I, Cor Nouws, elected member of the Membership Committee of The Document Foundation, hereby accept this position within the Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts. My term will start September 19, 2024.
Signed: Cor Nouws
Ich, Cor Nouws, gewähltes Mitglied des Mitglieder-Komitees der The Document Foundation, nehme mein Amt innerhalb der Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts an. Meine Amtszeit beginnt am 19. September 2024.
Unterzeichnet: Cor Nouws
In my opinion, smart and reasonable people who have contributed to The Document Foundation’s recent and ongoing difficulties would facilitate a healing phase by withdrawing rather than burdening the process by their renewed presence. And in my experience, people who are part of the cause of the problems are rarely suitable to be part of the solution.
DE:
Meiner Meinung nach würden kluge und vernünftige Menschen, die zu den jüngsten und anhaltenden Schwierigkeiten von The Document Foundation beigetragen haben, eine Heilungsphase erleichtern, indem sie sich zurückziehen, anstatt den Prozess durch ihre erneute Präsenz zu belasten. Und nach meiner Erfahrung sind Menschen, die mit die Ursache der Probleme sind, selten geeignet, Teil der Lösung zu sein.
FR:
À mon avis, les personnes intelligentes et raisonnables qui ont contribué aux difficultés récentes et persistantes de The Document Foundation faciliteraient une phase de guérison en se retirant plutôt qu’en alourdissant le processus par leur présence renouvelée. Et d’après mon expérience, les personnes qui sont en partie à l’origine des problèmes sont rarement aptes à faire partie de la solution.
PT-BR
Em minha opinião, as pessoas inteligentes e sensatas que contribuíram para as dificuldades recentes e contínuas da The Document Foundation facilitariam um período de cura se se afastassem em vez de sobrecarregar o processo com sua presença renovada. E, em minha experiência, as pessoas que fazem parte da causa dos problemas raramente estão aptas a fazer parte da solução.
ES:
En mi opinión, las personas inteligentes y razonables que han contribuido a las dificultades recientes y actuales de The Document Foundation facilitarían un periodo de curación dando un paso atrás en lugar de sobrecargar el proceso con su renovada presencia. Y, según mi experiencia, las personas que son parte de la causa de los problemas rara vez son aptas para formar parte de la solución.
IT:
A mio parere, le persone intelligenti e ragionevoli che hanno contribuito alle recenti e continue difficoltà della The Document Foundation faciliterebbero un periodo di guarigione facendo un passo indietro piuttosto che appesantire il processo con la loro nuova presenza. Per mia esperienza, le persone che sono parte della causa dei problemi raramente sono adatte a far parte della soluzione.
JA:
私の意見では、ドキュメント財団の最近の、そして現在進行形の困難に貢献してきた賢明で理性的な人々は、その新たな存在によってプロセスに負担をかけるよりも、むしろ身を引くことによって、癒しの期間を促進するだろう。そして私の経験では、問題の原因の一端を担っている人々が、解決策の一端を担うのに適していることはほとんどない。
So the voters are wrong. They only get it right when it is in one’s interest.
Fully informed voters are never wrong.
What does it mean to be ‘fully informed’? As voters, we have the level of information we want to have, it is our responsibility. Am I wrong, or did everyone have the possibility to ask what they wanted?
In my opinion, smart and reasonable people who have contributed to The
Document Foundation’s recent and ongoing difficulties would facilitate a
healing phase by withdrawing rather than burdening the process by their
renewed presence.
I was surprised to see this. To confirm you are the Stephan who is a
paid staff member of TDF, and has privileged access to board meetings ?
Are you using this position to assign blame to an individual elected MC
member - in a way that can’t be verified by others in the community ? -
an argument by authority as it were.
And, only after the election, and after them being fairly elected, you
ask them to stand down, by implying they are not “smart and reasonable” ?
Is that what you’re saying ? (and in several languages) ? its not
entirely clear.
Are you asking this in your capacity as a staff member ? or under
direction of some private TDF board discussion ? or on your own
initiative as a normal community member ?
Do you really write in seven languages ?
And in my experience, people who are part of the cause
of the problems are rarely suitable to be part of the solution.
The question I suspect on everyone’s mind is very much this:
who is part of the cause ?
I would expect there are legitimate and significant differences of
opinion on this as other things; and we should have respect for other
people and winsomely persuade them of our points.
Regards,
Michael.
Hi Michael,
I am all in.
What do you think about us talking about this directly on the phone first?
You know that I hold you in high regard and I would like to avoid any misunderstandings that could jeopardise our, from my view, mutual respectful relationship, which I have experienced in various enriching conversations with you.
Thank you,
Stephan
What do you think about us talking about this directly on the phone first?
As perhaps you can guess, I appreciate your annual outreach at LibOCon, to discuss the sadly growing backlog of issues that need resolving around TDF. In general it is good to show leadership by actively trying to solve problems rather than letting them fester.
In the current information vacuum, it would be nice for everyone to know who you speak for- TDF, the board, the staff, just yourself, or some mix. Public answers appreciated; if you desperately want to talk first please just call me but I think it is worth clarify the content, intention, hats being worn here - hence my questions.
Coming back to the issue - I imagine one problem here is that the list of people who are part of the cause is very different between us. I would see an attempt to disenfranchise one side of that debate as a continuation of a rather fundamental cause.
Thanks !
I don’t want to repeatedly get caught up in other people’s assumptions about who I would speak for. So speaking for myself would always be a pretty good and fair assumption.
Thank you
Not sure about your reason to post this after the nomination and Q&A phase, but the voting itself. Can you explain the rational about the timing?
What do you know (as an insider attending every board session), what I do not know as a reader and as a trustee? What happened in the past?
