As one of its tasks, the current board is looking into decisions and meeting minutes taken in the past that were not yet published according to our statutes. What follows are previously private minutes from the 2022-12-14 in-person joint meeting board, MC and team, which are now made public. Some elements in the minutes might be redacted as there is a need for confidentiality, or as individuals are mentioned in specific contexts.
Disclaimer: The following private minutes from the previous board are published as is. They have not necessarily been confirmed by the respective session’s chairperson or keeper of the minutes, nor approved by the respective board.
The document/notes mentioned in the below minutes is available at 2022 joint meetings - "Concerns and feedback from the team" document
First call, 1200 UTC
Participants
- Board - Thorsten, Gabor, Gabriel, Cor, Laszlo, Paolo
- Membership Committee - Marina, Miklos, Gustavo, Balasz, Uwe, Shinji, Gabriele
- Team - Florian, Mike, Ilmari, Stephan, Heiko, Guilhem, Xisco, Stephane, Italo, Christian, Hossein (from 12:15 UTC on)
Thorsten/Florian/Marina leading & moderating
- Thorsten/Florian: need to listen, hear from you!
- agenda for the call - find common ground
- all aware of the situation, different angles & views - but: certainly agree situation is bad
- Marina: agree, clear we’ve got issues, need to fix them. stop pretending everything is great
- try to work internally first
- if this group can’t work together, no point in pretending to the outside or board of trustees
- Cor: if possible, can we have video on for people who speak?
- Thorsten: lets hear everyone, but: also come together and behind next steps
- Guilhem: frequently, had the impression that feedback was taken, and then kicked into the long grass. lets not delay e.g. to fosdem. can’t afford to wait til fosdem. Heard the same in Milano, hoped it would improve, but it didn’t
- Florian: sorry for sending the document late, but - initially call was planned a bit differently. Document was from the team, but hearing similar feedback from board members and community people. Reflect what to do differently. Appreciate this is team’s perspective, others might have a different take. E.g. Munich meeting: spent most of the time on general TDF issues, so - quite some bits of the doc came from there. We must change more & deeper
- Mike: guilhem said it, also really concerned. people in the team at the end of their tether, people want to leave - personally, if team members go, don’t want to be part anymore. Team members getting really stressed - while loving this job, and what we’re doing - still, if team members getting burnt out, wonder what he’s doing here
- [REDACTED: sensitive statement]
- Cor: thx for the doc, good to have, referring back to our dicussiion in Munich - looked fwd to have progress in Milano. Assuming there was - if not enough by now, why? Happy to look at that. Board took a lot of time, to get at the same page, how to manage the legal challenges. Also talked about how to improve/handle/manage team communication. Some milestones, plans what we’re going to do. To clarify, make it more relaxing - but, clearly not finished by now. Sad, and needs more focus, clearly. Conclusion on the time being, how to move forwards - at least. Asking to we must change, is now - clearly true. And we’re not there. There are improvements, in his view
- Guilhem: there’s a risk here - want to acknowledge the trend, encouraging - but: compared to the size of the problem, clearly not enough. Looking at dynamics, on board-discuss, and also wrt board/team. Comparing that to Munich, still all a shitshow (perhaps worse than 3 months ago?). Try to improve marginally, not enough
- Cor: wrt [REDACTED: community member] keynote - wasn’t too happy about it. Florian already mentioned it. Whatever feelings [REDACTED: community member] might have from the past, he’s unhappy, team is unhappy. In any case not helpful to do it in a keynote. As such: totally understand. But: since [REDACTED: community member] not on the board, but in the community. After growing for many years, now TDF is ill - and we need to heal it. After the healing, we can make progress. Wonder if focusing on the process/progress, w/o healing - is that going to work? With board-discuss, team members unhappy about board members interaction. If you speak in public, from the team: it’s visible you’re not happy. Maybe there’s someone on the team then, to talk to - or from the board? Then people can explain & share their grief? In a situation we’re in, and struggling, perhaps a better approach?
