTW, I agree with the concerns already expressed by others in having this in-house developers reporting to the ESC instead of the ED and from him to the board like all the others.

On this particular point I'm also having a sense of déjà vu. I remember the board discussed the very same idea of "special" reporting chain when in the past there was the discussion about the developer mentor. ...and as far as I remember, also at that time the discussion was quite heated and at the end the "special" reporting chain proposal was dropped. So, I'm wondering, why we have again the same non working approach on the discussion table?!

For what concerns the legal review of the hiring proposal, I would disagree that there's no need to have a legal review for it.

I would like to remind that TDF is based in Germany and that the hiring proposal will need to clearly define the job role, the tasks that the new hire will work on, the expectations for what concerns deliverables, the working hours etc.

So, if in the voted proposal parts of those topics are touched, a legal review is needed (and to me, it looks like this).

If as you seems to hint, the proposal is just something generic for approving to hire someone and the details of the job offer will be clarified in a separate document, your "proposal" should just mention that the board resolves to hire the in-house developers and that the details of the job offer and the contract will be provided in a separate document reviewed by TDF's legal counsel.

The board resolution can't mix up the two things. If the resolution is really intended to cover the "full package", your proposal is actually incomplete and can't be voted on.

My two cents,
Marina

[thb]

Hi Marina, all,

Marina Latini wrote:

I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9 months
of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the "abstract"
of the previous document [...]

Sorry for not having explained this in a proper way.

The work is not trashed, as you say it's living on in the new proposal.

Why was it shelved? Because Kendy resigned over it, and he and Paolo
worked over many details. The board would need to restart that, from a
relatively early stage.

The fact that for a majority of the board, the proposal was not
acceptable in its current state, was I think made clear.

Therefore, to make progress, a new, much shortened approach.

(sorry for the brief answer, more later - busy days currently)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi all,

On 01/12/2022 14:05, Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Hi Marina, all,

Marina Latini wrote:

I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9 months
of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the "abstract"
of the previous document [...]

Sorry for not having explained this in a proper way.

The work is not trashed, as you say it's living on in the new proposal.

As we can see from the few lines of the new proposal one of the issues was still present until Jean-Baptiste pointed out the same issue I managed to get Jan to understand.

The other crucial bit of the proposal that gives away the real logic around it is this:

"- 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; "

That’s another very crafty way to get the same result as this sentence:
“TDF in-house developers will not compete with commercial contributors and will not develop alternative implementations of Open Source projects actively maintained by LibreOffice volunteer or corporate contributors – like Collabora Online, mdds, or cppunit.”

There was nothing else that caused controversy in the proposal with Jan as with the legal review we ironed out everything else.

Why was it shelved? Because Kendy resigned over it,

A chairman repeating a false statement and ignoring the proof of the contrary doesn’t look good.

Kendy even kindly told Cor to stay out of it when he wanted to propose a similar version of his “KISS approach” as we were progressing very well.

Kendy resigned when he has seen he could not find ways to justify the above sentence to impose a limitation that apparently was essential to him.

Cor practically confirmed that commenting:
" * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare

• from legal aspects and organizational wise"

and by trying to impose the same limitation in a different way.

As both our chairman and Cor relay on opacity to keep going on with unfounded accusations and false statements I’ve asked the board to release the relevant emails.

At least we could settle the matter and get back to the original proposal, vote it and let the team do the rest.

 and he and Paolo
worked over many details. The board would need to restart that, from a
relatively early stage.

In his various comments our chairman has shown that he prefers to go with a new proposal put together in, probably half an hour, which has created and will created more controversies down the line than evaluate the one that has already covered many of those issues.

What has been proposed anyway still point to the original proposal:
“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”

So the rationale I wrote and the focus areas I collected are OK to be recycled in this other proposal?
Why excluding the “Mentoring and TDF’s educational mission” which all must know is very important?

Why also excluding 10 to 12 which are the parts on which we put most of the efforts to find all the compromises that would make everyone happy?

Why not keeping everything apart from page 13 which seems the most controversial one?

The fact that for a majority of the board, the proposal was not
acceptable in its current state, was I think made clear.

Actually the board never explained what is not acceptable.

Then stating “* seems number of people disagree” and seeing that the number is 2 doesn’t make it a majority of the board.

Seeing the the complaint from Cor is related to the same limitation for which Jan allegedly resigned then some doubts start coming up.

Didn’t I read something somewhere in relation to directors that have a declared interest should not influence the decision process on a specific item?

How is called if that interest is declared after having influenced a decision?

Maybe we should find the answer to those questions before carrying on with this “new proposal”?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Ciao

Paolo

[cornouws]

Hi Andreas,

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).

I quote your statements from the board-meeting at 14.11.2022:

No problem for me that you give that some extra attention

-------- Begin quote ----------

* really looks as if Paolo's behavior shows a lack of understanding
    * fundamental principle of TDF being a community
    * also the balance of cooperating companies
    * shared interests, statutes restricting influence
  * Paolo's comments show no understanding
  * one of the board's major responsibilities to maintain a modus
operandi that best serves TDF's goals
    * respecting, understanding and supporting synergy vital
  * Paolo’s personal and business situation ignored so far
    * failed to establish a business relation with Collabora and CIB
    * interested in other ways to get online solutions?
    * a one sided, negative, attitude towards ecosystem companies?
    * now telling TDF/Directors what they should do?
  * all this has lead to a bad proposal?
  * the board should look into this issue first

------------   End quote ------------------

Noticing now that's not the end of the story though..
But this is clearly showing the facts about Paolo, whom is telling others for a long time in a strong no-compromise-style manner what to do, but who himself appears to be in a very interesting position.

That's really a reflect on the content only?

Only? Don't think so. But your frame is not correct:
This is not what I brought in for information on the content to answer Sophie.
Oh, Let me not ask your thoughts on the fact that he denied for a year + to declare his personal/business interest

You blunt attack another board member during a board meeting and the
chair of the meeting is not stopping you and give you advise about the
netiquette.

Apparently I gave a word to a mutually felt frustration in a way that was not too bad?

But everyone who subscribe not to your view get an advise from the chair
/ moderator.

Again your frame is not correct. It is character assassination.

What an unbalanced environment had TDF become since some years.

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?

See above. Your words speaks volumes.

Again your frame is not correct.
You accused me of willingly misleading/not replying to Sophie. My response showed that your characterization is false.

AFAIC: Enough said. But feel free to call to talk over it more/again.

Thanks,
Cor

[cornouws]

Hi Marina,

Thanks!

I'm still struggling to understand why there was the need to trash 9 months of work for presenting a new text that sounds more like just the "abstract" of the previous document with some changes that are even bringing more controversial problems on the table (like for example how many positions will be opened for hiring the in-house developers - one, two, many).

I read 'there will be two job postings'..
For the rest I've really done my best to explain my reasons to conclude that the old proposal was not fit for purpose.
Sorry if I failed to bring my rationale across in a understandable manner.

In parallel with this, I'm still not buying the explanation given to the exclusion of one elected board member from the work on this new "proposal". During the call you replied to me in a contradictory way, first saying that Paolo and Kendy have been excluded, than stating that the new "proposal" have been worked on when Kendy was already out of the board...that brings back again to "just Paolo being excluded".

All fine with that. Let's say that we struggle in the board to create a safe working environment. So far it has been harmful and not productive otherwise. By the enormous volume and negativity, actually excluding directors that have busy day job and need to be concentrated, have then the evenings left to dig through loads of... By taking part of the work in a separate environment, it is just more inclusive.

Cheers,

Cor