I’ve been lurking on these forums for several years now and it’s pretty clear that Cors is pretty toxic in the way he speaks to other with condescension and pedantic logic to non-English speakers. He’s essentially Collabora’s plant to keep TDF from making progress on issues without Collabora’s blessing. Meeks keeps Cors here so Meeks can focus on development and not non-profit politics.
Ironically it creates a rift with Collabora, but I think Collabora doesn’t see it that way. 
Cor has been talking that way on tdf-internal for quite a while, that is not something new. And - it annoys me. But that does not disqualify him from being on the MC, and enough trustees have decided they want him there. Your argument could and should have been made before the elections, to convince people not to vote for him. His failings are certainly no reason to write him out as an elected member.
The norm in the TDF is, that officials are allowed to be very strongly affiliated with ecosystem companies. I am not sure that’s a great idea, but that’s how the TDF has been run for many years, not some new invention by Cor. @thb was on the BoD, and even the chairperson, for years - and he is the CEO of Allotropia. That didn’t disqualify him - according to our statutes and procedures. Of course, he had conflicts-of-interests due to his position; and Cor can be said to have conflicts-of-interest on matters involving Collabora; but again, that is not disqualifying from being on the MC. In fact, it is less of a problem on the MC than it is on the BoD, where Cor served for quite a while without claims that he is somehow disqualified.
Please explain what “progress” the TDF is making which Cor’s membership in the MC will prevent. For now, you’re just making accusations which are both baseless and strange (as if an MC member can prevent the BoD from discharging its duties).
I’m sorry for that. I’m definitely not a perfect human being, and I realize that my style etc is not always ideal, but it’s not my natural talent to realize that in time. But since I’m only 65 years and still learning: please do me a favor and hint me (may be in private) if something like that happens.
thanks 
My understanding as someone not privy to internal conversations is that the foundation has been stuck in a mess of foundation bylaws/policies/directives that have likely been created by different parties with different visions for what they want the TDF to be. And as you stated, the norm’s (ex. strong corporate affiliation) and traditions (ex. Cors’ style of communication rubbing people the wrong way being “not something new”), of the TDF may be conflicting with the direction that some people want to take the foundation.
I think the implication of having someone on the MC that was very recently on the BOD and was very much apart of the culture that led to a toxic and dysfunctional board, is not an appropriate person to join a BOD-adjunct committee. This risks continuation of the dysfunctional culture that led the board to be paralyzed on making major decisions, aligning on legal principles for the Foundation, and generally progressing with regards to a cooperative and collaborative culture.
I would suggest that Collabora send someone different, for the politics alone.
Whether this decision is fair for Cor or not is not something I would consider relevant in the context of the best interests of TDF. And Eyal you may be correct (I’m no expert on German non-profit law), but my perspective is that sufficient transparency and logic has been applied for this decision that an audit by German regulators would likely not censure the board for poor practices.
Regardless, it’s good to see that there are many passionate people interested in their version of the future of this project. It’s a very valuable good of the commons.
Being part of a problematic aspect of the TDF’s past-upto-this-point is not remotely close to preventing the BoD from promoting changes in the organization. Changes in norms and traditions do not have to happen with “purges” of everyone who may be critical of them - and such purges are usually not a good idea anyway.
Moreover, a change in the direction you’re indicating is, formally, not happening: To affect it, we need to have public discussion; we need to read well-argued position papers on the matter; and finally, decisions would need to be taken, such as bylaws changes. The BoD has not initiated any of this. It is weird (and I would say inappropriate) for you to argue against Cor’s recognition as an MC member based on prospective cultural principles that you are hoping the BoD will normalize in the future - and being so vehement about it, as though it’s an agreed fact we can’t have ‘that kind of people’ in our midst.
It would be perfectly legitimate for you to argue against voting Cor into the MC, based on your views of his conduct, or the interest in having more people or less people associated with companies in official roles, etc. - when he is a candidate. Now, he’s been elected and we’re in an entirely different game. It is also important IMHO that you consider a possible reverse case: Suppose the last BoD would have struck out an elected MC member, two years ago, because of a post which was not 100% clear, and really because they disliked them being against the excessive influence of ecosystem companies on the board? Claiming that they would prevent the BoD from making the progress they plan to make? We must not allow such abuses of the BoD’s power, when it is already an extremely powerful institution within the TDF - regardless of who is officiating at any given time - with weak oversight mechanisms.
Odd; Cor has contributed to the project from OpenOffice times when he was on the Community Council, through creating LibreOffice, the subsequent founding of TDF, and then served on the MC for years. I’ve interacted with him on some pretty intense topics, and found him courteous even under pressure.
When there is a huge volume of inaccurate information and terrible interaction during the board work there is a question: do you just give-in and see this half-truth pile up until it becomes accepted? or confront it?. Cor choose to actively confront it - that could come across as negative - but there is a clear root cause. I really appreciate someone calling out problematic statements before they grow, or become an uncontested part of the archive.
There is so much wrong in that paragraph; where to start - First my staff serve as individual volunteers on the board, MC, as Trustees, and they need to do what they believe is right for TDF in those roles. Second - let me re-iterate what I stated rather clearly - Cor doesn’t work for me anymore, though he was always really his own man, (but being a vegan he might like the plant analogy 
). Thirdly - I wish I could focus on development, if only[!] my life is mostly consumed with administrative tasks - I just looked at my fairly pathetic code contribution to core in 2024, and was sad I couldn’t do more. Luckily the team and community as a whole are always doing good things for LibreOffice - and mostly live in a parallel world of goodness it seems.
Anyhow - I’m always confused as to who the toxic people are: is it the ones who go around calling those who disagree with them toxic, or the ones who respond quite gently to that.