- Thorsten: lets focus on the most pressing issues
- Gabriele: nobody dives in, nobody actually acts! Dancing around the issue - would like to be pragmatic, get a checklist, with all the trouble, and do it now. List the probs, discuss it in a civil way, and get it done!
- Florian: concerned, [REDACTED: community member] badmouthing him when talking to team members
- Marina: communication is an issue, and needs to be taken care of. But there’s more, and we can’t hide behind not being able to talk. Not delegating properly, the many tasks that are out there. Not using the skills we still have. Three different groups, with different backlogs, in our own silos, w/o checking outside (and leveraging it). Likes Gabriele approach: list tasks, work on them from top to bottom. To add one item: community survey, pending, concerning reports from local communities - can’t possibly ask again, unless we’ve acted on it
- Stephan: coming to the meeting - bad sign we’re here, but good we’re having this meeting. Past 9 months - perception is big prob, composition of the board, only few vocal members, many others very silent. That’s an issue for him. Ok, board was elected, but it’s led by [REDACTED: name of board member] and [REDACTED: name of board member]. Behind that ecosystem partners, and [REDACTED: name of community member] has a lot of say behind that. Which is not working to convince the community. In Milano, shared his notion, that we’re in an ecosystem-driven community. Must leave space for other community members. Must be more, not just [REDACTED: name of three boad members] - never see opinions from other board members. While people voted for them. Someone said: being on the board, represent the voters. To him, represent the TDF (not the voters, not wearing other hats, not put those hats ahead of TDF). Don’t try to silence other opinions. OTOH, in Milano, was clear, that TDF is driven by Florian? He’s a team member, the team is very stable - the board members change from term to term, but the team is stable. It’s not the team leading TDF, but community and board. Focus more on community, not on ecosystem
- [REDACTED: sensitive statement]
- Florian: that is not true
- Cor: question to Marina - discussed community survey, partly aligned with doc he sent Florian. What was tried: when preparing the conference, spent some time, edited things, looked at those topics, also in line with the strategic items. Tried to align it - and get to something that’s actionable for board & team. What he hears: defining problems, where to work - all for it. Getting the right people into same room, to work out pending issues from the past - as as first step to heal & work together in the future
- Gabriele: good approach, would like to sse it now, not in the future. Has to be done fast. Point is about the legal stuff - not everybody can be made aware of it. Marina mentioned comms issues, so communication is the medium, but - the substance? We fight each other over the way, while agreeing on the goals. E.g. money - [REDACTED: name of community member] mentions it in the keynote, seems to be a prob for him? Can relate - TDF around for 10 years, always managed to solve - pretty sure nobody here against ecosystems, or the companies. Just find the right way, to reach our goals. The right way, in a proper/correct way. From his POV, no point in having a huge fight. Just achieve the same result - we all want to reach the same goals
- Thorsten: the irony is - everyone feels the same. Needs some generosity, and healing. First step: get the temperatute down in the discussions
- Marina: don’t focus on the past, but look ahead. things to correct, don’t continue what we did - which is obviously wrong. Agree, people are over-reacting from all sides. Thing is: people over-react when being attacked. Which leads to the self-destructing circle of destroying TDF. Then decide, what to do for TDF. Survey feedback - her feeling, personal impression: everything ends up on the board desk, and not the MC business to help/support. E.g. Scholarship, in memory of KJ, temp solution with Munich. Then noticed the board tried to setup custom scholarship. Only learned about reading the minutes. On things moving slow: ok, need to pull in several topics, takes times. But: for wollmux, open discussion again. Why are we not simply moving this topic? Nothing controversial, still pending - learn how to delegate
- Heiko: follow-up on Stephan’s impression - board only [REDACTED: name of two board members]? Some people of the board excluded - e.g. [REDACTED: name of board member], for the dev proposal. His writing was discarded, and something new took place. If the impression is, that elected member of the board, that ignores half of the community - totally wrong. Likes the approach, to have different views, then voting - to him, perfectly ok to vote on two different proposals (and see what wins). Impression: everyone on the board, write as fast as possible, on every single accusation on the list. Appreciate if the board has a speaker, and respeonds as a board - if there’s dissent, state that too. Represents the communuty, and shows diversity of opinion. To him, not bring more people into discussion (announcement yesterday, [REDACTED: name of two board members] - but: not have everyone sending +1, but: general statement from “The Board”.
