El 22.06.2022 11:49, Paolo Vecchi escribió:
Hi all,
as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear
I've integrated what makes sense to have on a developers recruitment
proposal and added a few items clarifying some aspect in version 2.2
(in ODF format) of this "merged" proposal that you'll find here
together with the other proposal:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049
Those that don't have access to that folder or don't want to
edit/comment it can access a PDF version from here:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/BMnj2c4A9XR4oWk
What changed:
I've adapted a few sentences/words to get closer to the other proposal
where possible and eliminated some sentences/words that might not add
much to the context.
I've also reinstated the app store area as now is not controversial
anymore.
There is a specific paragraph stating that in-house developers are not
bound by ESC decisions.
Overall the original logic is still there but showing a lower number
of differences to the other proposal.
What is still different:
The developers do not need to be senior or already capable of
mentoring, training them is part of our goals so we should do that
The focus is clearly on the development side with mentoring to be done
when the developers are ready and willing
There is less focus on the ESC handling the task and more on staff
dealing with it as developers are going to be part of TDF's staff so
they shouldn't be told what to do by non employees of TDF or the
Board.
What is not there:
The section related to "Targeted Developers" as it's a construct that
imposes limitations on what TDF's staff can do. We will employ
in-house developers that will work for the best interest of TDF and
it's wider community which initially will surely focus on specific
areas, the "Focus Areas", but over the years could cover other areas
if they like it and it's necessary.
I believe that a candidate reading that an organisation is looking for
"targeted developers" might already feel the limitation of the role
and the lack of opportunities for personal growth so we might prefer
to welcome in-house developers that won't feel that limitations as
full members of TDF's staff.
ESC deciding and having a final word on "overlaps in the development
of the LibreOffice code" is too broad as it might imply also
development related to projects, features or bug fixes on which a
third party might have interests expressed through the ESC which at
present has no CoI Policy. Limitations imposed on TDF's staff that
satisfy the interests/needs of third parties, or in some cases both
TDF and third parties, should be part of a separate agreement, not a
recruitment proposal.
Other similar limitations, including non competition or development of
alternative implementation to (eg.) "Collabora Online, mdds, or
cppunit" have not been included in this version as they should be
covered by separate agreements which are independent to TDF's staff
recruitment.
Contracts with subcontractors, trainers and specialists do not belong
in a recruitment proposal. Additional support or training will be
taken in consideration once we have evaluated the candidates and when
our mentors will inform us of what is necessary.
Development contracts present in the other proposal will follow the
due tendering process.
I hope that the rationale for not including certain areas, terms and
limitations is clear to all in this "merged" proposal and that we can
proceed in finding great candidates to join our team as soon as
possible.
Ciao
Paolo
It is quite clear that this is the version to take as a starting point
as you have done a great job in putting together the various changes
requested and makes text more clear.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
