Acceptance of role as full member of the Board of Directors: Osvaldo Gervasi

[gbpacheco]

Dear Osvaldo Gervasi ( @Osvaldo_Gervasi ),

as per § 7 III of our statutes [1], the deputy that follows next in order of preference will become a full member of the Board of Directors.

Based on the last election [2], Osvaldo Gervasi is the next elected deputy.

I therefore ask you, Osvaldo Gervasi, do you want to accept your new role and want to serve in The Document Foundation’s Board of Directors as a full member?

Please, reply to this message with a “Reply to all”.

[1] https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf (binding version) and https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf (non-binding translation)

[2] The Document Foundation - Votes

On behalf of the Membership Committee (extraordinary),
Gustavo Pacheco

[Osvaldo_Gervasi]

Dear Gustavo,
I accept to serve in The Document Foundation’s Board of Directors as a full member.
Best regards,
–Osvaldo

[EyalRozenberg]

@Osvaldo_Gervasi :

Please try not to adopt the new BoD custom of stonewallking the trustees and ignoring the statutory obligations of transparency via disclosure of relevant materials.

[mariosv]

@EyalRozenberg

t materials.

Really, please, let people exercise their duties, without you having to pretend to lecture everyone all the time.
Frankly, I am concerned about what your intentions are in TDF.

[EyalRozenberg]

@mariosv

Really, please, let people exercise their duties, without you having to pretend to lecture everyone all the time.

If BoD members (not @Osvaldo_Gervasi naturally, who is only now joining the board) would exercise their duty, I would not have to bring the matter up. The problem is that they are partially derelict in their duty.

[thb]

Hi Eyal,

@EyalRozenberg

The problem is that they are partially derelict in their duty.

I would appreciate, if from now on and in future, you would add “in my opinion” to those statements. I would otherwise have to waste my (and other readers’) time, to perpetually point out that I disagree with you on this, and that to me (and apparently to most of the board members today and in the past), the statutes permit keeping certain things private.

Cheers, Thorsten

[EyalRozenberg]

@thb

and apparently to most of the board members today and in the past

a gentlemanly agreement to act outside the bounds of legal obligations and established principles is what has gotten us to poor state of affairs described in our audit. I’m encouraging our incoming BoD member to break with this kind of unfortunate norms.

@thb

the statutes permit keeping certain things private.

only in “exceptional cases”, as you well know the statutes dictate. However, the BoD keeps almost everything private. The incoming board is even more tight-lipped than the old one…
And even forgetting about the statutes - what’s the deal here? Is the TDF some military spy agency, where loose lips sink ships? Just default to publishing documents instead of not publishing them, and to keeping the trustees up-to-date about what’s going on rather than keeping radio silence.

rather than a public foundation.

[thb]

Hi Eyal,

as I said, I fundamentally disagree with your take, and also your extremist interpretation of the statutes.

The absolutely overwhelming majority of “the processes, discussions and decisions of the foundation, its committees, the Board of Directors and any Executive Directors” is public. Have you counted the number of emails and postings on the lists, discourse & ask, and the details & number of updates on the wiki?

As for the rather small amount of stuff that boards I was a member of kept private, that all had good & documented reasons to be kept confidential. I trust the current board to exercise similarly good judgement here.

Cheers, Thorsten