- Paolo: Confirming what Heiko said: I’ve been excluded and quite a few things I say in the board just get ignored. Sorry for sending too many emails. But need to respond to misleading statements. Things are being pushed by [REDACTED: name of two boad members] - to have a record of my disagreement I now state them in my votes as they get ignored within the board. Sending out emails getting ignored, or receiving answers that are just taking the piss. Two major issues, since a long time, asking directors to do something: some people seem to think its ok to wear two hats - [REDACTED: name of former board member] resigned b/c he got called out / pushing too much his corporate side. There’s legal issues to fix, derived when some advice might have been ignored. When performing director duties, focus has to be fully with TDF. Any side agreements with ecosystem companies - need to be separate documents. Clear agreement with companies needed. If we don’t solve that, we’re not free to have a vision, web-based, or mobile version - if we’re not fixing that issue. We keep arguing since TDC - same arguments. Need to make progress
- Xisco: agree with Marina - board is volunteers, should delegate more, to MC, and team (and others in the community) - and focus more on high-level items. Otherwise, discussions take forever. Really important for him!
- Stephane: looking at solution - some of the things that have occurred, might have been avoided with the CoC? It’s there to solve those things - as a reminder. Introduce 3rd party to sort out issues. Avoid interactions that are detrimental
- Cor: looking at interactions, also wrt survey, and the strategic items. The idea clearly is - people from board/community/MC, it’s not just board members, that should be working on it, but open to everyone! Must have the opportunity to get involved. Response to that invitation - is rather low? Somehow, creating the space, make it welcoming - seems to not work yet? Lets see how to improve
- Thorsten: surprised that we talk about exclusion, while excluding ecosystem people seems fine? Also struggling, what can we do now
- Lazslo: thx for the invitation! Answering the mail, in draft state, will go out before next call
- Florian: thx everyone for making the time
Second call, 1730 UTC
- Board - Thorsten, Emiliano, Paolo, Cor
- Membership Committee - Uwe, Marina, Gabriele, Shinji, Gustavo
- Team - Florian, Ilmari, Mike, Italo, Xisco, Stephan, Sophie, Olivier, Stéphane, Christian, Heiko
First speakers (spill-over from last call): Laszlo, Cor, Stephan
Thorsten/Florian/Marina leading & moderating
- Marina: restart working all together, clarifying what doesn’t work and settling where we want to go as TDF core team. To do that we have to fix all the mess.
- Florian: tnx for joining. The situation is bad. Yesterday you received a note from the team. The document was meant to be shared with also MC. We had a meeting of July in which most of the time was spent to talk about TDF situation. We are very close to crossing the line.
- Thorsten: That’s what we’re trying to do here and now: to gather some idea for what to do next and feedback. Tnx to all of you for dedicating time for this.
- Cor: Florian Marina and Thorsten say it’s important to get a clear picture of what we’re facing. Actually there’s progress, maybe not visible. About what we are not happy with: we’re talking of people not present and thus not able to defend themselves from accusations. We should be careful. All the sides, team, community and ecosystemm states that TDF is driven by the other side. This brings me to say, reading that letter, communication between team and BoD was not good (privately and publicly) and we should start meeting to discuss individual cases. Doing it publicly is not optimal. Heiko mentioned of excluding people from decisions in the BoD: I’d like to talk to people to understand why they get this impression.
- Stephan: Cor’s speaking about communication and statements. Maybe TDF has a special setting, but I’m not happy to speak because whenever some topics are faced it can be a problem (legal). I don’t agree that some topics are not ok for public discussion.
- Marina: about Cor: we’re talking about [REDACTED: name of community member], and I’d agree with you but, people are discussing issues they have in this circle and not attacking people in keynotes or public places where other people can’t defend. Normally I’d be with you but in this case things are different. About your invitation to discuss in private calls: if you want to try solving those issues the setting should be wider. Having a call with the person who could be the reason for a burnout doesn’t seem to be a such good idea. The creation of a sub team of BoD which is everyone except Paolo is not good. He’s elected.
- Thorsten: we should try to not reharse the past.
- Marina: if someone brings the topic on the table…
- Cor: it’s clear that something I said was not clear enough. I didn’t mean one by one, just having a room with a good setting where people feels safe. About [REDACTED: name of community member] we could have taken the opportunity to meet in a room.
- Mike Saunders: having the feeling that the BoD is behind the team and having [REDACTED: name of community member] talking publicly about team secrets is not good. We don’t need the BoD to protect us, but we fell left alone and vulnerable to attacks and attacked. Many of the team are close to burnout and willing to leave TDF.
- Paolo: from one side the BoD has always been weak to respond to [REDACTED: name of community member]'s attacks. We all know that he creates narratives and that should be a strong response from the BoD. I feel especially the new members of the BoD are following that narrative. There are things already set. I’ve been excluded from some things. There’s not a communication issue, but a misunderstanding about regulations and proposal made. We should stop spending money, by following the rules to better work and relate with ecosystem.
- Thorsten: longer rant about the witch hunt towards ecosystem companies - we need to include everyone, since we need everyone
- bad mouthing, rumours, allegations this is all controlled by [REDACTED: name of community member]
- not several companies, but acting as one
- smear campaigns, statements of misconduct, selective sharing of private/legal info
- attempts to hunt people out of decision making
- overall - the LWN article is spot on, last paragraph is a real danger
- look - we need everyone on board, including the ecosystem companies
- in the end, we’re just pointing fingers at eash other - and the irony/tragedy is - we all feel the same, about each other. We must stop hurting each other.
- Italo: my position is rather clear to anyone. I have been personally completely ignored at my conference’s speech. And the same about Jonathan Courbet article. There is a terribly large communication issue and I can tell it as a specialist. But if you don’t trust me check with someone else. Johnathan depicted the mess. It looks like that here we’re far away from communication best practices. People will become more vocal on this. I’m amazed by the fact that there’s no other strategy but pointing finger against each other. No other strategy seen. People should seriously make a self assessment of what they’ve done to reach this disaster. I’m really totally unhappy about the situation and about some people behavior.
- Marina: I want to stress again the concept that noone thinks that ecosystem is taking TDF or that they have to be excluded because they are bad people. We all know that this community is made by volunteers and by paid people lucky to work on LO. Noone wants to kick out companies. [some parts of minutes seem missing here, sentences are cut off] We need to invest money from the donors to make the project better. Devs are crucial part of the project but we are other kind of contributors and is frustrating to see people who compare code lines to anything else. Keep this in mind too. [some parts of minutes seem missing here, sentences are cut off]
- Gabriele: agree with marina, taught in Italy - put up a good face, and play a dirty game. We have to comply with regulations (on the outset?). We agree on the value, the ecosystem companies add - never in doubt! In his POV, its ok to proceed with funding, for ecosystem companies. Just - make it compliant, do it in the right way. Only change the approach - can’t self-deal. Leave the room, until the vote is done. Still, good to hear all the opinions before and after. Can’t be we’re fighthing over leaving the room for 5 mins?
- Laszlo: answering to Italo, presentation was very important, many thx!
- [REDACTED: sensitive statement]
- Cor: when talking about legal issues, and ecosystem - having the feeling, that those companies are pushed out - this is about the broader situation, not the team (just to clarify). Obviously, when working on contracts, clear CoI, people leave the room. The issue is, it must be possible to be part of the process, while thinking and brainstorming. The attempts to exclude, is much wider than just actual vote - seen that on board-discuss, even just about possible CoI - and always only from members of the ecosystem. Impression: people seem to have better understanding of legal issues - he as director, from information given, there’s huge probs - and it’s a certain interpretation of legal advice, and we spent a lot of time in Milano, trying to fix it. Those are issues we know about, and hope - we will fix it
- Olivier: going back to Thorsten’s comments - does not agree, it’s not TDF’s fault, for bad behaviour of members. Part of the history of TDF, in 2013/2014, when [REDACTED: name of company] was created, out of [REDACTED: name of company]. [REDACTED: name of community member] started [REDACTED: name of company], changed the focus of the activities, so product was the main thing (not linux distro companon). Bold move, not even [REDACTED: names of companies] wanted to do it. At that time, very bold move from [REDACTED: name of community member], admired. Few years later though, was at that time working for [REDACTED: name of company] (also [REDACTED: name of board member]) - turned out TDF was a problem, and a decision of ecosystem companies. Fighting for their place in the market, and revenue issues. CoI was created, and not addressed. So who is creating issues? Not TDF itself, but the environment, that does it to itself. Respect the developers, but: consider which market they work in, and what TDF can offer. Extremey good teamwork, TDF to help them with their business issues. Wish to sort out the issues we have. A lot of things to do, a lot of market to catch/grab!
- Marina: actions to take - concrete points:
- we still have the RoP, for board members not in the board anymore - go fix the oversight areas
- get the legal group operational again (should also unblock the tendering) - remember, tendering was messy even back in the day
- we can’t have the same people sat on two tables (ESC and BoD)
- pay attention avoiding having people involved in tender in its process
- Paolo: we’re waiting for a consultant advice
- Uwe: [REDACTED: sensitive legal statement] Believe me you have a problem, and not only about reputation. What I don’t understand why there’s been spent so much time to run in circle instead of solving a simple problem like that. TDC project or next decade manifesto is some kind of surface, cloudy and fluffy. Maybe there’s some shine to take responsibility too, but no one really understands the come out of people conflict. We have to think thoroughly of the future of TDF.
- Paolo: Uwe what you said is totally correct. Unfortunately some statement made from 3 lawyers (4 with our…) said that. The big issue is actually not been able to understand that we are directors acting for TDF and when performing our duties in that role we have to put TDF’s interests first. Ecosystem companies are not a problem, it’s the behaviour of directors affiliated with them. I’ve being working to help other organisation selling Open Source too so I know their issues. I’m also the president of another charitable org, if I behaved like some in TDF’s board I would have been kicked out in 5 minutes. I agree that ecosystem are needed but they have to be handled in a legal way. Let’s spend the right money for legal consultancy in order to solve this for the future.
- Thorsten: it’s sad that again there was an attempt to depict eco companies as blocking things, putting their hands into TDF coffers … I can say that from my side there’s absolutely no doubt that license problems and tendering must be resolved. The other part is that we had a lot of fight and people stepping down for reasons I don’t know. [some parts of minutes seem missing here, sentences are cut off]
- Cor: there’s been some discussion on legal statements. We’re working to improve trademark issues and let me state here there is nuances in legal fights that we have, it’s not black or white. [some parts of minutes seem missing here, sentences are cut off] it will be quite difficult to redo all that. We’re not in big trouble about legal and it’s quite important nuance. Risking to [REDACTED: sensitive legal statement] is different from talking about the usage of trademark in the stores.
It was clear that improve are needed. Looking forward to the list from Florian. - [REDACTED: two lines of sensitive legal statements]
- Marina: now I’d like to know more about all this stuff (trademark mentioned by Cor)
- Thorsten: to TDF round what we need to do is come together and improve things, all together.
- Paolo: let’s not tackle the problems. Everything is fluffy as Uwe said. It’s always postponed. The issue of fixing the legal issue blocking the new legal staff group. The decisions should be taken without conflicted people. Caolan resigned…
It seems like somebody doesn’t want to fix. Even if it could just give the perception of a CoI that shouldn’t happen.